6 HISTORICAL
EVENTS
a. Hitler’s Rise to Power
the Nuremberg Laws. (Jun., 1933-Sept., 1935)
President Hindenburg entrusted Hitler
with the Chancellorship on January 30, 1933.
The Reichstag fire, on February 27, was followed by
a wave of arrests. The “Ordinance for the
Protection of the People and the State”, issued
on February 28, suspended the sections of the Constitution
which guaranteed individual and civil rights.
The “Enabling Act” (March 23) stripped
Parliament of its power and handed it over to the Reich
Cabinet. Laws enacted by the Cabinet were to
be drafted by the Chancellor (Hitler) and might deviate
from the Constitution.
On April 1, Jewish shops throughout
Germany were boycotted. Jewish civil servants
were dismissed on April 7. On the same day the
exclusion of “non-Aryan” lawyers was ordered.
According to a decree of April 22, no Jewish physicians
were allowed to work for sick funds anymore. At
the end of April another decree restricted the admission
of Jewish children and students to schools and universities.
In the following months Jews were excluded from working
in the fields of art, music, literature and journalism.
The “Law on revocation of naturalizations and
deprivation of German citizenship” (July, 14)
robbed Jews, who had been naturalized before or had
been born outside Germany, from their citizenship.
In January, 1934, it was decreed that Jews could no
longer be members of the Labour Front. When President
Hindenburg died, on August 2, 1934, Hitler became
President and Supreme Commander of the Army.
On May 21, 1935, it was decreed that only “Aryans”
could serve in the army.
It is estimated that 37,000 Jews emigrated
from Germany in 1933; in 1934, the number was 23,000,
whilst 21,000 Jews left Germany in 1935.
b. The Nuremberg Laws Crystal Night.
(Sept., 1935-Nov., 1938)
On September 15, 1935, two fundamental
laws were adopted by the Reichstag meeting at Nuremberg.
One, the “Law Respecting Reich Citizenship”,
decreed that only a national of German or kindred
blood, who proved by his conduct that he was willing
and likely to serve the German people and Reich faithfully,
could be a citizen. The second, the “Law
for the Protection of German Blood and Honour”,
specifically referred to the Jews and singled them
out as undesirable aliens, impure of blood and dangerous
to the honour and security of the German people.
There followed seven paragraphs, the first of which
dealt with the prohibition of marriages between Jews
and nationals of German or kindred blood. Paragraph
three prohibited Jews to employ in domestic service
female nationals of German or kindred blood, under
the age of forty-five years.
On April 26, 1938, it was decreed
that all Jewish assets in excess of 5,000 marks should
be registered. On June 15, 1938, about 1,500 Jews
were arrested and deported to a concentration camp.
On July 25, it was decreed that Jewish physicians
were no longer permitted to treat non-Jewish patients.
In the same month, Jews had to apply for special identity
cards. On August 17, 1938, the first name “Israel”
for Jewish men and “Sara” for Jewish women
was made compulsory in addition to their own names.
In October, all passports of Jews were stamped with
the letter J. Austria had been incorporated into the
Third Reich, on March 13, 1938. The German anti-Jewish
laws were also enforced in Austria, where about 180,000
Jews were living. It is estimated that 25,000
Jews emigrated from Germany in 1936, and 23,000 in
1937.
In March, 1938, President Roosevelt
invited thirty-three governments to join in a co-operative
effort to aid the emigration of refugees from Germany
and Austria. On July 6, 1938, the Intergovernmental
Conference met at Evian, France. Nearly all the
delegates expressed their sympathy for the refugees
but were very careful not to assume any obligations
on behalf of their Governments.
It is important to keep some of the
major political events of those days in mind.
Italy attacked Ethiopia on October 3, 1935. In
May, 1936, the Ethiopian emperor went into exile into
Great Britain. On March 2, 1936, the Rhineland
was remilitarized. On November 25, 1936, the anti-Comintern
Pact with Japan was signed. On July 16, 1936,
civil war in Spain broke out. On September 30,
1938, the Munich agreement was signed by Hitler, Chamberlain,
Mussolini and Daladier. As a result, Sudetenland
was occupied by Germany. Poland and Hungary also
occupied part of Czechoslovakia.
c. Crystal Night the
Outbreak of the War. (Nov., 1938-Summer, 1939)
On October 28, 1938, 15,000-17,000
Jews of Polish origin were rounded up and expelled.
On November 7, a seventeen-year-old Jewish boy, Herschel
Grynspan, whose parents had been among the people
expelled to Poland, shot Ernst vom Rath,
a minor Nazi official in the Paris Embassy. He
died two days later. This was the pretext for
unleashing a pogrom that has entered history under
the name Crystal Night: 7,500 Jewish shops were
looted and windows of shops and houses were smashed;
many synagogues were burned; more than 26,000 Jews
were arrested, many of whom were sent to concentration
camps; at least 91 were killed.
On November 12, the Jews in Germany
were ordered to pay a collective fine of thousand
million Reichsmark. On November 15, Jewish children
were dismissed from German schools. Jews were
prohibited from visiting theatres, cinemas, concert
halls, museums and public baths. On December 8,
a decree was issued expelling Jews from the universities.
At the beginning of January, 1939,
the “Aryanisation” of Jewish enterprises
began. Since January 17, 1939, Jews were forbidden
to be employed in the professions of dentist, pharmacist
and veterinary surgeon. On January 30, 1939,
Hitler publicly declared that the Jewish race in Europe
would be annihilated if war broke out.
Hitler annexed Czechia, on March 15, 1939. Slovakia
became “independent”. In April, 1939,
Mussolini occupied Albania.
From the beginning of 1938 until October
1, 1941 (when further emigration was forbidden) an
estimated 170,000 Jews left Germany. Jews in
Germany at the beginning of the Hitler regime, numbered
499,682. The 1939 census, registered within the
borders of the pre-Hitler Reich, amounted to no more
than 213,930.
1
GERMANY
The vast majority of the Protestants
of Germany belonged to one of the 28 Landeskirchen
(Lutheran, Reformed or Uniate), of which the largest
was the Church of the Old Prussian Union, with 18
million members. The Landeskirchen were independent
members of the German Evangelical Church Union, founded
in 1922. In all, there were forty-five million
Germans who were, nominally at least, members of the
Protestant Church. In 1932, members of the Church
who supported Hitler had founded the “German
Christians’ Faith Movement”. These
“GERMAN CHRISTIANS” demanded the creation
of one Protestant Church, the application of the Fuehrer
principle in Church affairs, the introduction of racialism
within the Church, the “Germanization”
of Christianity (the “Aryan Jesus"!) and the
elimination of “Jewish influence” from
teaching, liturgy and preaching. In 1933, some
3000 pastors belonged to this group. Church elections
took place on July 23, 1933. On the eve of the
elections, Hitler made an unexpected radio appeal asking
the electorate to vote “GERMAN CHRISTIANS”.
They won a decisive victory.
On September 21, 1933, Rev. Martin
Niemoeller and others created the “Pastors’
Emergency League”, which opposed the “GERMAN
CHRISTIANS”. In the beginning, Niemoeller’s
group was definitely in the minority. By December,
1933, its membership had grown to 6,000. Between
the two groups, a majority tried to remain neutral
while more or less sympathizing with the group of
Niemoeller, but in practice obeying Hitler’s
orders without open protest.
After a protege of Hitler, Ludwig Mueller, had been
elected as Reich Bishop under pressure of the Government,
Niemoeller’s opposition group constituted the
“CONFESSING CHURCH” which declared itself
to be the legitimate Protestant Church of Germany
and set up a provisional Church government.
The “GERMAN CHRISTIANS” had, in the meantime,
gained control in several Landeskirchen, sometimes
with the active help of the national-socialist party.
In April, 1933, the Landeskirche of Thuringia required
of its clergy a formal oath of allegiance to Hitler;
the “Thuringian Christians” wanted to
give this symbol of unconditional obedience to Hitler
as a birthday present. There was a division in
other Landeskirchen, as for instance in the largest:
the Church of the Old-Prussian Union. In the summer
of 1933, a law had been issued forbidding the appointment
of pastors or Church officers of “non-Aryan
descent” and ordering the dismissal of such pastors
and Church officers. In its session on Sep, 1933, the Synod of the Old Prussian Union accepted
this law; the opposition party protested and, when
this was of no avail, left the meeting. Later
on the opposition organized the “CONFESSING Synod
of the Evangelical Church of the Old-Prussian Union”.
It is not, as has been stated in the
Preface, my intention to record the contents of statements
issued by Churches or Church leaders on behalf of
Christians of Jewish origin. It is of importance,
however, to know to what extent the “GERMAN
CHRISTIANS” supported discrimination against
these members of the Church, and, also, to know that
the CONFESSING CHURCH defended them. Thus I mention
the more important statements, which were issued,
without recording their full contents. There
was sharp controversy and much discussion as to whether
the anti-Jewish laws should be applied within the
Church. The following persons and institutions
protested against such a measure: the Theological
Faculty of the University of Marburg (Sep, 1933);
the Theological Faculty of the University of Erlangen
(Sep, 1933); Rev. Martin Niemoeller (No,
1933), and Prof. Rudolf Bultmann (Dec., 1933).
On the other hand, the “GERMAN CHRISTIANS”
declared at the beginning of April, 1933, that only
those who were “of pure German blood” should
be admitted to the ministry. On May 26, 1932,
they had already decided to consider Missionary work
amongst the Jews as a great danger “as it is
the entrance gate for foreign blood into our national
body”. The example of the Synod of the
Old-Prussian Union (see above) was followed by other
Landeskirchen, as for instance in Saxony, Thuringia
and Braunschweig: ministers of Jewish origin
were to be dismissed. The Church in Saxony even
voted, on De, 1933, to accept the principles of
blood and race, and that only those who according
to the laws of the State were compatriots should be
members of the national Church!
The decision of the Church of Saxony
was publicly rejected by the Theological Faculty of
the University of Leipzig, and by the Pastors’
Society of the Rhine. The majority of the Theological
Faculty of the University of Berlin, however, supported
the racialism of the Saxonians. This all happened
in the years 1933-1934. In those days, it certainly
needed courage to stand up publicly for the rights
of Christians of Jewish origin in the Church.
It should be noted, however, that the publications
mentioned above did not publicly oppose discrimination
against the Jews in general, nor even discrimination
against Christians of Jewish origin outside the Church.
In March, 1935, the CONFESSING Synod
of the Evangelical Church of the Old-Prussian Union
sent a “Word to the Congregations”, which
was read from the pulpits. We quote the following:
“We believe that our nation
is threatened by a mortal danger. This danger
lies in a new religion.... in it, racial and nationalistic
ideology becomes supreme. Blood and race, nationality,
honour and freedom become its idols. ... Whoever
substitutes blood, race and nationality as the creator
and source of authority instead of God, undermines
the state.”
The Government struck back with arrest pastors were imprisoned.
After the notorious Laws of Nuremberg
had been promulgated, only individuals in the CONFESSING
Church pleaded for the issue of a public declaration.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer said : “Only the man
who loudly cries out on behalf of the Jews, is at
liberty to sing the Gregorian chants”.
The “Council of Brethren”
of the CONFESSING Church stated, in a declaration
in defense of the right to baptize Jews, in September,
1935: “We only say the necessary minimum
(alas, perhaps even not the minimum) concerning things
about which we are not allowed to keep silent...”
The Provisional Church Council of
the CONFESSING Church sent a Memorandum to Hitler,
in May, 1936. We quote the following from it:
“... When blood, race,
nationality and honour are thus raised to the rank
of qualities that guarantee eternity, the Evangelical
Christian is bound by the first commandment to reject
that assumption. When the Aryan human being is
glorified, God’s word bears witness to the sinfulness
of all men. When in the framework of the National-Socialist
ideology, anti-Semitism is forced on the Christian
obliging him to hate the Jews, he has nonetheless
the divine command to love his neighbour...”
The Memorandum, which was published
in the foreign press without the consent of the CONFESSING
Church, resulted in the arrest of Dr. Weissler who
worked in the office of the Provisional Church Council.
He perished in a concentration camp.
On June 23, 1937, several members
of the Reich Brethren Council were arrested, and on
July 1, 1937, Rev. Martin Niemoeller also. He
remained a prisoner until the end of the war.
The office of the Provisional Church Council was closed
by the authorities, and thus the CONFESSING Church
was to a large extent forced into underground resistance.
No public protest was voiced after
the Crystal Night pogroms. In September, 1938,
an office for helping persecuted Jews, but mainly Christians
of Jewish origin, was opened under the direction of
Rev. Grueber. Rev. Grueber also contacted the
Jewish and Catholic relief-organizations. Repeated
journeys to Switzerland, the Netherlands and Great
Britain were made to find places for Jewish refugees.
At the end of 1940, Rev. Grueber was
arrested and the office in Berlin was closed.
The branches in Heidelberg, under Rev. Maas; in Breslau,
under Vikarin Staritz; and in Kassel, continued to
function, though under the pressure of fierce hostility.
On the initiative of Rev. Werner Sylten, Grueber’s
deputy, an attempt was made to continue the work of
the Berlin office on a smaller scale. Conversations
with the Evangelical Church Council of Berlin took
place; negotiations with the Gestapo were held.
This eventually led to the arrest of Rev. Sylten,
who perished in the concentration camp of Dachau, at
the end of 1942. Only a few of the 35 members
of Grueber’s office, most of them of Jewish
origin, lived to see the end of the war. Most
of them died in the gas chambers.
In Dec., 1938, the Kirchentag of the CONFESSING
Church stated:
“... We again face the
fact that many servants of the Church are being hampered
in the execution of their ministry and are being expelled
from their offices. In the hour of threatening
war some fulfilled the duty of the Church, doing penance
for the whole nation and beseeching forgiveness and
deliverance from God’s judgment. Thereupon,
they were charged with high-treason. in view of what
happened to the Jews others earnestly preached the
Ten Commandments and were persecuted for it...”
The Thuringian Church, followed by
Mecklenburg, Anhalt and Sachsen (all directed by “GERMAN
CHRISTIANS”) promulgated (February, 1939) a law
which eliminated Jews from membership in their Churches.
In April, 1939, the infamous declaration
of Godesberg was published. It accepted National-Socialism
and stated that “the Christian faith is in irreconcilable
opposition to Judaism”. The declaration
was accepted by the leaders of 11 Landeskirchen in
which the “GERMAN CHRISTIANS” were the
ruling party. The CONFESSING Reich Brethren Council
sharply opposed the Godesberg declaration in a statement
issued on April 13, 1939. One day later, it also
opposed the law of the Thuringian Church (see above)
which denied permission to Christians of Jewish origin
to be members of the Church. The Reich Brethren
Council stated:
“... The men responsible
for these laws thereby show themselves to be enemies
of the Cross of Christ. They cannot exclude anybody
from the Church of Christ. They have, however,
separated themselves from the holy Christian Church,
by the promulgation of these laws...”
The fundamental difference between
“GERMAN CHRISTIANS” and the CONFESSING
CHURCH is obvious: the former completely identified
themselves with national-socialist racialism, the latter
repudiated it verbally but showed weakness of action.
One feared that, by an all-out intervention on behalf
of all non-Aryans, the theological protest against
the separation of Christian non-Aryans from the community
of the Church would be politically misinterpreted,
and that thus the intervention on behalf of them would
become even more difficult.
That the CONFESSING Church hardly
spoke out at all was not the worst fact; it seems
infinitely worse that the so-called “GERMAN CHRISTIANS”
supported Hitler and his racialism. One may agree
with the words of the German Lutheran pastors in England:
“It is not for us who now live in safety to criticise
those who, under fire, have done their utmost not to
bow to Baal”. The fact remains, however,
that so many did bow to Baal.
2 THE
NETHERLANDS
Before the second world war, no Church
in the Netherlands publicly protested against German
anti-Semitism, as distinct from Churches in Great Britain,
France, Sweden, the United States etc. The
following reasons for this can be given: 1.
There was little co-operation between the Protestant
Churche. The Churches did not speak out publicly
on any subjec. The spiritual life of many
Churches was at a low eb. Many people were
afraid of endangering Holland’s precious neutrality
and
its economic interests with Germany.. Many Christians considered National-Socialism
a bulwark against Communism.
The exceptions to the rule were provided by inter-denominational
Church bodies. In April, 1933, the Dutch Council
of the “World Alliance for International Friendship
through the Churches” adopted and published the
following motion:
“The Dutch Council of the World
Alliance for International Friendship through the
Churches, aware of its duty to promote friendly relations
among the nations, and convinced that the anti-Jewish
measures taken and carried out in Germany must be
regarded as a manifestation of racial hatred which
considerably prejudices such an understanding, requests
the International Executive Committee to define publicly
its position with regard to these measures and, subsequently,
to do everything in its power in accordance with the
aims and principles of the Alliance, to disperse the
tension and indignation which these measures have
provoked in the Netherlands as well as in the entire
civilized world, and to work towards the establishment
of those relations which, according to the principles
of the Christian conscience, ought to exist among
the different races.”
This appeal to the International Executive
Committee was successful. The same Council also
sent a letter to the “Permanent General Committee
of the Dutch Israelite Community”, informing
them that they had heard with a sense of shame and
distress of the treatment of the Jews by the German
government on grounds of racial hatred. The Council
expressed its conviction “that this hatred is
contrary to the Christian conscience” and quoted
the letter sent to the International Committee.
In May, 1933, a Manifesto was published,
signed by many individual Dutchmen, denouncing anti-Semitism.
In the same month, Christians of Jewish origin
turned to the “Synodal Committee of the DUTCH
REFORMED CHURCH”, requesting that on one particular
Sunday the Jewish question should be the main theme
of the sermon. The Committee replied that “they
were convinced that it is the duty of the Church to
pay attention to Israel and pray for it, but that
in the present circumstances it would not be wise to
set apart a special Sunday for this purpose”.
On May 23, 1933, a public meeting of protest
was held. Amongst other speakers was the Rev.
J.J. Buskes, who later became one of the leaders
of Church resistance during the war. He then
spoke “as a member of a Christian Church”.
Dr. W. Banning also protested against the Nazi terror,
“in the name of Socialism and of the Gospel”.
On September 19, 1935, a meeting of
protest was held at Amsterdam. There were three
Protestant speakers, one of them, Rev. J.J. Buskes.
In 1936, the Synod of the Reformed Churches
in the Netherlands declared that members of the Church
who were members of the Dutch National-Socialist Party,
must be advised to terminate their membership of the
party. If they would not heed this admonition,
they must be barred from participating in Holy Communion.
This measure was maintained throughout the war.
The report to the Synod on the N.S.B. (National-Socialist
Movement of the Netherlands) says:
“Even though the N.S.B. rejects
idolization of the race, the manner in which it stresses
in its Program the unity of the Aryan race shows,
that it is not blameless in this respect.”
A Protestant Committee for help to
Protestant refugees of Jewish origin was formed on
May 5, 1936.
In 1938, 7,000 Jewish refugees were
admitted into the Netherlands. The Government
was of the opinion that Holland could not bear too
heavy a strain on the labour market. The Protestant
Prime Minister declared: “If an unlimited
stream of foreign Jews were admitted, public opinion
regarding the Jews will take an unfavourable turn”.
Thus the border was closed and Jews who had
“illegally” entered into Holland were
sent back to Germany, unless they could prove that
their life was in danger there. Of course it
is easy to be wise after the event, and in those days
it was not yet clear to everybody that the life of
all Jews in Germany was in mortal danger. The
fact remains that these inhuman measures were taken
by a Government of which most of the members were professing
Christians. And no Church protested. Prof.
D. Cohen states:
“Our Committee [for help to
Jewish refugees] had clashed vigorously with the Government
on this point, notwithstanding our good relations and
good co-operation with it. However, we had public
opinion with us.”
The last part of his statement is
doubtful, at least regarding a large section of the
Protestant press.
A national collection was held on
December 3, 1938, and recommended by the Synodal Committee
of the DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH:
“The Committee, concerned about
the bitter sufferings resulting from the persecution
of the Jews, considers it to be the duty of the Church
to practise Christian mercy. It urgently recommends
that all local churches should take up a special collection,
on behalf of the victims of this persecution, so that
their suffering may be alleviated.”
Here help to the persecuted Jews in
general was recommended, not just to Christians of
Jewish origin. In November, 1938, the Executive
of the Dutch Ecumenical Council turned to the World
Council of Churches, Geneva, requesting it to organize
immediate action on behalf of the German Jews.
3
BELGIUM
The Protestant Churches in Belgium
are minority Churches, together comprising less than
half a percent of the population. The following
statements are all from the year 1933. To the
best of my knowledge no other statements were issued
after this year. On April 4, 1933, the Federation
of Protestant Churches of Belgium sent the following
letter to Dr. Kapler, the President of the Protestant
Federation of Germany:
“The Federation of Protestant
Churches of Belgium has directed us to send a fraternal
message to the Protestant Federation of Germany.
We would ask you, Mr. President to accept it in the
same Christian spirit, and to do us the honour of
transmitting it to your Executive Council. We
are much distressed by the events of recent weeks during
which the German Jewish population has been subjected
to discriminatory measures; the situation threatens
to deteriorate even further. Our German co-religionists,
imbued with a sense of justice, must certainly be
equally distressed by these excesses. It certainly
cannot be pleasing to them that, in most countries,
spontaneous public opinion has espoused the cause
of German Jewry. We would therefore ask you,
Mr. President, if it would not be possible for the
Federation of German Evangelical Churches itself to
intervene, discreetly as they may deem fit, on behalf
of the German Jews so that they may be reinstated
in all their rights of citizenship. Would it
not be a great triumph for the spirit of tolerance,
which is certainly a Protestant attribute? Would
it not mean a re-establishment, in the eyes of the
world, of that reputation which your country has enjoyed
for so long, of being a highly cultured country?
May one not say that German Jews have, up till now,
been much attached to their country; that they have
added to its distinction in the field of science,
art and literature.
In short, that they are known
for their adherence to the principles of freedom of
conscience? Inspired as we are by purely Christian
and humane sentiments, we have no doubt that you will
accept the above message in the spirit of grace.”
Yours
faithfully,
Henri
Anet, Secretary; A. Rey, President.
This letter was certainly not lacking
in courtesy and we get the impression that it was
written in a spirit of moderate optimism. Apparently
it was some months later that the President of the
Synod of the Evangelical Protestant Churches of Belgium
sent the following letter to the Chief Rabbi of Belgium:
“Time has passed since, during
the first explosion of hate throughout Germany, it
might be supposed that a period of calm would follow.
But according to accounts in the press, it seems that
a general and lasting exclusion of all Jewish intellectuals
cold-bloodedly continues. This illegal and cruel
oppression of a highly respectable minority shows
that the new Germany is descending into a mental attitude
fit only for the Middle Ages. The destruction
of such an out-grown mentality had been, until now,
the noblest work and the most imperishable glory of
the new spirit of the last four centuries.”
Even more outspoken was the address
of Rev. Schijns, the President of the Federation of
Protestant Churches, at a Meeting of Protest in Bruxelles,
on April 6, 1933:
“You have heard the lay protests
against anti-Semitic persécutions in Germany.
You have heard the Catholic protest. May I be
permitted to speak on behalf of the Protestant Churches
of Belgium. It is true that the voice of Christ,
who clearly proclaimed the inviolable rights and imperative
demands of justice, has not always been listened to
over the centuries; on many occasions Christians themselves
have had recourse to violence; I cannot forget that
in the 16th century my ancestors, the Huguenots, and
the Beggars, also suffered cruel persecution...
Nevertheless, thanks to a clearer understanding of
the demands of the Gospel, as well as to the progressive
evolution of the lay conscience, we had become sincerely
convinced that henceforth violence, which was unanimously
condemned by public opinion, is morally inconceivable.
Yet now we discover that violence has been ‘honourably’
reinstated, so that even today it is still attacking
innocent victims.”
We never supposed that, in our times, any
person, on religious grounds, could be accused of
a political offence! Yet, now we hear that in
Germany a religion (the Jewish religion) is being
formally and coldly proscribed, by the civil authorities.
This inhuman attitude, inspired by a narrow, sectarian
nationalism, stands in absolute contradiction to the
Gospel: it is a monstrous heresy, which cannot
but dwarf all other crimes. The ancient Jewish
law contains the following beautiful maxim: ’Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and
with all thy soul, and with all thy might’.
It is therefore with all my heart, with all my soul
and with all my might that I deliver here, in the
name of my Protestant co-religionists, a message of
vigorous and profound sympathy for all innocent victims
of violence. The sufferings of today, like those
in the past, tragically illustrate the struggle of
brute force against the forces of the spirit.
But just as moral strength has triumphed in ages past,
we are sure that to-day also, by virtue of an eternal
law, victory lies with the powers of the spirit!”
4
FRANCE
Though a small minority, numbering
altogether not more than 800,000 souls, the spiritual
sons of the Huguenots early and unequivocally protested
against the persecution of Jews. They themselves
had been persecuted.
Rev. Marc Boegner, President of the
Protestant Federation of France, sent the following
letter to the Chief Rabbi of France, in 1933:
“The Council of the Protestant
Federation of France which reassembled to-day, for
the first time since the beginning of the period of
the great sufferings of your coreligionists in Germany,
has asked me to assure you that the Protestants of
France whole-heartedly associate themselves with the
indignation of their Jewish compatriots and with the
distress of the victims of such base fanaticism.
The spiritual sons of the Huguenots are stirred with
emotion and sympathy whenever a religious minority
is persecuted. They are well aware how much Christianity,
and in particular the Reformed Churches, owe to the
prophets who paved the way for the Gospel, and feel
afflicted by the blows descending upon their Jewish
brothers. May God help your sorely tried co-religionists
to find in Him their strength and consolation, as
did their frequently persecuted ancestors. May
He impart to you, and to the Jews of France, the secret
of soothing pain and reviving hope.
I wish to reassure you, that we are
certain, that all our Churches will unite, during
the Holy Week, in fervent intercession on behalf of
the Jews of Germany.”
In the same year the following letter
was sent by Rev. Cleisz, Honorary President of the
Consistory of the Reformed Churches of Lorraine, to
the Chief Rabbi of Nancy:
“You will hardly be surprised
to find me among those who energetically protest against
the wave of anti-Semitism in Germany, which has cast
so many Jewish families in distress. I abhor
fanaticism, whatever its source, and am dismayed to
observe in the middle of the twentieth century such
an excess of folly. Therefore I join whole-heartedly
with those who protest against such a tyranny.
I wish to assure you of my deep compassion for so many
human beings overcome by grief...”
Rev. Wilfred Monod sent the following
letter to the French Committee for the Protection
of Persecuted Jewish Intellectuals:
“Allow me to express my feelings
of relief at the thought that France is offering hospitality
to Jews escaping from the darkness of a new Mediaevalism.
Although Jews were crushed by the great Empires of
the West; later becoming the vassals of the anti-Semitic
Kings of Egypt and Syria; politically annihilated
by the Romans; hated by the Moslems; persecuted by
the Church; held in public disdain; treated as a stateless
and homeless people even in the twentieth century,
and sometimes deprived of their civil rights in the
countries in which they were dispersed; the Jews have
not disappeared as did the Phoenicians or the people
of Nineveh. Without territory, without government,
without currency, without flag, Abraham’s race
has kept itself alive. What marvellous obstinacy!
What supernatural tenacity! In spite of all
this, Judaism has given the human race that mysterious
Book which maintains alive on this earth the inextinguishable
flame of a universal, international ideal, the world-embracing
ideal of human catholicity. Israel has bequeathed
to men the Bible, Jesus Christ, and the Messianic
vision of the Kingdom of God... On 29th August,
1914, up in the Vosges, one of our Catholic soldiers,
mortally wounded, asked for a crucifix, and it was
the Jewish chaplain who brought him this venerable
symbol, some minutes before he himself gave up his
soul in the arms of a Jesuit priest. This happened
on a Saturday, the holy day of the Jewish Sabbath.
Welcome to the representatives of the wandering nation!
On French soil they will find a place to rest their
head.”
On April 17, 1933, a Protest Meeting
was held at Lille. Rev. Bosc was the Protestant
spokesman, speaking in his “triple capacity as
a human being, a Frenchman and a Christian”.
We quote the following:
“... Finally, to protest
against the persécutions and victimisations of
the Jews is a task in harmony with the spirit of Jesus
Christ, and here I thank Monsieur l’abbe who
has just sounded forth a note of profound truth.
Everyone of us knows that the spirit of Jesus Christ
is the spirit of peace, the spirit of justice, and
more than that: the spirit of brotherhood and
of love. It is the spirit which to-day imbues
all moral and social systems in the world, so that
Jesus Christ is acknowledged as the unrivalled ruler
not only by Christianity as a whole but also by all
mankind... The spirit of Jesus Christ which,
Ladies and Gentlemen, means the spirit out of which
are woven the dreams we have of a better future for
mankind, the dreams we dream when, surrounded by all
sorts of iniquities and by all kinds of ugliness,
we nevertheless look towards some glorious dawn!
The spirit of Jesus means that spirit which will triumph
because it is the living truth. It is in my
triple capacity as human being, Frenchman and Christian
that I fully pledge my entire, conscious support to
this movement of truth in its efforts to infuse a
little justice and kindness into mankind, against the
attempt to lead humanity back to the night and the
iniquities of the Middle Ages, from which it began
to emerge.”
On November 20, 1935, a Meeting of
Protest was held in the Hall of Chopin, Paris.
Rev. Marc Boegner, President of the Protestant Federation
of France, said the following:
“... Since I am here representing
both Christian and Protestant France, I should say
that in the light of what is going on in Germany
whether it be the persécutions of Jews or of
Christians it is impossible for us not to
add our most energetic protests to those you have heard
so far.
What Christianity
Owes to Judaism
“Christianity, as has been indicated
by President Reynaud, is essentially a universal creed.
Once one believes in Christ, whatever one’s denomination
may be, it is impossible not to subscribe fully to
the words of that Jew of olden times St. Paul, the
apostle, who having plumbed the depths of Christ’s
thought, exclaimed: ’There is neither Jew
nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is
neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ
Jesus’. (Ga, 28). This is the
basic tenet on which, since July 1933, all preaching
in the Churches of Germany has been practically proscribed.
First I wish to state that what has
shocked and appalled Christian conscience, what has
provoked protests from one end of the Christian world
to the other? Protests which will certainly be
reiterated and increased is precisely the
fact that this new gospel of racialism already has
been applied to the Jews, and seems to have reached
its culmination point in the Nuremberg Decrees.
One cannot know whether even worse may not happen later
on. I have met many Jews who had been driven
out of Germany since the Hitler revolution, and when
I went to Germany as recently as this year, on two
occasions while travelling through a large part of
Germany, I could not but feel intensely moved on seeing,
at the entrance of villages and towns, large signboards
forbidding access to the Jews; and on many trees along
the roads, posters full of insults against them.
Christian as I am, and knowing what Christianity owes
to Judaism, I know that the Church of Jesus Christ
is the daughter of what it calls the ancient Church
of Israel. The Protestant in me knows what the
Gospel owes to those prophets who, beginning eight
centuries before Jesus Christ, have presaged the universalism
which the religion of Christ would later proclaim
throughout the world. Did not Isaiah welcome
the day when all nations would flow unto the mountain
of the Lord? And others after him, such as Jeremiah,
did they not show their people, the only people ever
elected, the road by means of which they were to bring
to others the revelation which had been bestowed upon
them, so that all nations might come to know the true
God? The Gospel is the heritage and fulfilment
of that great hope of the prophets. It is impossible
for a Christian, when he sees the infamous crusades
conducted against Judaism, not to be among those who
declare that they are unable to forget what they owe
to the Jewish people. We are among those who
remember all this with deep gratitude. We believe
that this gratitude, in view of the suffering of this
people who are being crucified once again, ought to
be shown in acts of sympathy and solidarity.
Racialism inside the Christian
Churches
“The gospel of racialism of
which you have just been told does not rear its ugly
head solely outside the Church, but also inside the
Christian Churches. Since July 1933, under the
pretext of rallying the whole of Germany round the
doctrine of racial superiority you have seen
the outcome of such teaching and of purity
of blood, they have begun to persecute those who are
not 100 percent Aryan, even inside the churches.
I was in Berlin in July, 1933, and there, where every
wall might have been equipped with a hidden microphone,
I met one of the most representative personalities
of the Evangelical Church of Prussia. He informed
me of what had been happening during the last few weeks.
He said that he had felt compelled to resign from the
high position he had occupied in the German Church,
even though his resignation would mean a considerable
financial sacrifice. He and those who were thinking
and acting like him were now unable to speak, to write,
to telephone, or to do anything whatsoever.
“But,” said he, “how could I have
agreed to go and tell the young Evangelical pastors
whom I ordained two or three years ago, that they are
not fit to preach the Gospel or to carry out the duties
of their ministry, simply because they have a Jewish
grandmother or grandfather? This problem of the
non-Aryam has since then caused much anguish to many
men who are pastors or simply beadles. The new
gospel has made its appearance in the Church, propagated,
preached and spread by groups calling themselves the
‘Deutsch-Christliche’ or the German Christians.
It is necessary, they claim, to expel from the churches
and from all church posts, in every denomination,
those men who are not of absolutely pure Aryan blood
for three or four generations back.
The Church
Resists
“This has resulted in unbearably
painful conflicts. It should be acknowledged
that tremendous pressure was exerted by the State authorities
as well as by the pressure of the opinion which increasingly
tends to assert in religious circles that Adolf Hitler
was the man through whom Germany was able to re-establish
herself. in spite of all this, however, there have
been instances of Catholic and Protestant consciences
refusing to bow and submit. Resistance was organized
in the Catholic Church, where the warning bell to the
conscience of Christians was rung by that admirable
man, the Cardinal Archbishop of Munich. In the
Protestant Church, the great voice of the theologian,
Kar1 Barth, and the voices of many others, have been
raised to rally Christian consciences to their call.
A completely new Confessing Church has sprung up comprising
more than half of the pastors in Germany, quite apart
from those who are still hesitating, because they
must make a living, and, therefore, ask themselves
what will happen to-morrow. About a thousand pastors
have placed themselves behind Bishop Mueller, the
‘German Christian’, whom you, Mr. Paul
Reynaud, have just mentioned.
The “New
Gospel”
“It is not only through the
persecution of the non-Aryans that the desire has
arisen amongst many Germam to preach a new gospel,
but because of a claim to meet Christ on a new basis,
particularly on the basis of the glorification of
the German race and blood. The most extraordinary
statements have been made. Paganism has asserted
itself on the fringes of the Church and its influence
gradually has pervaded it. An effort even has
been made in certain churches by pastors imbued with
the spirit of national-socialism, to have the Old
Testament containing the magnificent history
of the Jewish people and I even would say, of God’s
great acts toward the Jewish race banned and
barred from religious instruction. Included also
is that moving page in the first book of your Bible,
and ours note this, any Jews who may be listening
to me where we are told that Abraham went
so far as to be ready to sacrifice Isaac, his only
son, to God!
“Never will the
Churches Agree...”
“Subsequently there have been
attempts to make peace with the Churches, and the
papers during the past few weeks have brought us news
of ’peace feelers’ offered to the Churches.
Negotiations were envisaged both with the Catholic
Church and with the Evangelical Churches. But
they never will induce either true Catholics or Protestants,
to put as a Gospel source, an affirmation of the superiority
of the German race over the others, nor a denial of
anybody’s right to belong to the Church of Jesus
Christ. They may again start their persécutions,
and I think they will. They may chase pastors
and priests from their churches and send them to concentration
camps. They may resort to petty annoyance and
to persecution; however, I am absolutely convinced
that the Christian conscience has been aroused.
Perhaps this experience was necessary to awaken it
out of a certain stupor? The Christian conscience
will absolutely oppose the events which have succeeded
each other which such rapidity over the past few years
and any attempt which may be made to persuade the
Churches in any way to insert into the Gospel (which
desires that all men should be considered the children
of God and be reconciled in universal brotherhood)
an addition which asserts that some shall rank first
and others may be excluded. Never will the Churches
agree that the Gospel of love, symbolized by the two
arms of Christ extended on the cross, will be replaced
by a gospel of race and blood. I am convinced
that by affirming our sympathy with all in Germany
who are being persecuted for their views, and with
all in the Christian Church who make efforts to resist
(as I have tried to show) the determined attempt to
lead them onto the ground of racial discrimination,
we are helping them in their resistance. We are
helping them to discover that there is a Christian,
as well as, a merely secular public opinion, throughout
the entire world, which is aware of all that this
resistance implies in the way of present sacrifice,
and perhaps of still more suffering in the future.
Let us therefore be among those who by word and example
give evidence of that sympathy and solidarity.
Let us unite here, as Mr. Paul Reynaud has asked us
to do, without distinction of religious, philosophic
or even political convictions, in protest against
the besmirching of justice and the dignity of man.”
The Council of the Protestant Federation
of France, in its session of November 29, 1938, unanimously
adopted the following Resolution:
“The Council of the Protestant
Federation of France, reassembled for the first time
since a terrible crime has provided a pretext for new
persécutions against the Jews, feels itself to
be the mouthpiece of all the Churches which it represents
in our country, in making a solemn Protest against
a similar outburst of violence and cruelty.
The Christian Churches will betray
the message entrusted to them, if they do not unreservedly
condemn racial doctrines which are contrary to the
teaching of Christ and the apostles; and if they do
not express their utmost disapproval of the barbaric
methods by which such doctrines are practised...”
In the light of “the serious
problem confronting the authorities by the arrival
on French territory of numerous foreigners who had
been expelled from their own country by persecution”,
the Council of the Protestant Federation in France
instructed “all Protestant Frenchmen” as
follows:
1. To aid the Government
in determined resistance to any suggestion of violence,
wherever it may come from and in whatever manner it
expresses itself to solve so complex a problem
in a quiet atmosphere and with respect for human dignit. To contribute as much as possible, by their
gifts and by their co-ordinated initiative, for the
relief of the terrible distress which they are witnessing
and which makes its appeal to them. The Council
draws their attention to the existence of a French
Committee for Protestant Refugees, Aryans and non-Aryans,
which is now functioning and to which financial contributions
can be sent...
5
SWITZERLAND
The Protestant Churches of Switzerland
are cantonal Churches, distinct and independent from
one another. In most of the cantonal Churches,
the legislative body is the Synod and the executive
organ the Synodal Council. The Federation of
the Protestant Churches of Switzerland at first consisted
only of National Churches, but it soon admitted the
Free Evangelical Churches, the Methodist Church and
the “Evangelische Gemeinschaft”. The
Federation has 2,888,122 baptized members. At
the beginning of April, 1933, the following Declaration,
signed by 21 Protestant ministers, was addressed to
“various Protestant Ecclesiastical groups in
French-speaking Switzerland”:
“Moved by the present situation
of the German Jews, and unable to understand how the
authorities, otherwise attentive to moral values, can
ignore the right of freedom of conscience, and of
work, as well as security to every human being, we,
the undersigned, think that the time has come to draw
the attention of Christians to the serious implications
in an attitude which is the very negation of the evangelical
spirit; a spirit which is synonymous with love, freedom
and mutual assistance. We expect the Churches
to raise their voices in order to claim for the Jews
the same degree of justice, which it is their duty
to demand for every oppressed minority.”
On May 31, 1933, the Synod of the
Free Evangelical Church of the Canton Vaud sent the
following letter to the President of the Council of
the Federation of Protestant Churches of Switzerland:
“We beg to bring to your attention
the fact that the Synod of the Free Evangelical Church
of the Canton of Vaud, at its annual meeting at Lausanne,
unanimously resolved upon the following Declaration,
which we now submit to use as you see fit. “Moved
by the news which has reached us from Germany concerning
the numerous and regrettable restraints imposed upon
the freedom of conscience, and, in particular, concerning
the ill-treatment of the Jewish population of that
country; “and with the conviction that the Gospel
of Jesus Christ constitutes an affirmation of freedom
and love among the races of mankind; the Synod of
the Free Evangelical Church of the Canton of Vaud,
assembled at Lausanne, unites itself with all protests
raised in favour of freedom of conscience and respect
for the Jews of Germany.”
In September, 1933, the Protestant
Churches of Geneva published the following Declaration:
“Events shocking and hurtful
to a sense of justice are mounting in Germany and
have repercussions here. Men are persecuted for
their opinions. Dismissed, boycotted, ostracized,
they are suffering as in the days when neither freedom
of thought nor of conscience were tolerated.
The mere fact of belonging to the Jewish race, even
if only by descent, frequently incurs implacable treatment.
These actions have given rise to protests in numerous
countries and in the most varied circles. Here
too, our Christian conscience has been roused.
It would be dangerous to consider ourselves better
than others. Intolerance and injustice have their
roots in our own soil. We must be on our guard.
Several papers make appeals for violence. The
seeds of discord are being sown among our people.
Anti-Semitism, which until now has been foreign to
us, now finds its advocates among us. Members
of our Churches, also, forgetting that the same blood
flows in all mankind, and that, before God our Father,
we are all brothers, have been swayed by the passions
of these times. Let us not permit a spirit incompatible
with the teachings of Jesus Christ to take root in
our country.” The National Protestant Church
of Geneva; the Free Evangelical Church of Geneva;
Evangelical Christian Association; the Committee for
Popular Evangelism; the Council of the Methodist Church.
It is striking that the declarations
and resolutions issued in Switzerland, so many times
mention the danger of anti-Semitic influences within
the country itself, and sometimes within the Church.
On November 14, 1938, the Church Council
of Canton Zurich addressed the following public letter
“To the Reformed People of Zurich”:
“In indignation and horror we
recently have witnessed, in the state neighbouring
us to the north, that Jew baiting has erupted and,
in its dimensions, surpassed the severest atrocities
yet experienced. We feel in spirit united with
all our brothers and sisters in the neighbouring country
who, whatever their attitude toward Jewry may be,
deeply deplore such injustice, yet they must keep silent
on the subject. We must not be silent. We
must consider it a Christian obligation to cry out
against it, not only within our church walls but to
the world at large. It is a terrible injustice
to exterminate, by all conceivable means, a nation
which possesses, as does every nation, the right to
exist. It fills us with deep humiliation and
shame to discover in a country living for centuries
under the influence of the gospel and of Luther, that
sentiments of passionate hatred can break out and
boil over against a small racial and religious minority,
and that all humane and Christian feelings be suffocated.
It plainly shows us, to our horror, what human hearts
are capable of when racial hatred and blind raving
passion win the upper hand, drowning the voice of
justice, mercy and goodness. Can we Swiss suppose
that we are immune against such frenzy? But are
not the same dark powers active within our own people,
openly at times and sometimes secretly, confusing
conscience; stirring passions; igniting racial hatred?
It pains us that consideration for so many unemployed
citizens in our own nation prevents us from offering
a protecting asylum to the suffering refugees, who,
like wild game, are chased from country to country.
At least let us do for them all that
is in our power! When in the next few days a
general collection is made for the benefit of these
refugees, among whom are not a few who, although Jewish
by birth, are of the Christian faith and thus a part
of the Evangelical Church, let us open our hearts and
hands and express loving-kindness towards these remorselessly
persecuted people. Let us close our hearts to
all feelings of unchristian racial and religious hatred.
Neither hate, slander, oppression nor violence, but
Jesus Christ’s love alone is capable of bringing
longed for peace to restless humanity. But above
all, let us pray to the Almighty that He will protect
all those who are persecuted, and that He will save
our Swiss people from the disgrace of an anti-Jewish
campaign and deliver us, and all nations, from the
forces of violence and injustice, and bring His Kingdom
of justice, love and peace.”
Again (as in 1933) the danger of anti-Semitic
influences within Switzerland was mentioned.
The letter also gave as an excuse for not admitting
more refugees, that there were “so many unemployed
citizens in our own nation”. The same motive
had led other Governments as for instance the
Dutch Government to issue decrees restricting
immigration.
The members of the Ministers Union
of Geneva wrote a letter to the Chief Rabbi of the
City of Geneva in which they expressed their deep sympathy
with the persecuted Jews. This letter, together
with the declaration of the Church Council of Zurich
(see above) was read at a service, held in the synagogue
on a Sunday and not, as usual, on a Saturday.
This postponement was in order that the prayers of
that day could be united with those of all the Christian
Churches in Switzerland for the persecuted Jews.
In December, 1938, the Synod of the
Canton of Bern issued the following Declaration:
“The Synod of the Evangelical
Reformed Church of Canton Bern declares, that it views
the merciless persecution of Jews and Fellow-Christians
stemming from Jewry, as an expression of a spirit
which has nothing in common with the spirit of Jesus
Christ. It calls upon all members of our Church
to intercede on behalf of the persecuted, especially
our persecuted brothers; to stand up for them on every
occasion; and to oppose any further attempt to poison
the soul of our people with the spirit of racial hatred.”
6 DENMARK
Leading Danish theologians
three professors and one lecturer of the Copenhagen
University and the Bishop of Copenhagen, Fuglsang-Damgaard
published a declaration on January 10, 1936,
denouncing an anti-Semitic brochure, “The Christian
Church according to the concept of the peoples of
the North”, based on the “Protocols of
the Elders of Zion”. Professor Frederik
Torm related the history of this forgery in an informative
article. The matter drew attention, even in Germany,
where the “Volkische Beobachter”
in its edition of January 14, 1936 reported the story
as told by its correspondent in Copenhagen under the
caption “Danish theologians grow nervous”
and with the subtitle: “The Jewish question
arises in Denmark”. The report of the former
German Envoy, Richthofen, dated January 13, 1936,
shows the same attitude, considering the article of
the theologians as an act of defence against “the
ever increasing understanding of the Jewish question
in Germany among the Danish public”.
In the autumn of 1938, Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard
said in his sermon at the opening of a new church,
Lundehuskirken, that it was with deep pain that the
Christian community had heard about the persecution
of the Jews in Germany, which had reached a culminating-point
in those day pastors of Copenhagen supported
these words by a public statement and pronounced their
“deep sympathy with our Jewish countrymen on
account of the sufferings which at this time befall
their brethren and which must fill every Christian
with horror”.
Dr. Fuglsang-Damgaard asked the
pastors to pray for the suffering Jews in the services
the following Sunday, and he himself declared at a
service in Helligkors Church, that we must pray to
God “to protect our people against the poisonous
pestilence of anti-Semitism, hatred of the Jews and
persecution of the Jews. Our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ was David’s Son after the flesh,
and those who love Him cannot hate His people”.
7 SWEDEN
The Swedish Ecumenical Council sent
the following letter, dated April 3, 1933, to the
German Evangelical Church Council in Berlin:
“The Swedish Ecumenical Council,
a representation of different Swedish Church communities,
sincerely regrets the existing conditions in Germany
and the boycott of German goods abroad, and is deeply
concerned by the anti-Semitic action in your country,
such as has been expressed in official statements
and actions. We hope and pray that, with God’s
help, it will be possible for the German Evangelical
Churches actively to stress the genuinely Christian
principles, which you upheld in your appeal before
the latest elections. “Be not overcome
by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
As Christian brothers, we are anxious to be in communication
with you in this matter and further hear your views.
In sincere communion in the faith, for the Swedish
Ecumenical Council: Arch-bishop Erling Eidem,
Chairman.
The Appeal of the German Evangelical
Church Council to which this letter referred, was
published on March 3, 1933, just before the elections
for the Reichstag. Unfortunately, we do not know
whether any reply was received by the Swedish Ecumenical
Council.
In 1933, 64 prominent Protestant Church
leaders also published an “Appeal to Swedish
Christianity”, warning against anti-Semitic influences
in Sweden:
“Action against the Jews in
Germany seems to work as a stimulant and no
small one for the anti-Semitism which exists
in certain Swedish circles. Many of us may have
been prone to consider this movement in our country
as insignificant, and not worth combating. But
the matter is more serious than that. If sufficiently
great spiritual strength is not mobilized against this
fanatical and shortsighted nationalism, it is difficult
to foresee the result.
The undersigned regard it as their
duty to express the worry and anger with which this
anti-Semitic movement has filled them, and to appeal
to Swedish Christianity of all denominations to fight
against racial hatred, stressing Christ’s valuation
of man and his brother-love.
Already from a general and cultural
viewpoint, anti-Semitism is an expression of ingratitude
and shortsightedness. No less in our country,
citizens of Jewish descent, have contributed in all
fields to such a degree that, if all trace of what
they have done were erased from the Swedish civilization,
to-day, it would be much poorer. But first, anti-Semitism
must be condemned from a Christian-religious viewpoint.
Here too one can, rightly, speak of a debt of gratitude.
The prophets and psalms of Israel also belong to our
holy heritage. And in spite of all wild racial
hypotheses, Jesus Christ is a son of Israel and a
perfecter of these prophets’ work. However,
it is not only, and not first and foremost, the gratitude
for a spiritual inheritance which urges Christian
people to take their stand against anti-Jewish activity.
They would be denying their Master if they did not
do so. For in Him all racial differences are overcome,
in the divine love, which has taken form in Him, we
are all each other’s brothers, no matter to
which nation or race we belong. Whosoever professes
himself a follower of Christ, yet lets himself be seized
by nationalistic presumption, of which anti-Semitism
is one of the most repellant expressions, must realize
that any action designed to attach a stamp of inferiority
on members of the Jewish people or deprive them of
full civil rights, is in absolute opposition to the
spirit and teaching of Jesus. The gravity of
the situation has impelled us to make public this
declaration, which is also an appeal to Swedish Christianity
to oppose unmitigatedly a propaganda which is becoming
louder and more aggressive anti-Jewish, and the mentality
of violence from which it stems. Time must not
be lost. Freedom of speech is not yet stifled.
The gospel of Truth and Love may still sound its voice.”
At a meeting of the Stockholm Pastors’
Society, held in 1934, Professor Nygren of Lund opened
the discussion on the subject: “What is
the reason for the struggle within the German Church?”
The Pastors’ Society unanimously decided to publish
in the press their agreement with the fundamental
viewpoints expressed in Prof. Nygren’s address.
The Society’s Resolution reads as follows:
“The furious struggle now taking
place within the German Church is not on a personal
question, a question of rights or a question of organization.
Nor is it a struggle for or against the National-Socialistic
State or for or against the liberalistic freedom ideal.
The struggle
concerns Christianity itself, its existence or non-existence.
What is happening in Germany to-day is nothing more
or less than the appearance of a new religion, beside
and in contrast to Christianity a religion
based on ‘Blut und Boden’,
on racial idealism and racial egoism. This has
to some extent thrown Christians and non-Christians
into jail. From a deeper viewpoint, the difference
between ‘German Christians’ and the heathen
‘German Faith Movement’, therefore, becomes
surprisingly small. If we observe the deepest
tendency, of which, in general, the followers of these
movements are quite unconscious, it can even be said
that, for the former group, it is a question of the
new religion in Christian guise; for the latter, the
same religion in Germanic guise. The extraordinary
danger is that the present Church management has not
the least understanding of the reason for the struggle.
It believes that it is fighting for the sake of Christianity
and does not realize that it has slipped into a new
racial religion. True, it often stresses that
the Bible and the Confession should be left ’uñas-sailed’,
but the tone of the voice itself reveals that it is
on something else that one subsists. Out of the
abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The real
pathos first appears when one can talk of ‘Blut
und Boden’, ‘Blut und
Rasse’, ‘Blut und Ehre’.
The god one really worships is the idol of one’s
own people. But in the German Church there are
men and fortunately these are not few
who understand what is at stake; what this new religion
has to offer the people, from a Christian viewpoint,
is nothing less than idolatry. One creates a new
god in one’s own image, the image of ‘the
German Man’. The Christians who see this
must, through their faithfulness to the Gospel, be
forced out into the struggle. Because of this
they find themselves in tragic conflict; for there
is so much in the new state to which, in their hearts,
they say ‘yes’, and with joy. But
when they fight this new heathen spirit that has penetrated
the Church and seized the power in it, they are stamped
as enemies of the state by the uncomprehending Church
management. The point has been reached, where
those who do not want to give up their Christian faith
are attacked by the German Church management:
with external means of power, the secret state police,
removals from office and suspensions. We, Evangelical
Christians of a kindred people, have seen with grief
and concern that the German Church management through
such activities has tarnished the Christian name.
With the deepest sympathy we follow the oppressed Christians’
brave and joyfully self-sacrificing struggle, in defence
of Evangelical Christianity, not only in Germany but
also the world over.”
The Resolution contains points that to-day are obvious
to us, but in those days they undoubtedly enlightened
many ignorant people. Much that has been said
by the Lutheran Church leaders of Sweden, already in
the first years of Hitler’s regime, shows a deep
theological insight into the nature of anti-Semitism.
Few Churches in other lands showed this insight at
so early a date. This fact should prevent us
from over-simplifying the answers to the question,
as to how far certain of Luther’s views about
the Jewish people influenced the Lutheran Churches
in the twentieth century.
The following statement, signed by
Erling Eidem, Archbishop of Uppsala, and 25 other
Church leaders was issued by the Swedish Ecumenical
Council, in autumn 1938:
“A storm of violence and cruelty
goes through the world. The Jewish people are
severely hit by this. Their horrible fate must
awake in Christian minds strong indignation, as well
as deep sympathy for the victims. To belong to
the Jewish race is becoming equivalent to being stateless
within that portion of humanity which calls itself
Christian. This brings shame upon the Christian
name.
Anti-Semitic Propaganda
in Sweden
“In our country, too, anti-Semitic
propaganda is prosecuted, even though it may, in some
respects, avoid publicity and, especially under the
pressure of recent occurrences, has met with deserved
resistance. More than others, Christians here
must be on their guard. No racial differences
exist in the Christian evaluation of man. Love
of Christ forbids branding any person inferior.
Persecution of the people of Israel on the one hand
requests Christ’s congregation to fight against
violence and injustice, and preventive action on the
other. The Swedish Ecumenical Council, representing
the ecumenical world organizations as well as the
larger Swedish Church communities, hereby begs to remind
you of our Christian responsibility in this matter.
We must not forget that we too, bear a measure of
guilt for this evil power that has arisen through loveless
ness and injustice in the world. We appeal to
all who, in their capacity as pastor, congregation
head or preacher, are responsible for the creation
of public opinion in such circles as come under Christian
influence, to resist the spirit of mercilessness and
injustice in the anti-semitic propaganda, by all ways
and means available in each community. It seems
especially important to us to try to prevent its poison
penetrating the minds of the Young. Not only
religious instruction in the schools can give an opportunity
for this, but also instruction in Sunday schools,
confirmation classes and Bible classes. A few
congregational evenings could be used to throw light
upon the plight of the Jewish people and to stress
our Christian responsibility towards them. The
un-Christian element in all racial hatred could at
times be stressed in the sermon. All discussion
of politics naturally must be banned from such Christian
instruction and preaching.
Aid
of Refugees
“Where the feeling of responsibility
has been awakened, it must be transformed into action.
This can be done by gifts to the relief organizations
among the banished, which also have branches in our
country. In co-operation with other organizations,
the Swedish Ecumenical Council’s Refugee Committee
seeks to aid refugees both within and outside our
country’s borders, particularly Christians of
non-Aryan descent. The money already collected
is now almost spent, but the need for help is still
very great. Gifts for this activity can be deposited
under the name “Help for Refugees” on
the Swedish Ecumenical Council’s postal current
account N, Stockholm. Recently, the
Council’s Refugee Committee, the Deacon Board’s
Social Committee and the Swedish Israel Mission have
started other aid activities, such as accommodating
children of Jewish refugees, preferably Jewish-Christian,
in Swedish homes for a shorter or longer period, and
trying to find places farmers’ homes for about
a year for Jewish-Christian youth, particularly male,
who need re-education for later emigration to countries
which have declared themselves willing to receive
them. Information of such homes as well as financial
contributions will be gratefully received by Pastor
B. Pernow, Idungatan 4, Stockholm, postal current account
N.
Intercession
“At this period, with the mentality
of violence penetrating minds more and more, it is
important not to neglect the possibilities we still
have to make Christ’s mind and Christ’s
thoughts heard regarding the relation between man and
man, between people and people. Scarcely at any
other point has this task seemed clearer and more
demanding than as it concerns the Western peoples’
conduct towards Israel. May Christ’s love
in our hearts light a flame of concern for a people
who were the Lord’s own, the people of the Prophets
and the Apostles. May Christ’s love make
us burning and persistent in our intercession for those
who suffer persecution, as well as, for those who
persecute. May they receive the grace to repent.
May Christ’s love make us firm against all hatred,
drive out all fear, and make our hands ready for service.
Brethren, in the name of Christ we beg you to receive
this appeal in a brotherly spirit.”
It is difficult to understand how
“all discussions of politics” can be banned
from Christian instruction and teaching, as the statement
demands, whilst at the same time resisting “the
spirit of mercilessness...”.
In this same statement, support was requested
for the Refugee Committee, which sought “to
aid refugees... particularly Christians of non-Aryan
descent”. We have seen the same trend in
Churches in other countries. However, the appeal
of the Bishops of Sweden, also in 1938, pleaded for
aid to Jewish children and youth in general.
This “Appeal for Help to Jewish Refugees”
was signed by Archbishop Eidem and 12 other Church
leaders:
“With deep sorrow and sincere
sympathy, we have witnessed the terrible sufferings
to which the Jewish people, not least during recent
months, have been exposed spiritually as well as physically.
The question of the Jewish people has become a question
for all mankind. No one can escape responsibility
any longer. Our consciences shaken by the suffering
of innocent people will not rest until peace and refuge
has been provided for the Jewish people. Each
one of us must be on his guard against contamination
by the plague of racial hatred; we must not betray
the Christian commandment of love to every suffering
neighbour. May we willingly do our Samaritan
service in aiding mercy. The duty and possibility
nearest to us is to support Jewish refugees who have
had to relinquish home and property. We must
hurry to help provide a refuge and a new future for
innocent children and youth. Various collections
in this respect have already begun. We hereby
wish to stress that collections for Jewish children
and youth are being mediated by the Swedish Church’s
Deacon Board. Contributions should be sent to
“Deacon Board, Help for Jewish children, Stockholm
7, Postal Cheque Account N’.”
8
HUNGARY
The first anti-Jewish Law, restricting
the economic activities of Jews, was enacted in 1938.
The representatives of the Churches in the Hungarian
Upper House, amongst whom was the Protestant Bishop
Ravasz, voted for the passage of this law.
“The only amendment the representatives
of the Churches wished to be introduced was that certain
modifications should be included for the benefit of
the baptized Jews. Apart from that, they took
the view that once the Bill had become law ’it
would be possible to avoid emphasis being laid on the
Jewish question and thus to allay anti-Semitism’.
This attitude turned out to be a fatal mistake.
It was the stone that started the landslide, and it
is all the more regrettable that the Christian Churches
lent this Bill their support.”
Rabbi Fabian Hershkovits (former Chief
Rabbi of Budapest, now living in Tel-Aviv, Israel)
had the following to say:
“Bishop Ravasz was certainly
not an anti-Semite. After the war, in 1947, he
was the President of the Council of Christians and
Jews of which I also was a member. He and his
friends intended, by supporting the anti-Jewish law
in 1938, to guard the national Hungarian interest.
He did not understand that Europe, after Hitler had
come to power, had become a powder-magazine; one should
not light a match in a powder-magazine; that was Bishop
Ravasz’s historical mistake.”
The fact remains that Protestant Bishops
supported an anti-Semitic Law. If this was an
error of judgment, it certainly was a fatal error.
In 1939, the Hungarian government
introduced a bill for the enactment of the second
anti-Jewish Law. The measures included drastic
curtailments of personal rights. The representatives
of the Churches “stood solidly against the passage
of the bill” but ultimately “refrained
from voting down the Teleki government,” that
is to say they did not vote against the passage of
the Law but tried “to incorporate such provisions
in the law as would insure the greatest possible benefits
for particular Jewish categories, the first among these
being the Jewish converts to Christianity”.
Hilberg comments:
“In waging the struggle for the baptized
Jews in the first place, the church
had implicitly declined to take up the struggle for Jewry as a whole. In
insisting that the definition exclude Christians, the church in effect stated
the condition upon which it would accept a definition that set aside a group
of people for destruction.”
9
RUMANIA
We hardly found any statement against
anti-Semitism issued by one of the Orthodox Church
leaders in Eastern Europe, before the second world
war. Rumania was notorious for the strong anti-Semitic
influences in that country. The following Declaration,
issued on April 15, 1933, by Mgr. Pimem,
Metropolitan of Moldavia and Suceava, is the more striking:
“We now are in the Holy Week
and for a time we must forget petty affairs and acts
of men. Nevertheless I wish to state one thing,
namely, that I do not approve of the actions and policies
of the Nazis with respect to the Jews of Germany,
just as I disapprove of the anti-Christian campaign
carried out in Russia. I desire peace for the
entire world and on the occasion of this Holy Feast
I express my wishes for the health and progress of
our people. We should follow but one course:
the way of Christ, for only thus can we be led to salvation.”
10 GREAT
BRITAIN AND IRELAND
Many leaders of the Churches in Great
Britain publicly protested against the first anti-Jewish
measures in Germany. Most of the protests were
made by the leaders of the Church of England, though
some made by other Churches are also recorded.
The Church of England, however, certainly had the widest
range of influence in England. I have not recorded
all protests that were made.
Already in 1933 the protests were
clear and unequivocal, though the Church leaders seemed
to be afraid of offending the German Government.
The Archbishop of Canterbury said in the House of
Lords, on March 30, 1933, in reply to statements made
by Lord Reading:
“I feel that it would be a decided
omission on my part, were I not to state publicly,
in the name of the worthiest citizens of our country,
whom I represent here, that I entirely agree with
the words just spoken by the Right Hon. Lord Reading,
words which touched us all. I sincerely hope
that His Majesty’s Government will, as I know
it hopes to do, be able to assure us that it is doing
its utmost to express to the Jewish community the
sympathy of this country and of all Christian subjects,
not least of those amongst us who have a feeling
of sincere friendship for the German nation.”
The Archbishop himself apparently
belonged to “those amongst us who have a feeling
of sincere friendship for the German nation”.
The Bishop of Ripon addressed the following Message
to the International League combating Anti-Semitism
and Racialism, on May 1, 1933:
“Most gladly do I avail myself
of this opportunity of expressing my sympathy with
you and the International League in your struggle against
anti-Semitism, on the occasion of the distressing
situation created in Germany by the new form of government.
It seems almost incredible that such things should
happen in the 20th century, and above all in a country
like Germany. The leaders of this country,
of the Church as well as of the State, have
not left the German government in doubt as to the
feelings aroused in us by its policy of cruelty and
suicide.”
On May 5, 1933, the Archbishop of
York issued the following Message:
“Racial persecution is an insult
to civilization and culture. It is our duty to
endeavour to understand the cause and the character
of the Nazi revolution in Germany, which has gained
the support of a large number of the best citizens
of the country. But although it generally happens
that understanding produces sympathy, the persecution
of Jews, Pacifists and others, such as has so far
disgraced the conquests of the Revolution, cannot but
alienate all sympathies. It is highly important
that the government and leaders of the German nation
should realize how great the animosity is which these
acts provoke among the best British citizens.
Whatever excuses may be made for deeds of violence
committed in the course of a revolution, no condemnation
can be too severe for the persecution and the organized
terror, which undeniably are typical aspects of the
recent revolution.”
No doubt the Nazi revolution in Germany
had gained the support of a large number of citizens
of that country. That the Archbishop believed
that they belonged to the best citizens of Germany,
is typical of the atmosphere that reigned in those
days. Fortunately, however, “the best British
citizens were provoked by the persecution”.
On May 15, 1933, a Meeting of Protest
was held in Birmingham. The Bishop of Birmingham
presented the following Resolution:
“This meeting of Christian citizens
of Birmingham who are anxious to promote friendly
international relations, expresses its profound conviction
that the discriminating measures adopted against the
Jewish race, both in Germany and elsewhere, are contrary
to the spirit and the principles of Christianity.
It urges Christian men and women everywhere to exert
their influence in order to do away with racial and
national prejudice.”
The resolution was adopted at the close of the Meeting.
On May 31, 1933, the Archbishop of
Canterbury addressed a Meeting of Anglican Clergy
at Westminster. The English Primate appealed to
the German nation:
“to give up, without delay,
the racial discrimination which is now being practised.
The true strength of a nation and the respect owing
to it by other nations lies in the impartial administration
of justice to all those who live in its territory”.
On June 27, 1933, the Archbishop of
Canterbury addressed a Meeting of Protest, held at
Queen’s Hall, London:
“We all know that at this very
time while we are gathered here in an atmosphere of
peace and security, the members of the Jewish community
in Germany are being expelled from all public employment,
from the posts which they had obtained in virtue of
their qualifications, in law, in medicine, and at
the universities, and that they are even excluded from
concert halls, where music was always considered to
be the language common to all mankind. They are
being progressively deprived even when permission
is given to practise their profession or their trade
of every chance of earning a living...
6 I think with particular indignation of what
I have heard concerning the treatment inflicted on
Jewish children, who are set apart in schools, separated
from other children as though they were unclean.
Think of the effect this must produce on such children
in whom the feeling is inculcated from their tenderest
years that they are not worthy to mix with other Germans!
And then picture to yourselves the effect this is
bound to have on non-Jewish German children, who are
thus taught from their earliest days to despise and
look down upon other children. When injustice
prevails to such an extent, it is impossible here or
in any part of the civilized world, that men for whom
justice is a part of the heritage they desire to keep
intact should remain silent. They must needs speak,
were it only to ease their own conscience.”
The Archbishop showed a remarkable
insight when he expressed his particular indignation
about the separation of Jewish children in schools
from other children. That was at a time when
many Christians and Jews tended to underestimate the
malevolent intentions of the rulers of the Third Reich.
Representatives of all religious creeds,
responding to an appeal of the United Council of Christian
Churches in Ireland (now renamed the Irish Council
of Churches) voted for the following Resolution, on
the occasion of a public Meeting of Protest, held
at Belfast, in May 1933:
“We have met here in order to
express our deepest regret that millions of law-abiding
citizens who are not guilty of any crime or of any
criminal intentions, should have been accused, persecuted
and placed beyond the pale of the law, for the sole
reason that they belong to the race which was, after
all, the source of our European religion, and to which
the founder of Christianity belonged. The meeting
is horrified at the thought of the sufferings endured
and the consequences, which are bound to ensue for
Europe and the whole world. The history of the
human race, of these islands, and of Ireland herself
presents countless examples of the disastrous effects
that persecution has had for us, not to mention the
repercussion elsewhere. We know the obstacles
that intolerance placed in the way of our national
development, the harm it has done, the wounds it has
inflicted, the hatred it has caused to accumulate
in the course of centuries; hatred by which the minds
of men are poisoned long after the actual grievances
have disappeared. For this reason we deplore
this new seed of death, the dire results of which
we foresee, not only for Germany, but also for the
whole of Europe."
The Church of Scotland is by far the
largest Church in Scotland. The General Assembly
of the Church of Scotland is the final authority of
that Church. It is convened annually in May and
attended by about 700 ministers and 700 elders, delegated
by the presbyteries of the Church. The following
statement was issued by the General Assembly, in May,
1933:
“The General Assembly rejoice
that, in this country, the longstanding traditions
of friendliness and goodwill to the Jewish people continue
to be maintained; they deplore the growth of anti-Semitism
in many lands to-day, and, in particular, its recent
intensified manifestations in Germany; and they respectfully
appeal to the sister German Churches to secure, through
their influence with their fellow countrymen and governing
authorities, that, notwithstanding the inevitable
unsettlement of revolutionary conditions, the suffering
of the innocent shall cease, and justice and charity
towards all shall prevail.”
The Church of Scotland apparently
was optimistic about the “influence of the sister
German Churches with their fellow-countrymen and governing
authorities”. We, who now live after the
events, are not astonished that the General Assembly
lamented, in 1937, that, “the protesting voice
of the Christian Church has been so barren of results”.
The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland
was the only ecclesiastical authority, which as far
as I know, spoke out against anti-Semitism year after
year. The contents of the statements show that
it was not an automatic affair, for the changing character
of the situation was reflected in these protests.
In May, 1934, the following Statement was adopted:
“The General Assembly of the
Church of Scotland, in light of the present world
situation as concerns the Jewish race, place on record
the following expression of their view and convictions.
Remembering the age-long sufferings of the Jewish people,
their homelessness a nation which has lasted for centuries,
the persécutions, injustices and hardships
they have endured, from Governments, Churches and individuals;
in view also of the present fresh outbreaks of anti-Semitic
fanaticism manifested in many lands, the General Assembly
offer to the Jewish people their heartfelt sympathy
with them in their almost intolerable wrongs.
The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland desire
to assure the entire Jewish world that ill-treatment
of the Jews on account of their race or religion is
to them abhorrent; that in their judgment it is a denial
of the first principles laid down by the great Founder
of the Christian Faith, who places love and kindness
to all as fundamental laws of His Kingdom; and that
it is their firm belief that any Church which claims
to be animated by the spirit of Jesus Christ and which
nevertheless acts with intolerance towards members
of the Jewish race, is thereby denying the elementary
doctrines of the Christian Faith. The General
Assembly acknowledge with gratitude to God the great
contributions to human knowledge which the Jewish
race has made in many realms; in a special degree
they express their debt to the Jewish people for the
scrupulous care with which they preserved the early
documents of Holy Scripture for the ultimate benefit
of all nations, which for centuries have nourished
the piety of myriads who thereby have learned of the
grace of Almighty God. The General Assembly would,
in conclusion, again express their sense of the profound
significance of the fact that the One whom they rejoice
to believe in as the divine Saviour of the world came,
according to the flesh, of the Jewish race, and they
feel that this thought imparts to the Hebrew nation
a special and peculiar position in world history, rendering
it a duty on the part of all who love the Lord Jesus
Christ to love also the race from which He sprang.”
It was then moved and resolved that
the Assembly send to the Chief Rabbi a message of
sympathy. The statement issued in May, 1935, is
as follows:
“The General Assembly renew
their protest against the anti-Semitic spirit which
still prevails in many countries, express their sympathy
with the Jews in their sufferings, and urge their
faithful people to a greater earnestness in commending
the Gospel as the one sure basis of fellowship and
peace among all men.”
Not all statements and protests issued
over this period in Great Britain and Ireland can
be recorded here, but we mention in conclusion two
statements issued by Churches, not yet mentioned.
In April 1933, the following Message
was sent by Dr. Scott Midgett, President of the United
Methodist Church, to a meeting at the White-chapel
Art Gallery:
“All the different branches
of the Christian Churches share the Jewish Communities’
horror of all deeds of violence against citizens, and
especially of such outbursts of violence against any
race or class of society. I feel convinced that
I am interpreting the feeling of the Methodist Church
in stressing our hope that measures will instantly
be taken in Germany in order to prevent a recurrence
of explosions of this nature in the future.”
In 1934, the “Report to the
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in England”
stated:
“There has unhappily appeared
in various parts of the world, notably in Germany,
a recondescense of that irrational and wholly unchristian
spirit of anti-semitism, which from time to time has
disgraced European civilisation. A number of
its victims have arrived in our country, and the Archbishops
of Great Britain have issued a moving appeal for their
relief. But we must do something more. To
quote the News Sheet issued by the International Committee
for the Christian Approach to the Jews: “We
must play the part of the Good Samaritan”.
But that is only one of our objectives. Wise Christian
statesmanship demands that in addition to our relief
activities, we must also endeavour to eliminate the
causes, which create anti-semitism and its victims.
Those who are in a position to know, maintain that
the outbreak in Germany is sure to spread to other
lands. Indeed it has already begun to do so.
We know of attempts to foster the spirit in our own
country. And there are so-called Christians who
attempt to justify it. But note the fact that
anti-semitism is essentially anti-Christian.
No conscious anti-Semite can do homage to Christ, the
Jew.”
The Assembly adopted the following Resolution:
“The Assembly regrets the spirit
of anti-semitism now prevalent in Germany and other
parts of Europe, and urges its faithful people so to
act towards all Jews as to allay the spread of this
spirit.”
On November 20, 1935, the Bishop of
Chichester (Dr. George Bell) moved a resolution in
the Church Assembly. The Archbishop of Canterbury
(Dr. Lang) had to leave to officiate at the christening
of His Majesty’s grandson. He asked the
Archbishop of York to take his place in the chair.
Without a word of explanation, however, his absence
might be misunderstood.
“Speaking simply for himself,
he felt bound to say that he did most strongly protest
against the persecution of the Jews... He was
sure that the continuation of the present modes of
persecution must seriously affect the good will with
which the people of this country desired to regard
the German nation.”
The Bishop of Chichester then moved:
“That this Assembly desires to express its sympathy
with the Jewish people and those of Jewish origin in
the sufferings which are being endured by many of
their number in Germany, and trusts that Christian
people in this and other countries will exert their
influence to make it plain to the rulers of Germany
that the continuance of their present policy will
arouse widespread indignation and prove a grave obstacle
to the promotion of confidence and good will between
Germany and other nations”.
He said he moved the resolution with
great reluctance, as one who had a profound admiration
for Germany, as one who had many friends in that country,
and desired the closest co-operation and the firmest
mutual understanding between Germany and Great Britain.
He was compelled to move his resolution because, as
a human being, he saw a wrong done to humanity in
one great area of German life and action. As
a friend of Germany he saw the hoped-for friendship
between two kindred countries tumbling into ruin through
the prosecution of a policy against a section of its
population, which was unworthy of a great civilized
nation. He appealed to the rulers of Germany
to desist from a course which shocked Christian opinion
in this country in a way to which the nearest analogy
was the oppression of the Jews in Russia by the Tsarist
Government exactly 30 years ago. The hardships
suffered by baptized persons of Jewish origin made
a peculiar claim upon their Christian sympathy and
compassion. There were two points of attack:
the casting out of the Jews from all cultural
and professional life, together with the precariousness
of their position in business, and the defamation of
the Jews throughout Germany. The Nuremberg laws
passed last September were supposed to give protection
and security within limits to the Jews, yet suffering
of individuals increased and the personal attacks grew
bolder. No doubt they saw in The Times not so
many weeks back that prayer was asked in all German
synagogues for protection for the Jews against slander,
with the result that the Chief Rabbi suffered imprisonment
for one day and other Rabbis suffered punishment.
He was sure that great masses of German people themselves
abhorred the policy of persecution. They, too,
must feel as we felt, that it was a great scar across
the fair fame of Germany.
The Bishop of Southwark (Dr. Parsons),
in seconding the resolution, said they had hoped that
the days of the Ghetto had passed for ever. Now
the Jewish people in Germany apparently were being
forced back into conditions which reminded them all
too vividly of the Ghetto. Their whole position,
if it could not be compared with that of slaves, could
be compared with that of helots. An article in
The Times had described the whole policy as a “cold
pogrom”.
Mr. S. Carlile Davis, the German Vice-Consul
at Plymouth, in opposing the resolution, said that
every member of the Assembly would agree that they
should all express sympathy with those who suffered
from persecution, envy, hatred, malice, or any uncharitableness...
The Jewish question, so far as it affected Germany,
was purely a race question, and it was nothing new
in Germany. It was not for us to dictate to any
people how they should handle a race question...
The Bishop of Durham (Dr. Henson) submitted that they
had in the resolution brought before them by the Bishop
of Chichester one of those matters which required
from them as a great representative Assembly of Christian
men a clear pronouncement of their convictions.
One thing which they ought to emphasize was the solidarity
of civilization... The Jews were just as mixed
a race as the Germans they could hardly be
more. This nonsense about race as if
there were some poison in the ancestry of Judaism
which must be guarded against was sheer hallucination
and nonsense. We knew in this country that the
Jews could be as prominent in good citizenship as
any other section of His Majesty’s subjects.
We, who were the children of Christendom, could not
exclude from our minds the vastness of the obligations
under which we stood to the Jewish people. Our
Divine Lord, according to the flesh, was a Jew.
His Apostles were all Jews. The Sacred Book,
which we used was a Jewish Book. It was preposterous,
base and almost incredibly mean that we, the children
of Christendom, should turn on the ancient children
of God, to whom religiously, spiritually and morally
we owed almost everything we value.
“The least we can do,”
Dr. Henson concluded, “is to make it clear from
our hearts that we loathe and detest this attitude
which is obtaining in Germany, and protest against
the continuance of this brutal oppression of a small
minority of Jewish citizens in Germany.” (Loud
and continued cheers.)... Mr. G.F. Lefroy
(Exeter), in opposing the resolution, said that Parliament
itself would not dream of passing it. He moved,
as an amendment, that only the first portion of the
resolution should be moved, confining it to the words
“That the Assembly desires to express its sympathy
with the Jewish people and those of Jewish origin
in the sufferings which are being endured by many of
their numbers in Germany”.
On being put to the vote, Mr. Carlile
Davis’s motion for the previous question and
Mr. Lefroy’s amendment were rejected by very
large majorities. The Bishop of Chichester’s
motion was then carried, with few dissentients.
Some of the Bishop of Chichester’s
words mentioned above could create misunderstanding,
for instance, that he “had a profound admiration
for Germany”. Dr. Bell’s record regarding
the fight against anti-Semitism (as well as in many
other respects) is outstanding. One should note
the policy of deception practised by the Germans:
“The Nuremberg laws passed last September were
supposed to give protection and security within limits
to the Jews...”. That seems incredible,
and yet it provided a pretext for people who wanted
to do nothing. In the discussion on the above
mentioned resolution, one Mr. Lefroy, in opposing
the resolution, said: “Parliament itself
would not dream of passing it. Therefore, why
should the Assembly pass it?” Apparently it escaped
the attention of Mr. Lefroy that a Church Assembly
is not a Parliament, and that a Church body often
can and ought to say things publicly, even though a
Parliament is not prepared to do so, or perhaps for
that very reason. However, the Bishop of Durham’s
speech, in the same meeting of the Church Assembly,
is an outstanding example of how a Christian leader
could and should speak.
The Chief Rabbi, Dr. J.H. Hertz, wrote to the
Bishop of Chichester:
“Your words will come as a ray
of hope to hundreds of thousands whose annihilation
seems to have been decided upon by the Nazi rulers.”
At a meeting of the London Diocesan
Conference held in Central Hall, Westminster,
in 1936, the following resolution was submitted for
discussion by permission of the Bishop of London:
“This Conference, while fully
aware of the difficulties that must arise from the
presence in certain districts of large populations
of people of other religious beliefs and social habits,
asserts that the Jew and the Christian are equal children
of God, and therefore calls upon all Christians to
stand firm against any and every attempt to arouse
anti-Semitic feeling for political or any other needs.”
The Bishop of Chichester was very
active in promoting help for Christians of Jewish
origin. This subject is, however, beyond the
scope of this book. In the summer session of
the Church Assembly, in June 1938, Dr. Bell pleaded
that the needs of Jews and Christians alike should
be remembered. “The Bishop of Chichester
moved: That this Assembly records its deep distress
at the sufferings endured by ‘non-Aryan’
Christians, as well as by members of the Jewish race,
in Germany and Austria, and urges that not only should
everything possible be done by Government aid to assist
their emigration into other countries but also that
Christians everywhere should express their fellowship
with their suffering brethren by material gifts as
well as by personal sympathy and by prayer.”
He said he did not want to speak of
political matters in a country with which they desired
to be friends, nor to attack the leadership of the
great German State. He asked the Assembly not
to make any protest against a system, but to record
its deep distress at the suffering of Christians and
Jews... What could members do?
First of all they must not forget it, but let it be
printed on their memory and never rest while the distress
was unhealed. They must remember the needs of
Jews and Christians alike. It was wrong to separate
the Jews and leave the Jews to the Jews and the Christians
to the Christians. They both made a deep appeal
by their sufferings to all humanity and above all
to the Christian Church.’... First of all
they could pray for the sufferers; prayer from the
heart availed and was a great bond of fellowship.
Next they could feel deeply for and with them until
something was done. Thirdly there was material
help... He asked for their (the Assembly’s)
help and for the help of their constituents all over
England and he asked for the awakening of conscience.
They would not forget and he could not forget that
their Master was a Jew, a non-Aryan. They thought
in their hearts that if they saw their Master in sorrow
they would wish to help him, but it was right to remember
the parable that their Master uttered of judgment
and what He said when He rebuked certain disciples:
’For I was an hungered and ye gave me no meat:
I was thirsty and ye gave me no drink: I was
a stranger and ye took me not in: naked and ye
clothed me not: sick and in prison and ye visited
me not.’ When the disciples in defending
themselves asked what he meant, the Master added:
’Verily I say unto you, in as much as ye did
it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not
to me’. He was convinced that their attitude
in England and in the Church of England to the needs
of those suffering non-Aryan Christians and members
of the Jewish race was the test of their attitude
to their Master himself. It was because of that
that he felt so deeply and that he asked them to give
their prayers and sympathy and their material help.
The motion was carried.
The Bishop of Chichester followed
this move with a plea for more vigorous Government
action in his maiden speech in the House of Lords,
on July 27, 1938. He began with a strong condemnation
of the Nazi persecution:
“I cannot understand
and I know many Germans how our own kinsmen
of the German race can lower themselves to such a
level of dishonour and cowardice as to attack defenceless
people in the way that the National-Socialists have
attacked the non-Aryans.
He then pleaded with the Government
to follow up the initiative of President Roosevelt
by increasing its facilities for training younger refugees
in Great Britain, by providing greater scope for settlement
in the Colonies, and by persuading the Dominions to
open their doors more widely. The Under-Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs assured him that the
Government would do what it could. But Dr. Bell
remarked a few weeks later in his Diocesan Gazette:
“It is almost as hard to understand
the seeming apathy with which the fate of the Jews
and the non-Aryan Christians is being regarded by the
people of the British Empire... These non-Aryans
can no longer be called ‘refugees’ for
they have as yet no country of refuge. We emphasize
the responsibility of the British Empire in this connection,
because the British Colonies and the British Dominions
cover the larger part of the whole available globe.
It seems to us impossible, both on the grounds of
charity and on the grounds of statesmanship, that the
doors can remain forever shut.”
Resolutions adopted by the Presbyterian
Church of England exposed the danger of anti-Semitism
existing in England in those days. In 1937, the
General Assembly stated:
“The Assembly notes with concern
the attempts which have been made to create racial
antipathy against the Jews, with whom the Assembly
expresses its sympathy. The Assembly expresses
its conviction, that in a nation professing Christianity,
no discrimination on grounds of race must be recognised.
The Assembly urges that the freedom accorded by law
in this country to citizens of any faith to live in
peace and pursue their lawful callings shall be specially
safeguarded. The Assembly resolves to send a
copy of this resolution to the Board of Deputies of
British Jews, and to the Home Secretary.”
In May, 1938, the General Assembly
adopted the following Resolution:
“The Assembly urges its faithful
people to encourage every effort to overcome the evil
spirit of anti-Semitism which thing we hate.”
There was hesitancy in the minds of
some about the word ‘hate’, when the Convener
moved this resolution, but the Assembly overwhelmingly
approved of it.
The General Assembly of the Church
of Scotland certainly did not mince words. It
declared in 1936:
“The General Assembly learn
with profound regret that the past year has brought
no alleviation of the sufferings caused to the Jewish
people by the inhuman political, social and economic
persécutions prevalent in Central and Eastern
Europe. They protest against the religious intolerance,
the narrow nationalism and race-pride on which anti-semitic
hatreds are based. They call on the Christian
people of Scotland, in loyalty to the law of Christ
and their own high traditions of liberty and toleration,
to rid their minds of all narrow anti-Jewish prejudice,
and to broaden out their obedience to the Gospel ever
commanding peace and goodwill to all men. The
General Assembly again commend to the liberality of
their faithful people appeals made on behalf of refugee
Jews from Germany and other lands, specially remembering
the Christians of Jewish race who are involved in the
terrors of persecution.”
In 1937, the General Assembly declared:
“The General Assembly renew
in Christ’s name their condemnation of the unabated
brutality still being dealt to the Jewish minorities
in Central and Eastern Europe, and lament that the
protesting voice of the Christian Church has been
so barren of result. They deprecate the attempts
in certain parts of England to create antipathy against
the Jews.”
The statement adopted in May 1938, reads as follows:
“The General Assembly renew
their protest against the virulence and cruelty of
the attacks still being directed against helpless Jewish
minorities in Central and Eastern Europe, and they
affirm that no Church can be truly Christian and anti-semitic
at one and the same time.”
The first reaction to the horrors
of the “Crystal Night” pogroms was a letter
of the Archbishop of Canterbury to “The Times”:
“I believe that I speak for
the Christian people of this country in giving immediate
expression to the feelings of indignation with which
we have read of the deeds of cruelty and destruction
which were perpetrated last Thursday in Germany and
Austria.
Whatever provocation may have been
given by the deplorable act of a single irresponsible
Jewish youth, reprisals on such a scale, so fierce,
cruel and vindictive, cannot possibly be justified.
A sinister significance is added to them by the fact
that the police seem either to have acquiesced in
them or to have been powerless to restrain them. it
is most distasteful to write these words just when
there is in this country a general desire to be on
friendly terms with the German nation. But there
are times when the mere instincts of humanity make
silence impossible. Would that the rulers of
the Reich could realize that such excesses of hatred
and malice put upon the friendship which we are ready
to offer them an almost intolerable strain. I
trust that in our churches on Sunday and thereafter
remembrance may be made in our prayers of those who
have suffered this fresh onset of persecution and
whose future seems to be so dark and hopeless.”
The Archbishop’s letter expressed
“feelings of indignation”, but also reflected
the spirit of appeasement: the British Prime Minister
Neville Chamberlain had signed the Munich agreement
with Hitler, only six weeks before.
On November 16, 1938, during the Autumn
Session of the Church Assembly, the Bishop of Chichester
pleaded that help should be given to Christian refugees
of Jewish origin. In January 1939, he was to urge
“to aid the entire mass of non-Aryans”.
Now the tendency still was to stress the help to Christians
of Jewish origin, not to the Jews in general.
There was one notable exception, in which Jews and
Christians jointly took action, without asking themselves
whether the persons to be helped were Jews or Christians.
Lord Gorell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury
to be joint Chairman (with Lord Samuel) of the “Movement
for the Care of Children from Germany”, in February
1938. This movement succeeded in bringing over
9,354 children from Germany to England. Roughly
nine-tenths were Jewish, and one-tenth Christian children.
“Where a Jewish child was received in a Christian
home which occurred frequently it
was prescribed by the Movement, and accepted by the
foster-parents, that there should be no attempt to
proselytise. The nearest Rabbi, or Jewish teacher,
was put in touch with the child, and if personal contact
was not possible, instruction was arranged by correspondence.
The last transports of the children from Germany reached
England a few days after the outbreak of the war.”
A Joint Statement was issued by British
Church leaders, in April 1939:
“In making the following statement,
we, the undersigned, the Archbishop of York;
Dr. Jas. Black, Moderator of the Church of Scotland;
the Bishop of Edinburgh; Dr. S.M. Berry, Congregational
Union of England and Wales and Federal Council of
Free Churches; the Rev. M.E. Aubrey, Baptist Union
of Great Britain and Ireland, feel that we
are giving expression to the convictions of a large
number of Christians in Great Britain: 1.
We believe that the following is an essential and basic
principle of all
true civilization: Religious
freedom, freedom of opinion and action in
accordance with religious beliefs,
provided that social order is in no
way endangered thereby; legal equality
for all, independently of social
position or race...”
In November, 1938, the Moderator of
the Church of Scotland wrote a letter to the Chief
Rabbi of the British Empire, who replied as follows:
London,
24th No/5699. Dear Dr. Black, “I
am indeed touched by your letter of the 18th inst.
conveying to me on behalf of the General Assembly
of the Church of Scotland, the deep horror of the
suffering inflicted on the Jewish people throughout
Europe. In the agony through which hundreds of
thousands of my coreligionists are now passing, it
is fortifying to read your strong repudiation of all
persecution as unchristian, inhuman and pagan; and
to learn that the love of God, love of fellow-man,
and love of freedom rule with undiminished strength
in little, but great Scotland. I should be glad
if you would kindly convey to the General Assembly
the deep felt thanks of my community for their kind
expression of Christian sympathy with the suffering
of Israel.
The General Assembly commented:
“It is now the duty of the Church
to contrive that the wave of sympathy shall not ebb,
but, while it is on the flow, shall be turned into
the only channel, which, as we believe, reaches the
heart of the Jewish problem. The immediate duty,
however, is to direct sympathy towards practical and
generous action with regard to the gigantic Refugee
problem which confronts the free peoples of the world...”
The following statement was issued
by the Conference of the Methodist Church in Ireland,
in June 1939:
“The Conference notes with grave
concern the growth of anti-Semitism in Europe and
America, and expresses its profound conviction that
this tendency is directly contrary to the spirit of
Christianity. It views with horror the treatment
now being meted out to men, women and children in
Germany on purely racial grounds, and regards with
apprehension the possibility of the spread of such
policy to other countries. It commands to the
sacrificial sympathy of the Church, the efforts being
made on behalf of non-Aryan Refugees both in Eire
and in Northern Ireland, and suggests that they offer
a most effective method of bearing Christian testimony
against the terrible divisions of the present hour.”
11 THE
UNITED STATES
Protestant Churches in America have
protested against racial discrimination in general.
We only record, however, the resolutions and statements,
which expressly denounced anti-Semitism.
On March 22, 1933, American Christian
clergymen and laymen appealed to the German people
to put an end to the persecution of Jews. They
urged preachers throughout the United States to rally
their congregations on the following Sunday for a
united stand against Hitlerism. The summons to
the Churches was sponsored by the Interfaith Committee
and signed by Bishop Manning (Episcopalian), Mr. Al
Smith, the former Governor of New York State (a Roman
Catholic), and others equally prominent.
On March 28, 1933, a mass meeting
was held in New York, Madison Square Garden, attended
by 20,000 persons, as a protest against anti-Semitic
activities in German,000 swarmed round the building
to hear the voice of speakers brought to them through
amplifiers. The meeting followed a day of fasting
and prayer with similar protests being staged in 300
other cities. Former Governor Alfred Smith, Bishop
William T. Manning, and Senator Robert F. Wagner were
among the speakers.
On May 26, 1933, a Manifesto signed
by 1200 Protestant ministers from 42 States of the
United States and Canada was published:
“We Christian ministers are
greatly distressed at the situation of our Jewish
brethren in Germany. In order to leave no room
for doubt as to our feelings on this subject, we consider
it an imperative duty to raise our voices in indignant
and sorrowful protest against the pitiless persecution
to which the Jews are subjected under Hitler’s
rule. We realize full well that there are religious
and racial prejudices in America, against which we
have repeatedly protested and for this very reason
we all the more deeply deplore the retrogression which
has supervened in Germany where so much had been achieved
while we in America were still fighting for human
rights. For many weeks we have waited, refusing
to believe all the reports concerning a State policy
against the Jews. But now that we possess the
irrefutable testimony of facts, we can no longer remain
silent. Hitler had long vowed implacable hatred
against the Jews. One of the fundamental Nazi
doctrines is that Jews are poisonous germs in German
blood and must therefore be treated as a scourge.
Hitler’s followers now apply this doctrine.
They systematically pursue a ‘Cold Pogrom’
of inconceivable cruelty against our Jewish brethren,
dismissing them from important positions they had occupied,
depriving them of civil and economic rights, and deliberately
condemning those who survive to a life without legal
protection, as outcasts, threatening them with
massacre should they make the slightest protest.
We are convinced that the efforts made by Nazis to
humiliate an entire section of the human family, are
liable to cast the civilized world back into the clutches
of mediaeval barbarism. We deplore the consequences
which may ensue for the Jews and also for Christianity
which tolerates this barbarous persecution, and, more
particularly, for Germany herself. We are convinced
that in thus protesting against Hitler’s cruel
anti-Semitism we are acting as sincere friends of
the German nation.”
Speaking of their “Jewish brethren
in Germany”, those 1200 Protestant ministers
apparently had in mind the Jews of Germany in general,
not just the Christians of Jewish origin.
The next statement to be recorded
in this chapter was issued by the Federal Council
of the Churches of Christ in America. This organization
represented the great majority of American Protestants.
The total membership of Churches affiliated with it
was, in 1941-1942: 25,551.560. The Executive
Committee of the Federal Council published the following
statement in November 1935:
“At a recent meeting of protest
against the treatment at present inflicted on Jews
in Germany, the Assembly of the Church of England expressed
the hope that other Christian bodies would join in
this protest. We feel constrained to do so.
We are members of churches which have numerous and
close bonds of union with the German church.
We recognise our indebtedness to the great German preachers
and teachers of Christianity, who have done so much
to enrich our common heritage from the days of Luther
to the present day. After the last war we protested
strongly against the limitations to which Germany was
subjected by the Treaty of Versailles and made constant
efforts for their suppression. For this very
reason we consider it our duty to speak equally freely
now that Germany is pursuing a policy, which threatens
her with moral isolation. We protest against
this policy because the treatment of the Jews is unworthy
of a great nation. To treat a considerable part
of the population as being essentially inferior for
racial reasons only, and to impose restrictions on
the normal life of persons whose families have lived
in Germany for generations, and who have rendered
eminent services in the realms of education, art,
and government, is to violate the codes of honour and
good faith which are the common property of civilized
nations. But our reason for protesting goes far
deeper. We protest against this policy because
the philosophy on which it is based is a heathen philosophy.
Founded on a religious interpretation of race, the
actual treatment inflicted on the Jews raises far
greater problems than any former persécutions
of Jews and other minorities, which were founded on
political and incidental considerations. It is
an attempt of a tribal heathen movement, based on race,
blood, and soil, to separate Christianity from its
historical origin and a Christian nation from its
religious past. All the different branches of
the Christian Church are, therefore, in duty bound
to protest, not only in the name of the human brotherhood,
but also in the name of our Christian faith.
The meeting of protest mentioned at
the beginning of this statement was held on November
20, 1935. The response of the Federal Council
came very promptly indeed. International contacts
between Churches were a factor the importance of which
can hardly be overestimated.
Dr. Charles S. Macfarland, the then
General Secretary of the Federal Council, had had
a personal interview with Hitler in the autumn of 1933.
Before accepting Hitler’s invitation to call,
he was warned that no one was even permitted to mention
the Jewish issue to him. Dr. Macfarland, however,
had made it clear that he was not going there to discuss
Tennyson or Browning and that he would have to be
permitted to choose his own subjects. Word came
that “His Excellency desired me to talk freely
with him”. Dr. Macfarland relates:
“I told Herr Hitler that, in
my judgment, the German Evangelical Church could not
and would not yield itself to his polito-social
theory, including his so-called Aryan laws, and that
if it did, it would not only cut itself off from the
Christian churches of the world, but would cease to
be Christian...”
Dr. Macfarland followed up this conversation
by correspondence. In one letter he wrote that
the near complete hostility of the American people
was deeply ethical in nature and could be modified
only by two processes:
1. “A constructive measure of justice in
dealing with the Jews in Germany,
stopping all continuation of the
boycott, conferring with leading Jews of
high character, and, while still
recognizing the social problem involved,
endeavouring to secure needed readjustments
by friendly measures and,
above all, restoring neighbourly
good feeling between Jewish rabbis and
Christian pastors and among Jews
and non-Jews who live side by side...
I also hope that, by a final settlement
of the Jewish problem which will do
full justice, this barrier between
the German people and the peoples of the
world may be removed.”
Apparently Hitler did not underestimate
the influence of the American Churches: he replied
to Dr. Macfarland’s letters, stating that he
wished “to promote the unity of the Church”,
that he accepted one of these letters “in the
same spirit in which it was written” and that
he thanked Dr. Macfarland for his “candid and
sympathetic appeal”. On June 2, 1937,
however, Dr. Macfarland published an open letter to
Hitler, from which we quote the following:
“You especially demarcated the
church’s “confession” as a sacred
ground on which the State could not and would not
intrude, and I handed you a memorandum calling attention
to the fact that by that confession the church was
supernatural, supernational and superracial and that
the so-called ’Aryan paragraph’ cut right
across the confession; that if the church accepted
it, it would make a breach between the church in Germany
and the ’positive Christianity’ for which
you declared you stood. As previously mentioned,
you replied to later correspondence that you accepted
my appeal ‘in the spirit in which it was given’.
That appeal was for a constructive measure of justice
in dealing with the Jews in Germany, stopping all
continuation of the boycott, conferring with leading
Jews of high character and, while still recognizing
the social problem involved, endeavouring to secure
needed readjustments by friendly measures and, above
all, restoring neighbourly good feeling between Jewish
rabbis and Christian pastors and among Jews and
non-Jews who live side by side’. And I added:
’I hope that this barrier between the German
people and the peoples of the world may be removed’...
What now are the results of my continued study and
how do they appear in the light of your earnest assurances?...
Instead of doing justice to the Jews, you have permitted
them to be harassed and despoiled. Your treatment
of them has been ruthless, without the slightest appearance
of mercy, even reminding one of the infamous edict
of Herod in stretching the hand of violence to the
littlest child. Your attitude toward the little
handful of Jews in Germany and your so-called Aryan
and Nordic ideas have had no little effect in confusing
members of the Evangelical Church, so that, in this
way, you divided instead of fulfilling ’the
desire you expressed to me of uniting the church.
You undermined the most basic ideal of Christianity,
on which unity alone could be secured... I have
been reading a paper called Der Stuermer. Not
only does it explicitly teach and urge hate-hate-hate,
but does it in forms whose viciousness never would
be believed by one who had not seen it. The language
in this paper is too vile for repetition, and its
falsehoods are obvious to any ordinarily informed
person who knows Germany. The best that one can
say of the illustrations is to hope that they emanate
from a disordered, rather than a depraved mind...”
I think that, if Dr. Macfarland had
been a citizen of my country (the Netherlands), legal
proceedings might have been instituted against him
in those days, for “public offence to the Head
of a friendly State”.
The Home Missions Council, early in
December 1937, issued a special Christmas message
concerning Jewish and Christian relations which it
addressed to all Christians of North America.
We quote the following from this message:
“As Christians of the United
States and Canada we desire to express to those Jews
who are the victims of injustice and abuse our sincere
sympathy, and we emphatically declare that such conduct
is utterly alien to the teaching and spirit of the
faith we profess and an affront to all our ideals of
civil liberty and justice.”
The Executive Committee of the Federal
Council of Churches of Christ in America proposed
to set aside November 20, 1938, as “the occasion
when prayer will be sought in the United States for
refugees, both Christian and Jewish”.
The officials of both the Roman Catholic Church and
Jewish Organizations, following the example set by
the Federal Council, designated the same date for
a period of prayer and intercession. The Governors
of about a score of States issued statements or proclamations
urging citizens to repair to their places of worship
on that day for united prayer for the suffering.
The day of prayer was widely observed in all parts
of the country and in all the churches. The
Executive of the Federal Council had issued “an
appeal to all church people to respond generously
to the efforts for the relief of refugees as carried
on by the American Committee for Christian German
Refugees and also by the Catholic and Jewish organizations”.
When the first reports of the new
measures of oppression and persecution of the Jews
in Germany appeared in the press, the Federal Council’s
office invited outstanding Christians, both ministers
and laymen, to express their views and give wide publicity
to them.
Among the lay voices, which were most
widely heard across the nation was that of Honourable
Herbert Hoover, who, in a message telegraphed to the
Federal Council, gave expression to the sympathy of
all thoughtful Christian people. A statement
of Dr. Edgar De Witt Jones of Detroit, President of
the Federal Council, was also quoted in all parts
of the country.
On the evening of November 13, 1938,
the Federal Council of Churches sponsored a national
broadcast over the Columbia Broadcasting System in
which Christian sympathy was again expressed and carried
to every part of the nation. There also was a
national broadcast under the auspices of the National
Conference of Jews and Christians, on November 20,
1938.
On January 9, 1939, a petition on
behalf of German refugee children was left for President
Roosevelt at the White House by a deputation of clergymen.
The petition was signed by leaders of the Catholic
and Protestant Churches. It read as follows:
“The American people has made
clear its reaction to the oppression of all minority
groups, religious and racial, throughout Germany.
It has been especially moved by the plight of the
children. Every heart has been touched, and the
nation has spoken out its sorrow and dismay through
the voices of its statesmen, teachers and religious
leaders. Americans have felt that protest, however
vigorous and sympathy, however deep, are not enough,
and that these must translate themselves into such
action as shall justify faith. We have been
stirred by the knowledge that Holland and England have
opened their doors and their homes to many of these
children. We conceive it to be our duty, in the
name of the American tradition and the religious spirit
common to our nation to urge the people, by its Congress
and Executive, to express sympathy through special
treatment of the young, robbed of country, homes and
parents. A heartening token of the mood of America
is to be found in the fact that thousands of Americans
of all faiths have made known their eagerness to take
these young children into their homes, without burden
or obligation to the State. Working within and
under the laws of Congress, through special enactment
if necessary, the nation can offer sanctuary to a
part of these children by united expression of its
will to help.
To us it seems that the duty of Americans in dealing
with the youthful victims of a regime which punishes
innocent and tender children as if they were offenders,
is to remember the admonition of Him who said, ’Suffer
little children to come unto me’. And in
that spirit we call on all Americans to join together
without regard to race, religion or creed in offering
refuge to children as a token of our sympathy and
as a symbol of our faith in the ideals of human brotherhood.”
Senator Robert F. Wagner, attempting
to implement the clergymen’s proposal, introduced
a resolution in the Senate. Known as the Child
Refugee Bill, it proposed that a maximum of ten thousand
children under the age of fourteen be admitted in
1939, and a similar number in 1940. Their entry
would be considered apart from and in addition to
the regular German quota. The Executive of the
Federal Council supported the Bill:
“In the extraordinary circumstances
which have created the problem of Jewish and Christian
refugees from Germany, we feel that it is not enough
to call upon other nations to help or to voice our
protests but some such practical step as the one here
contemplated is imperative and will do much to facilitate
a larger approach to the problem of which it is but
one part.”
On July 1, 1939, the proposed Bill
was modified: the twenty thousand childrens’
visas would be issued against the German quota, not
in excess of them. Senator Wagner, realizing
that the twenty thousand children’s visas might
become twenty thousand death warrants for adults they
would replace, withdrew his proposal.
In March 1939, the Federal Council
urged the United States to continue to provide asylum
for refugees of other countries in the face of any
legislative proposals to suspend immigration or curtail
existing quotas. Declaring that the Churches
were deeply concerned with the refugee problem and
that “as Christians we have responsibility for
suffering human beings as children of our common Father
wherever they may be”, the Council said:
“We, therefore, urge our government
to maintain its historic policy of friendliness to
refugees. We oppose legislative proposals, which
would suspend immigration at this time or curtail
the established quotas.”
In its objection to any change in
the immigration policy the Council pointed out that
refugees “would be consumers as well as producers”
and added:
“However, even if they were
not an economic asset as well as a liability, we would
still have a Christian responsibility to them.”
In April 1939, the National Council
of the Protestant Episcopal Church issued the following
Resolution on behalf of aid to refugees:
“In view of the persecution
of minorities now taking place in Europe, we, as Christians
and members of the National Council of the Protestant
Episcopal Church, and in keeping with the traditional
spirit of our country, reaffirm our conviction that
the United States should continue to show its spint
of generosity and hospitality in opening its doors
to afflicted people. We commend the program,
as prepared by the Episcopal Committee on German Refugees,
to the interest and support of all members of the Church,
reminding ourselves of our Lord’s admonition:
’in as much as ye have done it unto the least
of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me’.”
The program prepared by the Committee
on German Refugees called for co-operation with local
refugee committees in helping to obtain employment,
in placing children in homes and in obtaining affidavits
of support for individual immigrants. To the
best of my knowledge, there is no other country in
which Churches and Church leaders in those days so
unequivocally demanded asylum for the refugees.
So far we have recorded actions and
statements on behalf of the refugees only. The
following statements also denounced anti-Semitism in
Germany and/or in the United States.
The Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.
stated, at the end of 1938:
“... We are deeply shocked
at the continuance of persécutions based on race
in Germany, Austria, Rumania and other nations.
We sympathize with our Jewish brethren in the United
States, many of whose relatives are the innocent victims
of fanatical hatred abroad. We commend the National
Conference of Jews and Christians for all its labour
to the end that race murders and race discriminations
shall not happen here...”
In its Bulletin (February, 1939) the
Federal Council of the Churches of Christ published
the following article:
The Christian Attitude
towards Anti-Semitism
Every thoughtful Christian must gratefully
acknowledge his spiritual indebtedness to the Hebrews.
We Christians have inherited the ethical and religious
insights of Israel. We hold them with a difference
at one point with a momentous difference
but we can never forget that the historic roots of
our faith are in the Hebrew people. From Israel
we inherit the Ten Commandments, which are still our
basic moral standards. From Israel we inherit
the priceless treasure of the Psalms, which are an
essential part of Christian worship around the world.
From Israel we inherit the vision of social justice
which has come to us through Amos and Isaiah and Micah.
From Israel we inherit even our own unique Christian
classic, the New Testament, nearly all of which (if
not all) was written by Jews. A Christian who
faces the modem world must also be conscious of a present
spiritual kinship with his Jewish neighbours to whom
their religious heritage is still a vital force.
That kinship is grounded in our common faith in the
ultimate spiritual foundations of the universe.
Over against those who adhere to a materialistic philosophy
of life and a mechanistic conception of human destiny,
we recognize ourselves as at one with the Jews in the
first sublime affirmation of the Pentateuch:
‘In the beginning God’. Over against
current disillusionment and despair Christian and
Hebrew stand together in their belief in the one Holy
God Who is the Creator of all and whose righteous
will gives meaning and direction to life. A Christian
who knows anything of history must also speak a word
of confession. For he cannot help recalling how
grievously the Jewish people have suffered at the
hands of men who called themselves Christians.
The record of the treatment of Jews in Europe through
long centuries is one which Christians of to-day view
with penitence and sorrow. One has also regretfully
to admit that the day of cruel treatment of the Jews
by some who call themselves Christians is not yet a
thing of the past. Even in our own country there
are misguided groups which circulate statements that
spread a poison of mistrust and hate which is antithetical
to the true genius both of America and of the Christian
religion. Anti-Semitism is inherently un-Christian,
contrary to the plain teaching and spirit of our Lord,
and it can be asserted with confidence that an intolerant
attitude towards the Jews is opposed by the great
body of American Christians...
But everything which has happened since shows that
what started as a movement against the Jews turns
out to be a movement against Christianity also...
In May 1939, the Commissioners of
the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in
the U.S.A. stated:
“... We confess the sins
of our country in this respect. We condemn the
attacks on Jews and Christians and other minority groups
throughout the world. We would be lacking in
a sense of common morality and decency if we did not
express our strong disapproval of such an outrageous
assault by any government upon an innocent and defenceless
people. We urge our government to continue its
efforts to make generous arrangement for the settlement
of refugees, so continuing our national tradition of
being an asylum for the oppressed of all the nations.”
The General Synod of the Reformed
Church in America, attended by 200 pastors and delegates,
adopted (June, 1939) the social welfare report which
said in part:
“The failure of the Church to
recognize the Jew has behind it a record of misunderstanding,
intolerance and spiritual malpractice that has been
unequaled in dealing with any other people.
Even America is not free from the blight of anti-Jewish
prejudice. Both Jew and Gentile are responsible
for existing conditions and both must co-operate for
their betterment. Christians must rebuke all anti-Semitism...
Third, in reference to the refugee problem, a linking
up of our efforts and agencies with all others in
more adequately caring for those who are so greatly
in need. Fourth, a wholehearted endorsement of
the legislation permitting 10,000 children (refugees)
to be received each year for two years.”
18
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS OF CHURCHES
The World Alliance for International
Friendship through the Churches was constituted at
Constance, in 1914, at the eve of the first world war.
Its supreme body, the International Council, was composed
of some 145 members appointed by the various National
Councils.
In some countries, especially on the continent of Europe,
the National Councils worked in close relation with
ecclesiastical authorities; in most areas, however,
they remained entirely independent agencies, based
on the personal adhesion of their members. The
Executive Council of the “World Alliance”,
at its meeting in Sofia, 1933, unanimously adopted
the following Resolution:
“... We especially deplore
the fact that the State measures against the Jews
in Germany have had such an effect on public opinion
that in some circles the Jewish race is considered
a race of inferior status. We protest against
the resolution of the Prussian General Synod and other
Synods which apply the Aryan paragraph of the
State to the Church, putting serious disabilities
upon ministers and church officers who by chance of
birth are non-Aryans, which we believe to be a denial
of the explicit teaching and spirit of the Gospel
of Jesus Christ.”
The International Council of the “World
Alliance”, at its meeting in Chamby (August,
1935), adopted the following Resolution:
“In view of the pitiable situation
of refugees and stateless persons in Europe, having
regard to the policy of expulsion which is being pursued
by the majority of the European States, to the inadequacy
of the measures for providing refugees with valid
identification papers and residence and labour permits,
and recognising the fact that a turn for the better
cannot be attained by legislation undertaken by individual
States but only on the basis of international agreements,
the World Alliance most warmly welcomes the initiative
taken by the Norwegian Government which, in the spirit
of Fritjof Nansen, has proposed to place the situation
of the refugees upon the agenda of the next plenary
assembly of the League of Nations. It expresses
the hope that in this way it will be possible to secure
for refugees and stateless persons a minimum of individual
rights and, by the setting up of a central organisation
for refugees, within the framework of the League of
Nations, to provide a basis for the settlement of the
problem. In order to make this resolution effective,
the World Alliance resolves: a. to bring the
text of this resolution of the Norwegian Government
to the
knowledge of the General Secretary
of the League of Nations and of all
States members of the League of
Nations;
b. to request the Churches and organisations affiliated
to the World
Alliance in the different countries
to make representations to their
governments in the spirit of the
resolution before the next meeting of
the League of Nations in order to
obtain the support of these governments
for the Norwegian initiative.”
Another International Organization
of Churches, more influential than the “World
Alliance”, was the Ecumenical Council for Life
and Work, which had its first world conference in
1925, in Stockholm, and its second in 1937, in Oxford.
Its purpose was “to stimulate Christian action
in society”. Its President, Dr. George
Bell (Bishop of Chichester) wrote a letter to Dr.
Kapler, President of the Federation of Protestant Churches
in Germany, dated May 17, 1933:
“... We do not wish to
enter into political questions, nor indeed is it our
business to do so. At the same time it would not
be fair to disguise from our friends in Germany that
certain recent events, especially the action taken
against the Jews, have caused and continue to cause
us anxiety and distress; and we feel that we ought
to share our concern with you here...”
The annual meeting of Life and Work
was held at Novi Sad, in Yugoslavia, on 9-12 September,
1933. A German delegation under the leadership
of Dr. Heckel, who supported Hitler’s policy,
was present at the meeting. The minutes record
that representatives of other Churches had expressed
grave anxiety over the severe action taken against
people of Jewish origin. Bishop Bell proposed
that, in addition to this, he should write a letter
to the leaders of the German Church. This proposal
was adopted unanimously. Only Dr. Heckel abstained
from voting. Bishop Bell wrote this letter to
the German Reich Bishop Mueller, on October 23, 1933.
He referred to two features, which were gravely disturbing
to the Christian conscience, namely, the adoption of
the Aryan Paragraph by the Prussian Church Synod
and certain other Synods, and the forcible suppression
of minority opinion. Mueller’s reply of
8 December was intended to be reassuring. The
enactment of the Aryan Paragraph had been stopped,
and he hoped for an opportunity when they might discuss
together the problems of race, the state, and international
order. The Executive Committee of the Ecumenical
Council of Life and Work at Novi Sad issued the following
“Appeal on Behalf of German Refugees” in
November, 1933:
“A new appeal is hereby addressed
to Christians, at this Christmastide. It is an
appeal to help those who are suffering because there
is no place for them in Germany: Jews, Christians
of Jewish origin and political refugees. They
are dispersed in Palestine and in different lands of
Europe. They are in a deplorable situation and
a great number of them are destitute... The gifts
of the Churches will constitute a welcome proof of
that truly ecumenical and Christian spirit which,
beyond all differences of race and class, regards
every man as a brother.” George Cicestr,
President of the Ecumenical Council for Life and Work;
Germanos, Archbishop of Thyatira, Co-President; W.A.
Brown, President of the Administrative Committee;
Waldemar Ammundsen, Interim President of the European
Section; Wilfred Monod, Vice President.
The International Missionary Council
was organized in 1921, to co-ordinate missionary work
throughout the world. Its “Committee on
the Christian Approach to the Jews” met at Vienna,
28 June-2 July, 1937. A report of the Subcommittee
on Anti-Semitism and the Church was submitted, and
adopted in the following form:
“We desire to record our conviction
that in contemporary anti-Semitism we face an extraordinary
menace against which all Christians must be warned.
All forms of hatred and persecution must be deplored
by Christians, and their victims must be succoured;
but there exists to-day a type of racial anti-Semitic
propaganda inspired by hatred of everything springing
from Jewish sources; and this creates more crucial
issues for Christianity than ordinary outbursts of
race feeling. Christian Churches must be warned
that they cannot be silent in the presence of this
propaganda, still less connive at or participate in
the extension of its errors and falsehoods, without
betraying Christ, undermining the basis of the Church,
and incurring the most severe judgment of God.
The Christian Church must let no doubt about this attitude
prevail in the eyes of the world. Realizing that
enmity to the Jews has now become a cloak for the
forces of anti-Christ, and conceals hatred for Christ
and His Gospel, the Christian Church must reject anti-Semitism
with complete conviction.
To realize
its true nature and to vindicate its right to the title
of the ‘Body of Christ’, the Church must
preach the Gospel and open its fellowship to men of
all race, including the Jews. Our mission to the
Jews cannot consistently be carried out without at
the same time combating anti-Semitism among Christians,
and giving more tangible evidence than has been given
of our sympathy with Jews and Hebrew Christians in
their present distress. Anti-Semitism can and
should be combated systematically: 1. By
suitable literature, capable of influencing specially
wide classes,
also by sustained treatment in Christian
Reviews and newspapers.. By occasional conversations, discussions,
and lectures, on the destiny
and the hope of the people of Israel.. By sincere and friendly discussion between
Jews and Christian. By the realization among
Christians of the treasures committed to them
(Christianizing of Christians).”
The same Committee submitted the following
resolution to the Oxford Conference, in 1937:
“The International Committee
on the Christian Approach to the Jews desires to lay
before the Oxford Conference on Church and Community
and State the problem of Anti-Semitism. The
fact of Anti-Semitism is proved, by the ample material
in the possession of the Committee to be of growing
importance and menace in the world. It constitutes
one of the principal denials of modern life of the
Christian doctrine of man. It is an attack upon
the unity of the Una Sancta, it is even a denial of
the person of Christ Himself. It has been largely
instrumental in aggravating existing economic and
social strains until they have become intolerable.
The human misery created, maintained and at the same
time concealed by the influence of Anti-Semitism is
difficult to estimate. Graver, however, than the
volume of human misery is the poisoning of the spirit,
the drying up of sympathy and the warping of judgment
caused by the influence of Anti-Semitism, especially
among the young. Deepest of all is the denial
which Anti-Semitism offers to the Unity of the Church,
and to the meaning of the Person of Christ Himself.
The Committee would further ask the Conference to consider
the terrible fact that this problem is not, like many
on the Conference will consider, that of an influence
external to the Christian Church with which it must
make its account, but also of an evil within the Church.
Anti-Semitism antedates Christianity and it is not
suggested that it is a purely Christian phenomenon,
but it is aided by false Christian teaching and it
results in the appalling situation, present in several
countries where Christian Churches are reluctant,
or frankly refuse, to receive a Jewish convert.
It is plain that where racial and physical
conditions of church membership override the conversion
of heart and will, the Christian religion has ceased
to exist except in a vain form. But this devitalising
influence is present within the Church, not only in
one country but in many, and far more widely than
is suspected. The Committee therefore invites
the Oxford Conference to do two things: in the
first place, realizing that the Conference can make
its voice heard widely among the Churches of all lands
it begs the Conference to speak out clearly on the
dangers of Anti-Semitism to the Church itself and to
recognize openly the total impossibility of a Church
tainted with this form of racial absolutism bearing
any valid witness to the word of God in the world.
Secondly, it asks that in any provision that is made
after the Conference for international Christian study
of the great problems that confront the Church in
the modem world, attention shall be given to this problem
of Anti-Semitism. The International Committee
which has already collected a certain amount of information
on the subject would gladly co-operate in such a study.”
The Oxford Conference (July, 1937),
organized by “Life and Work”, was an event
of major importance. The 425 regular members
of the Conference included 300 delegates officially
appointed by the Churches, representing 120 communions
in forty countries, and constituting a cross-section
of Christendom, with the exception of the Roman Catholic
Church; only some personal observers from that Communion
were present by invitation. Not less than 300
delegates came from the United States and the British
Common-wealth. The Orthodox Churches and the Lesser
Eastern Churches were represented by some two score
dignitaries and scholars. This delegation represented
the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Patriarchates of
Alexandria and Antioch, the Churches of Cyprus, Greece,
Rumania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Poland, the Russian
Church in Exile, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Armenian
Church, and the Church of the Assyrians.
German Church leaders had taken a prominent part in
the preparations for the Conference, but the German
secret police had seized the passports of leading
members of the Confessing Church, including those of
Dibelius and Niemoeller, who had been chosen as delegates
to Oxford. On July 1, 1937, before the Conference
opened, Niemoeller was arrested. Other delegates
of the Confessing Church who still retained their
passports decided that, unless all the representatives
of the Confessing Church were allowed to attend, none
of them would come, thereby demonstrating their unity.
The German authorities must have realized
that the absence of the leaders of the Confessing
Church would make a bad impression on world opinion,
but apparently they were also aware that the position
of Niemoeller and his friends would have been strengthened,
if they had been able to attend the Conference.
The Oxford Conference sent a “Message
to the Churches of Christ throughout the World”.
We quote the following:
“The Christian sees distinctions
of race as part of God’s purpose to enrich mankind
with a diversity of gifts. Against racial pride
or race-antagonism the Church must set its face implacably
as rebellion against God. Especially in its own
life and worship there can be no place for barriers
because of race or colour. Similarly the Christian
accepts national communities as part of God’s
purpose to enrich and diversify human life. Every
man is called of God to serve his fellows in the community
to which he belongs. But national egotism tending
to the suppression of other nationalities or of minorities
is, no less than individual egotism, a sin against
the Creator of all peoples and races. The deification
of nation, race, or class, or of political or cultural
ideals, is idolatry, and can only lead to increasing
division and disaster.”
We also quote the following from the
Oxford Conference’s “Longer Report on
Church and Community”:
“Each of the races of mankind
has been blessed by God with distinctive and unique
gifts. Each has made, and seems destined to continue
to make, distinctive and unique contributions to the
enrichment of mankind. All share alike in the
love, the concern and the compassion of God.
Therefore, for a Christian there can be no such a thing
as despising another race or a member of another race.
Moreover, when God chose to reveal Himself in human
form, the Word became flesh in One of a race, then
as now, widely despised...
Against racial pride,
racial hatreds and persécutions, and the exploitation
of other races in all their forms, the Church is called
by God to set its face implacably and to utter its
word unequivocally, both within and without its own
borders. There is a special need at this time
that the Church throughout the world should bring
every resource at its command against the sin of anti-Semitism...
The recrudescence of pitiless cruelty, hatred, and
race-discrimination in the modern world (including
most notably anti-Semitism) is one of the major signs
of its social disintegration. To these must be
brought not only the weak rebuke of words but the
powerful rebuke of deeds. For the Church has
been called into existence by God not only for itself
but for the world; and only by going out of itself
in the work of Christ can it find unity in itself.”
An immense effort was made, notably
in the Anglo-Saxon world, to bring home the message
of the Conference to the rank and file of the Churches.
The message was referred to by Church leaders when
the fight against anti-Semitism intensified as, for
instance, by the 170 ministers in the city of New
York, 1941, and Rev. Bertrand in France, in his
circular letter of June 11, 1942. Many Church
leaders who were present at the Oxford Conference were
to denounce anti-Semitism vehemently and publicly,
during the Second World War. We mention:
Dr. Visser ’t Hooft, the General Secretary; the
Archbishop of York (Dr. Temple); the Bishop of Chichester
(Dr. Bell); Archbishop Eidem, of Sweden; Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard,
of Denmark; Archbishop Stephan, of Bulgaria; Dr. Samuel
Osusky, Czechoslovakia; the Rev. Marc Boegner, France;
Prof. Emil Brunner, Switzerland; and Dr. Samuel
McCrea Cavert, the United States.
Another statement to be recorded in
this chapter was adopted by the World Alliance for
International Friendship through the Churches, on its
meeting at Larvik (Norway), in August, 1938:
“The Council appeals to its
members to do all they can to awaken public opinion
in their own countries to the great evils involved
in the systematic ostracism and persecution now being
directed against the Jewish race and against thousands
of Christians who have kinship with the Jews.
Whilst acknowledging the weakness, hesitancy and failure
of Christians in this matter, it is appalled by the
growth of racial and religious intolerance throughout
the world.
9 It holds it to be a total denial of faith
in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of men
as revealed in Jesus Christ and it calls upon all
Christians to unite their efforts so that in a distracted
and divided world Christ may be made manifest ’Who
is our peace. Who made both one and hath broken
down the middle wall of partition between us’.”
In 1938, two great Ecumenical Movements
Faith and Order and Life and Work
associated together in forming a Provisional Committee
of the World Council of Churches (in process of formation).
The World Council of Churches was officially constituted
in Amsterdam, in 1948.
On November 16, 1938, Dr. Visser ’t
Hooft, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches,
H. L. Henriod, General Secretary of the World Alliance
for International Friendship through the Churches and
Adolf Keller, Director of Inter-Church Aid sent the
following letter to the member Churches:
“At the moment when the terrible
persecution of the Jewish population in Germany and
in other Central European countries has come to a violent
climax, it is our duty to remind ourselves of the stand
which we have taken as an ecumenical movement against
anti-Semitism in all its forms. The World Alliance
at the meeting of its Executive in Sofia in 1933 and
at its recent Assembly at Larvik in August 1938, and
the Conference on Church, Community and State at Oxford
in 1937 have unequivocally expressed the Christian
attitude on this point and called upon the Churches
to help those who suffer from racial persecution.
We suggest that at this time all Churches should take
immediate action based on these statements. The
most practical action would seem to be: 1.
Corporate prayers of intercessio. An approach
to the Governments of the various countries requesting
that
they should act immediately.
a. in order to allow a larger percentage of non-Aryan
refugees to enter
provisionally or definitely into
the country concerned;
b. to further without delay the plan proposed by the
Evian Conference
for securing a permanent settlement
of a large number of actual and
potential non-Aryan refugees.. Undertake as a Church the responsibility of
the maintenance of some
non-Aryan and Christian families
and particularly of at least one
non-Aryan pastor or theological
student.
We put ourselves at your disposal for further information
on any of these projects.”
We know that Church leaders in the
United States made the requested “approach to
the Government”.
The International Missionary Council
held a large international conference at Tambaram,
Madras, in December, 1938. It reiterated the Vienna
(1937) statement of the International Committee on
the Christian Approach to the Jews on anti-Semitism
, expressed “its deep concern about the
increasingly tragic plight of the Jews”, and
urged “that this constitutes a claim of first
importance on the Christian Church”. It
recommended:
1. That prayer should be regularly made in Christian
Churches, and
particularly on Good Friday and
the Jewish Day of Atonement, for all Jews
and non-Aryans who are suffering
persecution.. That individuals, Churches and Christian Councils
in countries suitable
for the reception of immigrants
should use their influence, wherever
possible, to secure an open door
for refugees.. That Christian people in all countries should
make a special effort to
welcome and help such of their refugee
brethren as arrive in their country.. That an appeal be made in all churches for
help for recognized refugee
funds...”
In January 1939, at the First ordinary
session of the Provisional Committee of the World
Council of Churches, the Bishop of Chichester proposed
that the Council create a special department to deal
with refugee problems.
“He felt that the time had come
to aid the entire mass of non-Aryans. He meant
not only the non-Aryan members of the Church but also
the others, albeit there being a special responsibility
towards members of the Christian Church. Soon
afterwards Dr. Adolf Freudenberg was appointed the
first secretary of this new Department for Aid to Refugees.”
Top Authors
Top Books
LOG IN
Sign Up with ReadCentral.com