wolfgang gerlach, victoria barnett-and the witnesses were silent_ the confessing church and the...

8/9/2019 Wolfgang Gerlach, Victoria Barnett-And the Witnesses Were Silent_ the Confessing Church and the Persecution of the Jews-U of Nebraska Press (2000)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wolfgang-gerlach-victoria-barnett-and-the-witnesses-were-silent-the-confessing 1/319



‘‘Gerlach tenaciously pursues evidence of anti-Jewishattitudes among Confessing Church leaders, and heties these attitudes to their Christian suppositions. Thishelps to establish the overlap of Christian and racialantisemitism. It also helps us understand how the anti-

Jewish policies of Nazi Germany could evoke so little op-position, so much acceptance, and, in many cases, such

ready participation. This book is an important contribu-tion to a very important trend in the historiography of modern Germany.’’ — Robert P. Ericksen, coeditor of

Betrayal: German Churches and the Holocaust.

An endlessly perplexing question of the twentieth cen-tury is how ‘‘decent’’ people came to allow, and some-times even participate in, the Final Solution. Fear obvi-ously had its place, as did apathy. But how does one ex-plain the silence of those people who were committed,active, and often fearless opponents of the Nazi regimeon other grounds — those who spoke out against Naziactivities in many areas yet whose response to geno-cide ranged from tepid disquiet to avoidance? One suchgroup was the Confessing Church, Protestants who of-ten risked their own safety to aid Christian victims of Nazi oppression but whose reponse to pogroms against

Jews was ambivalent. Wolfgang Gerlach is a retired pastor in the Evangeli-

cal Church of Germany. Victoria J. Barnett is a consul-tant for the Department of Church Relations at the U.S.

Holocaust Memorial Museum and the editor of Bystand- ers: Conscience and Complicity during the Holocaust.

University of Nebraska PressLincoln NE 68588-0484

www.nebraskapress.unl.edu



And the Witnesses Were Silent The Confessing Church

and the Persecution of the Jews

b y w o l f g a n g g e r l a c h

t r a n s l a t e d a n d e d i t e d b y

v i c t o r i a j. b a r n e t t

University of Nebraska Press

Lincoln and London



contents

Preface vii Translator’s Note xiIntroduction 1

Part 1: The Defamation of the Jews, 1933–35 91. Church Responses to Early Anti-Jewish Measures 122. Early Church Statements 20

3. Dietrich Bonhoeffer 254. Gutachten and Synodal Resolutions 305. The Pastors’ Emergency League 456. Ecumenical Developments 497. The Aryan Paragraph and the Protestant Press 648. Early Confessional Synods 69

Part 2: The Isolation of the Jews, 1935–38 879. The Nuremberg Laws 89

10. A Divided Confessing Church 9311. The Jewish Question after Steglitz 10012. The Evangelical Church and Its Non-Aryan Members 11413. Ecumenical Responses 130

Part 3: The ‘‘Elimination’’ of the Jews, 1938–45 13914. Reactions to the November Pogrom 14315. Relief Work 15416. The ‘‘Godesberg Declaration’’ 17617. The Aryan Certicate for Theologians 18618. The Final Solution and the End of the Church Struggle 192

Part 4: The Legacy of the Church Struggle, 1945–50 22119. Confessions of Guilt 22320. The Confessing Church’s Record under Nazism 230

Notes 237Glossary 287

Note on Sources 291Index 295



vii

preface

How can we reassess what happened, to keep it from poisoning us and setting a pattern for what is yet to come? —Romano Guardini

This study was accepted in 1970 as a doctoral dissertation by the Evangel-ical Theological Faculty at the University of Hamburg. For years it wentunpublished since it contradicted much of the accepted thought among

veterans of the Kirchenkampf (church struggle) and leading church histo-rians. The issues I examined were considered taboo. My critics accusedme of attacking those who had witnessed courageously on behalf of theChristian confessions and principles of faith. Apparently, some time hadto pass before a new generation could reexamine the accepted history of the Kirchenkampf . Few people were familiar with the documents thatproved that the Evangelical Church’s record under Nazism had been less

than heroic.In the early 1980s, friends in Germany, the United States, and Israel

persuaded me to update the manuscript. Thanks to the editorial assis-tance of Professor Peter von der Osten-Sacken, director of the Institute of the Church and Judaism in Berlin, a German edition was published in1987. A second edition followed in 1993.

By the time of its publication, this study was no longer a novelty in thehistoriography of the Kirchenkampf . My research had long since beenconrmed and supplemented by the ndings of others. The signicanceof this volume today rests more in its collection and assessment of thedocuments themselves than in the intent to present something new.

The title of the German edition, Als die Zeugen Schwiegen, underscoredthe contradictions within this ‘‘confessing’’ church. Publicly and often atgreat risk, it confessed sterile points of dogma, while remaining silent as

Jews and ‘‘non-Aryan’’ Christians were ‘‘eliminated,’’ ‘‘removed,’’ or sim-ply ‘‘disappeared.’’

Yet whoever confesses bears witness, and becomes a witness as well. The contemporary witness who experiences political events differs fromthe theological witness, who bears witness by confessing faith in word

and deed. One of the problems of the church that called itself the ‘‘Con-fessing Church’’ was that it remained silent when it was confronted withthe fate of the Jews. It became a nonconfessing and, in its confessional



Preface

viii

existence, a broken church. This was evident at the very beginning of the Kirchenkampf , when some Protestants attempted to introduce an ‘‘Aryanparagraph’’ into church law and thus ensure the ‘‘racial purity’’ of the

clergy. The Pastors’ Emergency League pledge, the 1933 declaration by Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemöller that launched the Kirchen- kampf , rejected the Aryan paragraph as contrary to the confessions.Every Confessing pastor was required to sign this pledge. Yet the 1934Barmen Declaration did not mention Jews or non-Aryan Christians, al-though it was the founding document for the Confessing Church and, inmany churches today, has been granted the same status as the confes-sional texts of the Reformation. The church’s silence in Barmen charac-terized most of its subsequent statements as well.

Thus, the church remained silent on the witness stand. At a time whenthe persecuted hoped for its witness, it confessed only on its own behalf.It even spoke out when silence would have been preferable—for example,

when it allowed the state to use church records to conrm Aryan ances-

try, thereby abetting the racist separation of Jews from non-Jews in so-ciety and in the church. Only individuals spoke out, helped and hid Jews,often at the risk of their own lives.

The witnesses in the church were silent not only during the Nazi reignof terror but long afterward. Many tried to vindicate themselves by falsi-fying, omitting, or downplaying the record of their failures. They con-

demned studies like this one as arrogant, irresponsible attacks, made by people who had no idea of the pressures on Christians during the Naziera. They argued that an adequate appraisal of the circumstances thathad ensnared people under Nazism was impossible.

This is a problem that confronts all contemporary historians. Nonethe-less, the disadvantages in researching an era not experienced personally are offset—particularly with regard to the Nazi era—by the ability to seesome things more clearly from a historical distance.

This does not mean that I feel detached from the record of my churchunder Nazism, as a German or as a Christian. I am obligated to acknowl-edge the burdens of my German and Christian history—all the more sosince I must assume that I, too, probably would have remained a silent

witness. I, too, would have failed, either out of fear or because my per-

spective had been blurred by traditional anti-Judaism. As former Ger-man president Richard von Weizsäcker said during his 1985 visit to Is-rael, ‘‘Every German bears the legacy of the history of his people—the



Preface

ix

legacy of this history in its entirety with its bright and dark chapters. Heis not at liberty to ignore the dark portions. Honest remembrance givesus Germans the freedom to live up to our responsibility in today’s world.

Only in this way can we master the future, after a past which no one canundo and from which no one can dissociate himself.’’

The English translation of this book is due to the efforts of Prof. Susan-nah Heschel from Dartmouth College in New Hampshire. Grants fromthe Samuel Rosenthal Center for Judaic Studies at Case Western ReserveUniversity and the Cleveland Foundation to Eldon Epp and SusannahHeschel provided generous nancial support. I am grateful to Dr. Den-nis L. Slabaugh for his careful and precise work on the original trans-lation. Doris Bergen and Robert Ericksen carefully read the manuscriptand recommended that it be abridged and revised to make it more acces-sible for U.S. readers. Victoria Barnett took on the task of editing thetranslation, thereby opening the door for a wider audience. I owe deepthanks to all these scholars and colleagues for their help and interest in

making this translation possible.I hope for sympathetic, critical readers and am grateful for any

corrections that advance the study of the Shoah and its theologicalimplications.

wo l fg an g g e r l a ch



xi

translator’s note

Readers familiar with the German edition of this book will notice thatnumerous changes have been made for the English edition; the text has

been abridged and revised. All changes were made for the sake of clarity,and Dr. Gerlach has been extraordinarily helpful in advising the editor.Editorial interjections appear in square brackets throughout the text.

Authorial interjections within quoted material are set in italics within

square brackets. A glossary of terms translated from the German has been added. Two

terms, in particular, should be noted. Throughout this book evangelisch istranslated as ‘‘Evangelical’’ where it refers specically to the EvangelicalChurch of Germany or ofces of that institution; it is translated as ‘‘Prot-estant’’ when referring to theologians, pastors, and other members of that church.

The second term is Judenchristen ( Jewish Christians); some documentsrefer to the same group of people as ‘‘non-Aryan’’ Christians. Both termsreect the Nazi racial laws and the ideology that preceded them (late-nineteenth-century church thinkers and leaders also spoke of ‘‘JewishChristians’’). Under Nazi law, these people were categorized as non-

Aryan or Jewish; the degree of that designation depended on the re-ligious ancestry of their grandparents. As Gerlach’s work shows, conver-sion to Christianity did not protect these people from Nazi persecution.

Gerlach’s wording is followed here; Judenchristen is translated as ‘‘Jew-ish Christians’’ and nichtarische Christen as ‘‘non-Aryan Christians.’’ Thisconveys the tone of the discussion within the church, since the church

viewed the situation of the Judenchristen as both racially and theologi-cally signicant. ‘‘Non-Aryan’’ and ‘‘Aryan’’ have not been enclosed inquotation marks, although the author and editor are aware that theseare ideological concepts, not legitimate ones.

Unless otherwise noted, all translations and page numbers of materialfrom Eberhard Bethge’s biography Dietrich Bonhoeffer , Klaus Scholder’stwo-volume The Churches and the Third Reich, and Bonhoeffer’s Ethics

( Ethik) and Letters and Papers from Prison (Widerstand und Ergebung ) arefrom the English editions of those works. A list of relevant works avail-able in English has been appended to the bibliographical notes.



And the Witnesses Were Silent



1

introduction

During the nal years of the eighteenth century, the new tolerance fos-tered by the Enlightenment enabled Jews in Europe and abroad to attainthe rights of citizens. The domestic reforms of Hapsburg monarch JosephII in 1782 included an edict that substantially improved the Jews’ legalstatus. The constitutions of the United States (1787) and France (1791)contained similar provisions for the integration of Jews in civil society.

In Prussia, equal status for Jews came in 1812 under Chancellor Karl von Hardenberg. Equality was relative; until the First World War, forexample, it was virtually impossible for nonbaptized Jews in Prussia to become ofcers or professors.

Having escaped or outgrown social ghettoization, Jews at the endof the eighteenth century were a major force in creating an urbaneaesthetic culture, epitomized by the artistic and literary salons of Ber-lin. The cosmopolitan air of these salons was new to Prussia and thatmuch more attractive to Prussian artists and scholars. A social and spiri-tual melting process resulted—partly at the cost of traditional Judaism, which had preserved itself for two centuries only through a segregationthat was both socially coerced and religiously chosen. With the growth of secularism, the Torah was left behind in the ghetto. For the religiously

indifferent, at least, it was tempting to exchange the legacy of the Torahfor the pottage of lentils represented by equal civil status.

The contradictions between traditional Judaism and the new enlight-ened spirit seemed to be irrevocable; by challenging the heart of re-ligious belief and launching a process of critical self-examination, theEnlightenment affected Christianity as well. Pondering ‘‘the essence of Judaism,’’ many nineteenth-century Jews could not help but concludethat they had entered a process of ‘‘religious decline.’’ ∞

With the Jews’ growing freedom and the public expression of theirintellectual capacities, there was a powerful outburst of anti-Jewish ha-tred, which had never died out but only been repressed by liberal enlight-ened ideas. The conservative bourgeoisie, with its roots in the romantictradition, was unnerved by the emerging new philosophies that threat-

ened to change economic, social, and religious conditions. Because Jewsthemselves had proved capable of such changes, the political and cul-tural inuence of ‘‘the Jews’’ was regarded as ‘‘subversive.’’



Introduction

2

A number of scholarly and pseudoscholarly nineteenth-century au-thors began to expound anti-Semitism to their contemporaries; subse-quent generations would use these writings to legitimate it. ≤ Various

anti-Semitic organizations were founded during the same period. Theconstitution of the Association of German Students (Verein deutscherStudenten), established in 1881, was receptive to anti-Jewish thinking. The Association of Anti-Semites, founded by journalist Wilhelm Marr in1887, eventually became part of the German Anti-Semitic Union (Marr was known for his book, Der Sieg des Judentums über das Germanentum(The victory of Judaism over Germandom), in which the term ‘‘anti-Semitism’’ appears for the rst time). Among the founders of the German Anti-Semitic Union was the writer Theodor Fritsch, editor of the Hand- book of the Jewish Question, a compendium of anti-Semitic propagandathat was used during the Nazi era.

These kinds of organizations differed from the assimilation move-ment promoted by the followers of Adolf Stoecker. ≥ Stoecker (1835–1909), a conservative theologian and follower of Bismarck, served aschaplain of the royal court in Berlin from 1874 to 1890; he also helpedestablish the Protestant Inner Mission, one of the earliest church social welfare agencies in Germany. His Christian Social party, founded in1878, was ‘‘the most important anti-Semitic organization in the con-servative camp.’’ ∂ Stoecker’s party did not try to agitate against reli-

gious Judaism but treated the Jewish question, in Stoecker’s words, as‘‘a social question in the spiritual and economic sense.’’ ∑ Stoecker con-sidered modern Judaism, stripped of its historically religious context,an ‘‘areligious power.’’ ∏ Although convinced that emancipated Judaismand Christianity in Germany had led to a substantial decline in faith,Stoecker focused on denouncing the cultural and religious decline in Judaism, which, in his view, was attempting to take the Christian peopledown with it. π ‘‘Above all,’’ wrote Stoecker, ‘‘what drove me to this battle was indignation over the godless, anti-church activities of the Berlin Jewsand the conscientious necessity to awaken the Protestant people of Ber-lin from their sleep.’’ ∫ The goal of this ‘‘awakening’’ was not just a moreconscious Christianity but a decisive anti-Semitism.

Such anti-Semitism extended to the highest levels of society. Kaiser

Wilhelm II is said to have been among the ‘‘enthusiastic readers andcorrespondents’’ of the anti-Semitic British polemicist (and son-in-law of Richard Wagner) Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Ω In general, although



Introduction

3

there were certainly some voices of tolerance and reconciliation amongthe aristocracy ∞≠ and clergy, ‘‘the future belonged to the cold fanaticismof the racial theorists. And the hot fanaticism of religious agitators drove

the Christian masses into its arms.’’∞∞

After 1917, the inux of eastern European Jews into the German Reichcreated new problems. They came from a region already viewed by West-ern society as wayward, coarse, and uncivilized; the immigrants’ cloth-ing, language, and lifestyle sparked an uninhibited and malicious cam-paign against all Jews. A 1917 German newspaper expressed its disdain

for the new immigrants as ‘‘riffraff’’ and ‘‘vermin,’’ ‘‘depraved’’ beings who were more like animals than humans. ∞≤ Even Jews whose familieshad lived in Germany for generations had trouble discerning a commonhistory, spirit, or culture with the immigrants from the East. They sensedthat the anti-Semitic sneers at the immigrants were directed againstthem as well; as a result, German Jews themselves voiced hopes for anend to the immigration. ∞≥

Assimilation had opened the doors for Jews to enter positions in the business, cultural, and political realms. In response, there were frequentreferences to the ‘‘foreign inltration’’ of German culture by a ‘‘dispro-portionate’’ number of Jews (despite the fact that only four of the twohundred fty government ministers during the Weimar Republic were Jewish). Terms such as overpowering and inltration (Überfremdung ) werenot so much descriptions as a form of incitement; they lent a sinisterundertone to discussions of the Jewish question. Posing as the strongerparty, the anti-Semites who gathered in the Nazi party disguised theirown inferiority by declaring the ‘‘overpowerful’’ Jews to be Untermen- schen (subhuman). ∞∂ In the German Evangelical Church, the ‘‘GermanChristians’’ [a movement that, after 1933, sought to fuse Christianity and

the völkisch (ethnically nationalist) ideas of Nazism, particularly its‘‘Aryan’’ principles] became the theological expression of such views. ∞∑

In his analysis of the role of anti-Semitism in late-nineteenth-century Germany, the historian Golo Mann makes an astute observation aboutthe dynamics of prejudice:

It would not have occurred to anyone to attribute what a non-Jew did toall non-Jews. Then, too, no one attributed the valuable things that Jewsdid to all Jews either. But if what a Jew did was somehow negative orreprehensible, if it could be attacked in some way— that was typically



Introduction

4

Jewish, that shed true light on Jewish character . . . people blithely forgotall the positive creative performances of Jews, all their contributions toscholarship, to German art, their gifts to the German language. . . . The

true anti-Semite . . . is not interested at all in the truth. . . . He has certain views with which he approaches experience. When experience in some way conrms his views and prejudices, then it is welcome. When it failsto do so, he is indifferent toward it. ∞∏

A number of Protestant pastors succumbed to such prejudice. AfterGermany’s defeat in the First World War, the church had difculty re-

covering from the loss of its close ties to what it viewed as the divinely sanctioned throne of the Hohenzollerns. ∞π Protestant clergy viewed theensuing political and ecclesiastical changes as a cancerlike metastasis brought about by the Jews. During the Weimar Republic, the clergy ‘‘es-sentially fought for the preservation of the old church.’’ ∞∫

A series of study guides on the Jewish question, published during the1920s, illustrated how susceptible pastors had become to the ideas of theracial theorists. ∞Ω In one issue, a Berlin pastor summarized: ‘‘The Jews belong to the Semitic race. Compared to the Aryan race, the Semitic raceis inferior. For the Aryan people, particularly for the German people,contact with them [the Jews] is fatal because of their different ways andtheir inferiority.’’ ≤≠

Writing in the same issue, another pastor declared himself a moderateand vowed to renounce all hatred. At the same time, he understoodGerman bitterness against the Jews: ‘‘It is indisputable: the Jews have become a plague upon our people that we must fend off.’’ ≤∞

There were some exceptions, such as the statements of Pastor EduardLamparter about Christian behavior toward the Jews. Lamparter, a Stutt-gart pastor, was the author of Evangelische Kirche und Judentum (The Evan-gelical Church and Judaism), ‘‘the best-known and most impressivechurch publication against anti-Semitism in this period.’’ ≤≤ Although hespoke of a ‘‘Jewish type’’ with ‘‘certain disagreeable traits,’’ he made anempathetic attempt to do justice to the Jewish situation. ≤≥ He attributedthese ‘‘certain characteristics’’ to the outcome of ghetto life, the experi-ence of living in spiritual and social quarantine, and the long history of

‘‘fanatical pressure’’ and humiliation of the Jews. ‘‘Therefore, it is not aquestion of racial predisposition,’’ Lamparter wrote, ‘‘but of the conse-quences of serious injustice brought about by Christian society.’’ ≤∂ Lam-



Introduction

5

parter called on the church to ‘‘feel its obligation and the courage to bear witness to justice, truth, and love, against the harsh anti-Semitic inju-ries. It is necessary to redress past injustice and to ensure that no new

injustice occurs.’’≤∑

Lamparter’s remarks, however, were an isolated exception. A 1960study by scholar Ino Arndt reviewed the attitudes toward Judaism in theProtestant religious press during the 1920s. ≤∏ There were sixty-eight Prot-estant Sunday papers, with an estimated two million readers (of forty million Protestants at the time); they had a signicant inuence on pub-lic opinion. Since these papers were not ofcial church publications,they did not represent the institutional church, which never publishedany ofcial statement on the Jewish question and anti-Semitism duringthe Weimar Republic. ≤π

Arndt’s research showed that the general public mood during the Weimar era, which blamed the Social Democrats and the Jews for theGerman defeat in 1918, was mirrored in the Protestant press. By 1920,terms such as racial comrade and stammesfremd (of alien stock) were al-ready in use. Even in discussions of the Christian mission to convert the Jews ( Judenmission), there was talk of ‘‘alien races’’ and the ‘‘foreign body in the life of the Volk.’’ The very concept of anti-Semitism was justied by talk of ‘‘correct anti-Semitism.’’ ≤∫ Terminology such as Überfremdung (in-ltration) and Fremdstämmige (of alien heritage) was fueled by the immi-

gration of the Jews from the east; in addition, three prominent corrup-tion trials during that period led to furious polemics in the press. ≤Ω

Between 1925 and 1930, in the churches’ mission to convert the Jews,‘‘the Jewish question shifted . . . from a theological question to a so-ciological and ethnological one.’’ ≥≠ The Protestant magazine Licht und Leben (Light and life) spoke of the ‘‘well-founded revulsion’’ of all peoplesagainst the Jews. ≥∞ After 1926, Protestant publications blamed the Jewishpress for its disastrous inuence on German life. As a ‘‘non-national mi-nority,’’ German Jewry was accused of lacking patriotic consciousnessand of widespread subversive tendencies.

In December 1932, the committee for ‘‘Doctrine and Confession’’ of the General Association of Preachers in Oldenburg drafted nine theseson the relationship between Christian faith and racial research. These

theses protested the elevation of racial research to a Weltanschauung (world view), a ‘‘religion based upon blood.’’ But, the committee wrote,‘‘the church . . . will always have to pay careful attention to the results of



Introduction

6

racial research . . . the irrevocable racial rudiments of his Volk are formedand determined by the hand of the living God in history.’’ ≥≤

Such phrases may have been understood as a relatively harmless act of

reverence toward a racist Zeitgeist (spirit of the times). Still, they were anearly sign of the ambivalence within the German Evangelical Churchabout racial theories—an ambivalence that would prove disastrous forthe church’s debate about the Nazi racial laws and their relevance, not just for church law but for interpretations of church doctrine.

The hopes placed in the Nazi party were too great; Nazi slogans and

programs mirrored the longings of German National loyalists. Insideand outside the churches, people made excuses for the extremism of theNational Socialists, excuses that began very early, with soothing remarksabout the transitory nature of certain excesses. In general, there was areadiness to wait and see what would happen: ‘‘After the end of 1930, ani-mosity toward the Jews became stronger in the church publications. . . .In articles about the Jewish question, the rhetoric in almost all Sunday papers is far sharper than before.’’ ≥≥

Arndt concludes that the Jewish question had ‘‘great timeliness’’ inthe Protestant religious press between 1918 and 1933 and was addressedpredominantly ‘‘from an anti-Semitic point of view.’’ ≥∂ Under the con-tinuing inuence of Adolf Stoecker’s ideas, the close ties between Protes-tantism and German identity led to a nationalism that ‘‘viewed the Jewsas the natural enemy of the national Christian tradition and held themresponsible for the collapse of the Christian and monarchist order.’’ ≥∑

Arndt found that the readers of the Sunday papers—who were pre-dominantly middle class, petit bourgeois, and rural—generally agreed with Nazi anti-Semitism. ‘‘To a great extent, this weakened the moralpower of resistance in this class against the early anti-Semitic measuresof the party.’’ ≥∏ As a result, Arndt concludes, the Protestant press bore a‘‘strong co-responsibility—not to speak of complicity—for preparing theground in which the National Socialist ideology could blossom’’; it hadcreated a ‘‘caricature of Judaism that remained xed in the imaginationsof many readers of the Sunday papers.’’ ≥π

Such caricatures could be found in numerous Sunday sermons as well.

A 1933 sermon given by Basel theology professor Dr. Adolf Köberle illus-trates the anti-Jewish climate fostered by Christianity and its church.Köberle used the stereotypical vocabulary of his age:



Introduction

7

In addition, there is another type of Judaism: the secular, areligious Jew. He has followed the path of outrage against God to its nal conse-quence. In his heart, he has bid farewell to the last bits of faith and

reverence before God. His ideal is the spirit of the French revolution, thespirit of liberalism and materialism, Marxism and Bolshevism, but also, when possible, the spirit of unprincipled Mammonism and the unbri-dled greed of a Caesar-like world domination. He is everywhere wherethere is something to subvert, to destroy, whether it be marriage andfamily, love for the Fatherland or the church, discipline and order, chas-tity and decency, wherever there is something to gain. He is at the

forefront with quick-witted mockery, with clever social gifts, with tena-ciously subversive energy. An atheist is always destructive; but nowheredoes the pernicious power of this attitude have such devastating effectas in the Jew, who has squandered his rich Old Testament legacy andgone among the swine.

It is completely unavoidable that every people begins to defend itself against this corrosive inuence. . . . The persecution and expelling of the Jews follows, and, always, the eerie words that the Jewish people took upon itself long ago on Good Friday are fullled anew, metaphorically and in actual fact: ‘‘His blood be upon ourselves and our children!’’ ≥∫

At the same time, Köberle noted:

Jesus Christ is the savior of the entire world. No people and no race is so

complete and pure that it does not need cleansing through Jesus’ deathand resurrection. And there is no people and no race so decadent and inerror that the vital power of the Gospel cannot create room for itself there. . . . We [Christians] should tremble before the serious judgmentalpath of God toward the mysterious fate of this people, and we shouldopen our hearts wide for a missionary task that ghts unceasingly forthe soul of the Jewish people with calls to repentance and grace: Con-

fess, Israel, the Lord your God! ≥Ω

As the struggle of the German Evangelical Church with the Nazi re-gime began, such attitudes were widespread in the churches. These prej-udices would make any genuine Christian activism on behalf of the Jews virtually impossible—despite stalwart Protestant opposition to Naziinterference in church life and despite the Confessing Church’s ght

against racial guidelines for church clergy and laity. Most Christians saw the Jews as objects of either damnation or evangelization. It would be years before many honorable Christians awoke from the dream of a Ger-



Introduction

8

man Fatherland and saw themselves confronted, in reality, by a tyranni-cal Führerland. Too late, they discovered the courage to sacrice for theirneighbors, including their Jewish neighbors. ∂≠

At the beginning of the Third Reich, however, even church membersand leaders placed a great deal of patriotic trust in the Führer as thesavior of a new Germany who had outlined his anti-Semitic program in Mein Kampf . A song written at the time by Pastor Paul Humburg, who would subsequently lead the Confessing Church in the Rhineland, illus-trated the churches’ attitudes:

The day breaks, the day breaks now! Young Germany stand still!Raise a true hand to the sacred vow!Germany awakens from its need, from strife and its bands;Heal yourself, my only German Fatherland!Heal yourself, my only German Fatherland!

The old order wanes, the old order wanes.From the ruins of war a new spring shines!One man breaks through treason and shame;Millions follow him full of trust.His will and word sweep us to strike and act.His will and word sweep us to strike and act.

The sun rises, the sun rises at morn! We arm ourselves for battle,For sacrice despite the enemy’s hate and scorn.Come, brother, prepare; we march side by side with Adolf Hitler, Germany’s truest son. with Adolf Hitler, Germany’s truest son.

To work, to work! Young Germany dares anew!Our call to battle: ‘‘Germany,’’ unto the death. The Führer calls; we rejoice, ever true!Before us the day! And our fortress is God.Before us the day! And our fortress is God. ∂∞



part one

The Defamation of the Jews∞Ω≥≥–≥∑



11

Within the ‘‘soul of the German people,’’ the groundwork for the exclu-sion of the Jews from German public life had been prepared sufciently by 1933. The church could look back on a long, theologically rooted tradi-tion of hostility toward the Jews. The state stood on the verge of consol-idating its völkisch-nationalist ideas about the Nordic race and the needfor racial purity into a set of governing principles. Given the generalmindset of the German population, the only thing still lacking was theappropriate legislation.

Some church leaders shared the state’s new consciousness. The Guide-lines of the German Christian Faith Movement, published on 26 May 1932, announced:

We see race, Volkstum (ethnic cultural heritage), and the nation as God-

given orders of life, entrusted to us by God. It is God’s law that weprovide for their preservation. (point 7)

We view the mission to convert the Jews as a grave danger to our Volks- tum. It is the point of entry for alien blood into the body of our Volk. Ithas no right to exist alongside the foreign missionary enterprise. Wereject the mission to the Jews in Germany as long as the Jews possess therights of citizenship and, therefore, as long as the danger of mongreliza-tion and the danger that they can disguise their racial identity exists. . . .In particular, marriage between Germans and Jews is to be prohibited.(point 9)∞

The theological and racially ideological arguments had already con- verged. The underlying assumption was that there was a difference be-tween being German and being Jewish—although civil law, at least, stillrecognized German Jews as citizens. ‘‘God’s law,’’ proclaimed in point 7,lacked only legal ratication.

That same year, however, some critics raised their voices ‘‘against any falsication of the biblical Gospel.’’ In October 1932, the District Synod of Elberfeld [in the Rhineland] issued a protest to be read from every pulpit‘‘against any disparagement of and disdain for the Old Testament’’ and

confessed ‘‘Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, who has suffereddeath on behalf of all peoples, without racial distinction.’’ ≤

These two voices, one völkisch Christian and one biblically Christian,



The Defamation of the Jews

12

were early portents for the events of 1933. The chances for an objectiveand humane resolution of the ‘‘Jewish question’’ were still open. Withinmonths, however, any such possibility vanished—in part because of

the rapid implementation of Nazi racial laws, in part because of thechurch’s failure to protest them.

∞

Church Responses to Early Anti-Jewish Measures

Despite the intense pace of Hitler’s early weeks in ofce, it was in hisown vital interest that the policies toward the Jews, as outlined in Mein Kampf , be carried out skillfully. In retrospect, the rapid succession of events between 23 March and 1 April 1933 suggests a calculated drama. The rst step was the 23 March Law for the Removal of Distress fromPeople and State (the Enabling Act), which gave the government the rightto pass laws without the Reichstag’s consent, even when these laws devi-ated from the Constitution. ∞ This set the precedent for the next step, the1 April boycott of the Jews, a deliberate experiment for a law that wouldisolate the Jews from state and society.

the boycott of 1 april

Given the almost universal acclaim in Germany for the Enabling Act, it was easy to justify the boycott of the Jews as a ‘‘defensive reaction againstthe Jewish parasites threatening the Volk,’’ in the words of the ns -Kurier . Where there was reason to fear that the boycott would meet with protest,the Nazi press declared the government’s actions to be the acts of com-munists. The vandalism of the sa was played down as ‘‘revolutionary overzealousness.’’ This did not fail to have an effect among church of-

cials and lay Christians; the fear of communism was great everywhereand needed only to be exploited skillfully by the party.

The Nazi party viewed the outcome of the experimental boycott of Jew-ish commercial, medical, and legal practices as promising. Confronted by the staged demonstrations of the ‘‘powerful people’s movement,’’ which Hermann Göring defended by citing the ‘‘boycott and atrocity

propaganda by the Jews at home and abroad,’’ protest against the boycott was limited. ≤

Here and there, sheltered in diaries, a few quiet voices suffered under




13

their fainthearted church. The respected novelist Jochen Klepper, whose wife was Jewish, wrote:

The silent pogrom today reached a high point with the legalization of the boycott against Jewish businesses, judges, lawyers, doctors, artists. The hatred this sows among young Jews must become terrible. Begin-ning of a new age? . . .

But I believe in God’s mystery, which he established in Judaism; and because of that, I can only suffer under the fact that the church toleratesthe present proceedings. I sense what it means to be a ‘‘servant of God.’’ ≥

There is little evidence of abhorrence within the church for the inten-sifying anti-Semitism. ∂ One such response came from the Rhineland, where Wilhelm Menn, a social welfare pastor, wrote to his superinten-dent, Dr. Stoltenhoff:

The personal persecution of people whose ‘‘guilt’’ consists of nothingmore than political conviction or of belonging to a race, this persecu-tion with the clear aim of destroying their very existence, is a slap in theface of the simplest moral judgment. It is obvious that the masses can-not be permitted for years and years to scream ‘‘To hell with the Jew!’’ without eventually succumbing to this brutal desire for persecution. And our ‘‘Christian Volk’’ rejoices. I have never doubted my people asdeeply as now.

Who will have the courage to say what needs to be said here? To say that the Christian Church . . . clearly characterizes it as a moral injustice, as anti-Christian, to persecute and injure individuals becausethey belong to a group against which it appears necessary, for somereason, to ght. Do we not owe such a statement, above all, to those Jewish people who have become Christians? ∑

Stoltenhoff’s reply exemplied the feelings of most Christians atthe time. ∏ He expressed ‘‘great joy at what these drastic changes have brought us,’’ even while he acknowledged a certain ‘‘concern’’ that ‘‘theindividual’’ could do ‘‘next to nothing against the elemental force of thismovement of our age.’’ Typical, too, was his candid animosity toward the Jews: ‘‘But I must say this openly: I can understand why the legitimateresentment, which has built up even among those who are in no way

anti-Semitic, at what the Jewish-dominated press, stock exchange, the-ater, etc., have done to us needs an energetic outlet.’’ π

In Berlin, General Church superintendent Otto Dibelius felt called to




14

comment on the 1 April boycott. His earlier comments, however, already revealed the inherent conict between his nationalist, bourgeois, andanti-Semitic background and his subsequent role as a Confessing Chris-

tian in opposition to the state. In 1928, Dibelius had accused ‘‘a strong Jewish element’’ of ‘‘propelling’’ Germany’s political leadership in a ‘‘cal-culated and malignant’’ direction. ∫ That same year, he sent an Eastermessage to the pastors in his district:

My dear brothers! All of us will not only understand but have complete sympathy for

the nal motivations behind the völkisch movement. Despite the evilring that the word has acquired in many cases, I have always consideredmyself an anti-Semite. It cannot be denied that Judaism plays a leadingrole in all the corruptive phenomena of modern civilization.

God bless us Christians and our Easter proclamation! Ω

Dibelius’s commentary on the 1 April 1933 boycott appeared in the

4 April Berlin Evangelische Sonntagsblatt : ‘‘The last fteen years in Ger-many have strengthened Jewry’s inuence to an extraordinary degree. The number of Jewish judges, Jewish politicians, Jewish civil servantsin inuential positions has grown measurably. Public sentiment turnsagainst this.’’ ∞≠

Meanwhile, foreign interest in the ominous events in Germany had been awakened. The tone of press and radio reports abroad was quitedifferent from that of reports within the Reich. In Germany, however,elation about the new tough government, the national ‘‘breakthrough,’’and the vote of condence in the new Führer led even church leaders tocriticize these foreign reports as ‘‘typical’’ statements of ‘‘inammatory Jewish propaganda.’’

Dibelius responded to the foreign press coverage in a radio speech that was reprinted in the 6 April 1933 Reichsanzeiger :

There is not one true word in the ghastly news reports about the grue-some and bloody treatment of the Communists. On the basis of thesefalse reports, the Jewish community in several countries has begunagitating against Germany. In order to break this boycott, the GermanNational Socialists have now initiated a boycott movement against Ger-

man Jewry. This boycott has been limited, for the present, to one singleday; it has proceeded with absolute calm and order. There has been only one single bloody incident, in Kiel. In Berlin and in the rest of the Reich,




15

nothing of the same nature has occurred. The boycott has been lifteduntil further notice. The government desires to wait and see what hap-pens in the outside world in the coming days.

In addition, a government operation is under way to remove the Jewsfrom public administration, particularly the judiciary. Jews in Ger-many make up not even one percent of the population. The proportionshere should become again what they were previously. The ChristianChurch stands for chivalry and love. The Church fervently wishes thatthe hour may soon come when violence is no longer necessary, but in which the newly ordered life of the state allows room for love and jus-

tice. That will depend on whether the foreign agitation against Ger-many stops or not. For this reason, as a servant of my church, I sincerely and urgently ask my Christian friends in America to use their inuenceso that false news reports about Germany are no longer disseminatedand believed. ∞∞

On 9 April, Dibelius issued a similar statement in a Berlin churchnewspaper. One should not get excited, he said, about minor excesses:‘‘Undisturbed, Jewish rms are open for business, newspapers in Jewishhands are being published without hindrance, and public calm andorder prevail.’’ ∞≤ Dibelius blamed the uproar over the boycott on ‘‘Jewry’sinternational connections’’ and predicted that ‘‘when German Jewry be-comes economically threatened, the overseas agitation will end thatmuch sooner.’’ He recommended closing Germany’s eastern border

against eastern Jews as a protective measure and appealed to the Ger-man ‘‘steadfastness . . . that will not succumb to an alien race.’’ ∞≥

Dibelius’s opinion was not just inuential at the time; after 1945, heserved as bishop of Berlin-Brandenburg and later became president of the Evangelical Church of Germany. How, in retrospect, did he view hisearlier comments? In 1965, Bishop Dibelius, who claimed that he ‘‘neverhad anything to do with an aggressive anti-Semitism,’’ ∞∂ answered my personal inquiry:

And if there are some who wish to place me in the dock together withthe actual anti-Semites, then they may do so without hesitation. I havenever made a secret of my attitude: as in most families of higher-ranking civil servants in the old Germany, there was no discussion inour home about the problem of Judaism. But one bought from Jews only in an emergency ∞∑ and avoided personal contact with them as a matterof course. Not due to hostility, but because one sensed, after all, theforeignness in their nature. . . .




16

After 1933, the situation changed. For it goes without saying that theProtestant Christian stands by those who are treated unjustly and vio-lated. It has always been a matter of satisfaction to me that I succeeded

in saving two Jewish families through the entire period of persecution,and, indeed, at some risk to my own freedom. ∞∏

Dibelius’s candor reected both the nationalist anti-Semitism of hisage and his ‘‘Christian ethics’’ concerning the persecuted. He exempli-ed the many Christians who did not lack the courage to stand up for the Jews but lacked insight into the consequences of anti-Jewish sentiment.

The language of ideology spoke of ‘‘Jewry’’; the language of ethics fo-cused on the individual Jew. However he later justied it, Dibelius’s atti-tude toward the Jews can be considered representative of German Chris-tianity at the beginning of 1933.

Dibelius was not the only church leader to respond to foreign protestsagainst the 1 April boycott. The German Reformierte Kirchenzeitung (Re-

formed Church newspaper) scolded the presbytery of the Amsterdam-South parish, which had asked the Dutch Council of Churches to protestthe persecution of the Jews in Germany: ‘‘This step on the part of ourfriends is more than superuous. What has happened in Germany is notthe persecution of the Jews but an emergency measure, lasting only a few days, during which every act of violence has been carefully avoided. Thefact that this measure was forced upon us by the behavior of the foreign Jewish press is one that no one regrets more than we Christians in Ger-many, and we are satised that, when the campaign of lies ceases, the boycott of the businesses of our Jewish fellow citizens will cease as well.’’∞π

The same paper dismissed accounts that had appeared in a Scottishchurch paper ( Scots Observer), which reported that religious persecu-tion had forced thousands of Jews to leave Germany. In truth, wrote the Reformierte Kirchenzeitung , only east European Jews were forced intoemigration, ‘‘and the only Jews emigrating voluntarily—such as EmilCohn Ludwig, Leon Feuchtwanger, Einstein, and others like them—arethose who see that, in a newly respectable Germany, they will lose theireffectiveness.’’∞∫

It is difcult to form a complete picture of the 1 April boycott’s effects onthe German public. The brutality of the outrages against Jews and Jewish




17

businesses was covered up by party ofcials; few people dared to show public solidarity with the Jews. Organized protests failed to occur.

A few isolated protests emerged from the ranks of the Evangelical

Church. One was sent to the Church Federation ofce in Frankfurt by church councilman Johannes Kübel. By keeping silent, he said, thechurch had become an accomplice, whereas it should have raised theloud voice of Christian conscience. ∞Ω In other parts of the country, churchadministrations received inquiries as to whether and how the churchshould react to the anti-Semitic campaigns.

All these protests, however, remained within the channels of internalchurch correspondence. Little reached the public. Church historianKlaus Scholder has concluded, correctly: ‘‘The Church as a whole re-mained silent. In the decisive days following April 1, no bishop, nochurch administration, and no synod objected publicly to the persecu-tion of the Jews in Germany.’’ ≤≠

a legisla tive foundation fo r pe rsecution

Some in Germany insisted on viewing the events of 1 April as the sponta-neous action of fervent Nazis and a harmless expression of public opin-ion. Since the boycott was not written law, they maintained, there was noofcial policy of persecution against the Jews. Within one week of the boycott, however, the legislative foundation for such a policy had been

laid: the Reich Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service. Incontrast to the church laws that followed, this Reich law is seldom re-printed. ≤∞ Because of its relevance to our subject, essential passages—including its statutes of implementation—are quoted here:

Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service (7 April 1933),Section 3:

1. Civil servants who are not of Aryan extraction are to be retired; inso-far as honorary civil servants are concerned, these are to be dismissedfrom their ofces.

2. Paragraph 1 does not apply to civil servants who were already civilservants on 1 August 1914, or who have fought on the front in the world war for the German Reich or for its allies, or whose fathers or sons werekilled in action. Further exceptions can be authorized by the Reich inte-rior minister, in agreement with the responsible departmental minis-ter, or, abroad, by the highest regional authorities for civil servants.




18

First Decree on the Implementation of the Law (11 April 1933), Section 2:

1. Whoever is descended from non-Aryan, particularly Jewish, parentsor grandparents is considered non-Aryan. It is sufcient if one parent orone grandparent is non-Aryan. This is to be assumed particularly if oneparent or one grandparent has belonged to the Jewish religion.

2. If a civil servant was not a civil servant as of 1 August 1914, he isrequired to prove that he is of Aryan descent, a front-line soldier, or theson or father of a soldier killed in action in the world war. Proof is to befurnished through the presentation of ofcial documents (birth certi-

cate and marriage certicate of the parents, military papers).

3. If Aryan descent is in question, then an expert opinion is to be pro-cured from a specialist in racial research appointed by the Reich inte-rior minister.

Third Decree on the Implementation of the Law (6 May 1933), Section 3:

1. The stipulations for descent in section 3 also apply to the descendantsof extramarital relationships. The adoption of a child does not con-stitute a parent-child relationship as dened by section 3.

Law against the Overcrowding of German Schools and Universities (25 April 1933), Section 4:

1. During the enrollment of new students, it must be observed strictly that, among the total number attending each school and department,the number of Reich Germans who are not of Aryan descent, as estab-lished by the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service of 7 April 1933, does not exceed the percentage of non-Aryans in the popu-lation of the German Reich. The numerical proportion shall be deter-mined uniformly for the entire territory of the Reich.

2. Likewise, in the reduction in the number of pupils and studentspursuant to section 3, a commensurate relationship between the totalnumber attending and the number of non-Aryans is to be established. Inthis case, a higher proportion, deviating from the numerical propor-tion, can be established as a basis.

3. Preceding paragraphs 1 and 2 do not apply to Reich Germans of non-

Aryan extraction whose fathers have fought at the front for the GermanReich or for its allies, or to the offspring of marriages contracted beforethe effective date of this law, if one parent or two grandparents are of




19

Aryan origin. Nor shall these groups be considered in the computationof the numerical proportion and the numerical relationship (estab-lished in paragraphs 1 and 2). ≤≤

The laws against Jews in the professions contained the same restric-tions. Since the total number of Germans working in professions outsidethe civil service was greater than those within it, the percentage of non- Aryans exempted from the new restrictions was higher in the privatesector. In 1933, 336 (47 percent) of the 717 non-Aryan judges and stateattorneys could retain their positions, as well as nearly 70 percent of the

4,505 non-Aryan lawyers and 75 percent of the 45,000 non-Aryan doctorsserving in the public health insurance system. ≤≥

Although the proportion of non-Aryan students affected by these de-crees was smaller, anti-Semitism among teachers in some schools was so virulent that the Prussian minister for culture and science, BernhardRust, issued a call for order in May 1933. Noting that some school direc-tors had already ‘‘excluded students of non-Aryan descent and even cit-izens of foreign countries,’’ Rust announced that ‘‘such procedures arenot permissible’’ and insisted that those students ‘‘unjustly excluded . . . be immediately readmitted.’’ ≤∂

The Reich Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service didnot affect the clergy, religion teachers, or theological faculty. Yet, like theschool directors admonished by Rust, there were already some Protes-

tants who believed that the church should voluntarily comply with thenew Aryan regulations.

In the spring and summer of 1933, however, the German EvangelicalChurch had other concerns. A movement to unite the regional churchesinto a national Reich Church was gaining support. Different factions were maneuvering behind the scenes to select the rst Reich bishop and

seize the leadership of the various regional churches in the rst nationalchurch elections. Underlying all these developments was the burningissue of whether the church of Jesus Christ could alter its doctrine toconform to racial ideology. The position of the German Christian FaithMovement was clear. It was now up to the rest of the German EvangelicalChurch to take a stand.



20

≤

Early Church Statements

Despite its silence about the 1 April boycott, there were early signs thatthe church would resist any attempt to alter church law. On 5 May 1933the Regional Church Government in Kassel sent a statement to the cen-tral German Evangelical Church Committee in Berlin. ∞ Titled ‘‘To theConscience of the Evangelical Church,’’ it deplored the fact that thechurch and its members, like professional associations and organiza-tions, private clubs and lodges, sportsmen’s and private garden clubs,had succumbed to the pull of Nazi Gleichschaltung (the synchronizationof all levels of German life to bring them under Nazi control). The authorsrecognized that ‘‘regulation of the ‘Jewish question’ ’’ was clearly beingcarried out on the basis of the 1920 National Socialist party program.

From the church’s perspective, the most important section of the 1920program was article 24, which protected religious freedom as long asit didn’t ‘‘conict with the manners and moral sentiments of the Ger-manic race.’’ ≤ One of the rst to see through article 24 had been Her-mann Sasse, the former editor of the church yearbook. ≥ The clear-sightedKassel church ofcials agreed with Sasse and appealed to the consciencesof their fellow Christians: ‘‘The Evangelical Church must be reproachedstrongly for not putting an end to the persecution of its own children in

the faith—indeed, for giving its blessing from the pulpit to those who are working against its own children in the faith . . . and for banishing peopleof the same faith, with whom they joined in worship, before the church’s very doors as though they were mangy dogs.’’ ∂

The letter described the ofcial party distinction between Jews andnon-Aryans. Protestant or Roman Catholic Christians whose parents orgrandparents were either practicing Jews or had converted to Chris-tianity were considered non-Aryan. According to the party, even non- Aryans baptized as Christians were Jewish; in the terminology of thetime, ‘‘blood comes before faith.’’

The concern of the Kassel letter was limited to ‘‘members of the Evan-gelical Church—baptized Jews and the so-called non-Aryans.’’ The Kassel writers believed that observant Jews were being cared for sufciently by

their own religious community. Jews were still allowed to practice theirfaith in the synagogue; non-Aryan Christians, however, had been left onthe church’s doorstep:




21

Why is it [the Scripture] not valid for those who are Jews according to birth and belief ? Because these Jews, in contrast to the non-Aryans and baptized Jews so degraded today, have one genuine consolation: they

can pray to their God in their church. They have a religious community that helps them bear their trial. In the prayer that their priests taughtthem, they can call upon their God to whom their fathers prayed indifcult times. Though the material and spiritual injury endured by these German citizens—banished and rendered second-class human be-ings because of their blood—be ever so great, they have the right and theopportunity to pray to their God. They have their communion beforeGod; they have their holy sanctuary in their temple, in which they canpray. . . . They trust in the foundation of their faith. With the non-Aryans,it is different . Like the Jews, they are excluded from the ranks of ‘‘full’’citizens of the state. But in the church to which they belong, they seek consolation in vain. . . . The Evangelical Church to which they belong,the faith in which they were baptized, conrmed, and married—the

church that wanted to prepare them for the path to God—that samechurch expels them by meekly tolerating their expulsion from the ranksof fellow believers. . . . God is held up as the partisan defender of a groupdened by blood. Where shall the Protestant ‘‘non-Aryan’’—where shallthe Protestant Jew nd hope in faith? ∑

The Kassel writers called their church government to account because

it had declared its solidarity with the party and the state and soughtracial separation instead of conrming the bonds of faith. Finally, theKassel writers attempted to arouse the church’s conscience on behalf of the Jewish and non-Aryan brethren:

Despised and proscribed—betrayed by their own church—robbed of their God—they also stand before the collapse of their material exis-

tence.Not—because they may have worked against God;not—because they may have revolted against the state, against Volk

and Fatherland;not—because they were criminals and deceivers;not—because they were political enemies of other comrades, but only because their own brothers and sisters in the faith expelled

them from God’s promised community due to a drop of blood, anddisowned the confession of their Evangelical Christian faith—becausetheir Führer, because their church, encouraged them to do so. ∏




22

One week after the Kassel petition, in the Niederdeutsche Kirchenzei- tung , the Young Reformation Movement published its principles regard-ing the reorganization of the Evangelical Church. The seventh point

stated: ‘‘We confess our faith in the Holy Spirit and, therefore, we rejectas a matter of principle the exclusion of non-Aryans from the church; forthis is based upon a confusion of state and church. The state has to judge;the church has to save.’’ π

One response to this statement came from a non-Aryan Christian, adistrict court director named Sello; his statement illustrated the per-spective of someone directly affected by the new measures. ∫ Sello distin-guished between those ‘‘born’’ into the church and those who had been baptized as converts or in the attempt to seek refuge. In light of theincreasing numbers of ‘‘illicit baptisms,’’ he warned, the church must be wary of ‘‘opportunistic proselytes’’! Yet the church could not treat non- Aryan members who had been baptized as infants differently from its Aryan members. This was particularly important since ‘‘the break with Judaism has not only a religious effect, but, for devoutly religious people,means separation from the Jewish community, which likewise has itsroots in congregational life.’’ Sello assumed that only the state was tryingto implement the Aryan paragraph; he failed to see that the church hadalready fallen into a maelstrom of complicity with state-decreed hos-tility toward the Jews.

Amid the general euphoria of the early months of National Socialism,the Kassel statement went unheard. In contrast, the Young ReformationMovement, because of the prominent names associated with it, Ω couldcount on more attention, particularly since a ‘‘theological truce’’ stillprevailed within its ranks. ∞≠ Nonetheless, the multitude of groups, as-sociations, brotherhoods, and assemblies paralyzed the willingness of many individual Christians to make a decisive commitment. In the end,the different movements neutralized one another.

Of the various statements published on the question of the non-AryanChristians in 1933, some were clear and unmistakable. Old Testamentscholar Wilhelm Vischer delivered an important lecture before the Con-ference of Brethren in Lippe on 30 April 1933. The organizers of theconference had asked: ‘‘Does the Old Testament still have guiding signi-

cance for Christians at present?’’ Protesting the very notion of separatingthe New Testament from the Old, Vischer replied: ‘‘The tribe of the Jewsfrom which Jesus comes . . . cannot become one nation like the other




23

nations, even after the Crucixion of Jesus. The history of the Jews is aspecial mystery of God. With the Jews, God desires to fulll the work of reconciliation begun with the calling of Israel (Rom. 9:11). The Jewish

question is therefore not a racial question, but a question about God.’’∞∞

Although Vischer could have conned himself to an Old Testamentanalysis of the question (as most of his Old Testament colleagues did atthe time and later), he did not evade the Jewish question. He even ap-pended a short article, ‘‘On the Jewish Question,’’ to his remarks, since ‘‘aparticipant at the Conference of Brethren had suggested that I could

have kept this offensive addition to myself in an otherwise so edifyinglecture on the enduring signicance of the Old Testament.’’ In this ap-pendix, Vischer elaborated on his remark that the Jewish question con-cerned the mystery of God, which human beings could not unveil by escaping into intrinsically racist solutions that could only lead ad ab- surdum. Vischer noted:

Does not the hatred that breaks forth repeatedly from both sides . . .indicate that the roots of the Jewish question lie deeper than in racialdistinctions? Whoever wanted to insist that the Jews might be a racedistinct from the Germans and, therefore, that the Jewish questionmight be a racial question would be arguing as facetiously as a husband who, in experiencing difculties with the wife joined to him in wed-lock, now wants to claim that he is experiencing the woman question because his wife is a woman. . . . The relationship of the peoples of the world to the Jews is something fundamentally different from, for exam-ple, the relationship of white Americans to the Negroes. ∞≤

Several other noteworthy statements from 1933 show that Vischer’sperspective was shared by others in the church. An Appeal from Student Youth demanded ‘‘that everyone, without distinction as to status andrace, can be a member of the church.’’ ∞≥ The Testimony and Confession of Westphalian Pastors—with one hundred signatures, headed by that of Pas-tor Ludwig Steil (who later died in Dachau for his opposition to Nazism)—repudiated ‘‘the equation of the mission to the Jews with the missionto the Gentiles, because of Israel’s position in salvation and eschatologi-cal history,’’ and condemned ‘‘every division of the church that seeks the

separation of Jewish Christians from . . . Gentile Christians.’’ ∞∂ The Teck-lenburg Confession observed that the German Christians’ theologicaltreatment of non-Aryan Christians undermined the validity of the sacra-




24

ments: ‘‘Through the exclusion of Jewish Christians from the Germanchurch after they have given up their fatherland for the sake of Christ,the sacrament of baptism is distorted and destroyed. In the wish to admit

those who are racially different only as ‘guests’ to the Eucharist, thissacrament is destroyed as well.’’ ∞∑

Despite these various proclamations, most within the church were pre-occupied with ‘‘church matters’’ and dealt only marginally with thechurch’s Jewish members and the Jewish question. Nonetheless, two em-inent professors spoke out: Martin Buber to his fellow Jews, and ProfessorHans Ehrenberg (who, as a non-Aryan, would himself fall victim to the Aryan paragraph) to Christians. At a time when ‘‘German Jews . . . areconfronted by the universal fate of the Jews,’’ Buber summoned his fel-low believers ‘‘to face this confrontation faithfully, that is, through suf-fering. . . . What happens to us, even if it strikes us in our very marrow, isnot decisive. What is decisive is how we conduct ourselves with regard to

it, what we make out of it, what it makes out of us.’’ ∞∏ Buber insisted on‘‘loyalty to our calling,’’ a commitment to ‘‘solidarity with the One whocannot be named, dependence on the One who binds. . . . The importantfact, that this hour is a test for Christianity, has nothing to do with us; what matters to us is that it is an ordeal of re for Judaism.’’ ∞π

In his ‘‘Seventy-Two Guiding Principles on the Jewish Christian Ques-

tion,’’ Hans Ehrenberg acknowledged that the times were trying forChristianity as well. ∞∫ The Bochum pastor, author of important scholarly Gutachten (expert opinions), especially on the topic of the ‘‘Church andIsrael’’, had inuenced the Confession of Westphalian Pastors men-tioned above. ∞Ω Now he successfully reminded the Reformation church of the relation between Judaism and Christianity. Jews and Christians, he wrote, were interrelated and dependent on each other, for better or worse [sic ]. Christianity was a question for the Jew; Judaism was a ques-tion for the Christian. If the conict inherent in these questions wasdetached from Buber’s ‘‘One who cannot be named,’’ the point of refer-ence for each tradition was lost. If Jews and Christians replaced their dif-ferences of belief with hatred, or temporarily united in common causeagainst a third party (the non-Aryan Christian), then the guilt of both

would be immeasurable.Ehrenberg’s theses appeared in the summer of 1933—shortly before

the bitter debate about the Aryan paragraph broke out within the Evan-



Dietrich Bonhoeffer

25

gelical Church. Proposed by the German Christians and their supportersat the September 1933 National Synod, the Aryan paragraph barredeveryone ‘‘of non-Aryan extraction, or [who] is married to a person of

non-Aryan extraction,’’ from the ministry. ‘‘Non-Aryan extraction’’ wasdened according to the ‘‘provisions of the Reich laws’’ that excludednon-Aryans from the civil service.

The controversy over the Aryan paragraph ignited the German churchstruggle (the Kirchenkampf ) and threatened to split the German Evangeli-cal Church. Today, some scholars nd it ‘‘inconceivable’’ that, ‘‘after his[Ehrenberg’s] pioneering witness, there could be any debate about the Aryan paragraph at all. It is inconceivable that the Confessing Church, with this document in hand, . . . was unable to nd a saving word forIsrael.’’≤≠ Ehrenberg had set the standard for his church in thesis 59: ‘‘Thechurch of the Reformation in Germany stands or falls in 1933 on thetemptation to separate the Jewish Christians—completely or in part—from itself. In the nal phase of the church conict, the Jewish Christianquestion will be the symbol and heart of that conict.’’ ≤∞

≥

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

As early as 14 April 1933, Bonhoeffer wrote his friend Erwin Sutz that

‘‘the Jewish question has caused the church no end of trouble; here, themost sensible people have lost their heads and their entire Bible.’’ ∞ His words may have sounded arrogant at the time, but events were to proveBonhoeffer correct.

It is difcult to measure how much Bonhoeffer’s public stand andattitudes toward the Jews were motivated by personal considerations. Two of those closest to him—his brother-in-law, Gerhard Leibholz, andhis friend and colleague Franz Hildebrandt—were non-Aryan. Leibholz was threatened by the state’s anti-Jewish legislation; Hildebrandt would be affected by the church measures.

Bonhoeffer’s own personality probably helped him become free of prejudice to a breathtaking degree. ≤ As a result, he became increasingly isolated from his friends and his church over the years. Emotional and

theological prejudices led ‘‘the most sensible people’’ to lose ‘‘their headsand their entire Bible.’’

Even before the 1 April boycott of the Jews, Bonhoeffer had worked on




26

six theses about the problem of the church and the Jews; these were written for the Berlin church study group led by Pastor Gerhard Jacobi. ≥

Bonhoeffer used the denition of Jewish Christianity that had originated

with Paul: since the ‘‘people’’ of Israel had been established by the ‘‘Law of God,’’ not by race, one could not become a racial Jew. Bonhoeffer con-cluded that one could become a Jew only through acceptance of the Law:‘‘Thus, from the perspective of the Church of Christ, it is not the people of Jewish race baptized as Christians who belong to Jewish Christianity;rather, the Jewish Christian is one who lets membership in the people of God, the Church of Christ, be determined by compliance with a divinelaw. In contrast to this, Gentile Christianity recognizes no preconditionfor membership in the people of God, in the Church of Christ, other thanthe call of God through God’s Word in Christ.’’ ∂

By analogy, the Jewish Christian ‘‘prototype’’ would ‘‘be realized at thepoint’’ where the church made membership contingent on divine law—or one proclaimed as divine, such as the law of ‘‘racial unity.’’ Any eccle-siastical community that excluded members who did not satisfy a raciallaw would have to be designated ‘‘Jewish Christian.’’ According to Bon-hoeffer, a strict Aryan German Christian pastor who sought to excludenon-Aryan Christians from the church inadvertently made himself a Jew-ish Christian.

The 1 April boycott interrupted these reections. Through his brother-

in-law, Reich Judicial Counselor Hans von Dohnanyi, Bonhoeffer learnedof the impending legislation concerning non-Aryans. ∑ He revised histheses, adding a preface in which he explored the church’s responsibili-ties for the state’s actions and the consequences of this with regard to the Jewish question.

This introduction became known as the essay ‘‘The Church and the Jewish Question.’’∏ Bonhoeffer stressed the church’s ‘‘unconditional obli-gation to the victims of every social order, even those who do not belongto the Christian congregation.’’ The ultimate action possible for thechurch consisted of ‘‘not only binding up the wounds of the victimsunder the wheel, but stopping the wheel itself.’’ π Bonhoeffer did notknow that one day this wheel would crush him. ‘‘His energies were wholly absorbed in combating the Aryan clause. For he believed that only

if everything were risked would a message worthy of proclamation reveal itself.’’∫

It was Bonhoeffer’s rst public statement in the Kirchenkampf , on an



Dietrich Bonhoeffer

27

issue where he believed classical church dogmatics had to be challengedor even reformulated by ethical appeals. Church action (to do good toeveryone or to stop the wheel itself, instead of treating the symptoms by

binding up the victim’s wounds) took precedence over academic dis-putes. Coming from an unknown twenty-seven-year-old assistant pro-fessor, such a position was unlikely to earn applause from the princes of the church or be heard in congregations.

The crucial point of ‘‘The Church and the Jewish Question’’ was thatBonhoeffer (in part 1) was concerned about the Jews in general, not justthe non-Aryan Christians. To Bonhoeffer’s great regret, the ConfessingChurch would conne its concern to the plight of the latter. Because of the salvation-historical and missionary aspects of Christian attitudes toward the Jews, Bonhoeffer believed this was a status confessionis: ‘‘Theconversion of Israel: that is to be the end of the period of suffering for thispeople. From here the Christian church sees the history of the people of Israel with trembling as God’s own, free, fearful way with His people. Thechurch knows that no nation in the world can be nished with thismysterious people, because God is not yet nished with it. Each new attempt to ‘resolve’ the ‘Jewish question’ is thwarted by the salvation-historical signicance of this people; still, such attempts must be under-taken again and again.’’ Ω

After these preliminary reections, Bonhoeffer was well prepared to

speak on the Aryan paragraph at a large assembly of students at theUniversity of Berlin on 22 June (the topic was ‘‘The Struggle for theChurch’’).∞≠ He was preceded by Professor Cajus Fabricius (a systematictheologian and German Christian) and Student Pastor Ernst Bronisch-Holtze. Fabricius stated that ‘‘resistance against Judaization’’ was part of ‘‘maintaining the purity of the German Gospel.’’ Compared with the New Testament, he said, the Old Testament had only secondary signicance.‘‘The Jewish question in the church, however, is of less importance thanin the state: ‘The handful of Jews will be dealt with, sure enough.’’’ AfterBronisch-Holtze interjected that the Aryan paragraph invalidated ‘‘the baptismal vow,’’ Bonhoeffer (citing Rom. 14) noted the contrast betweenthose of weak faith and those of strong faith. ‘‘Strong is he who ejects noone; weak is he who puts a fence around the congregation. Those today

who are weak in faith need a racial law.’’ The strong must be watchful,‘‘for it is precisely the weak who are the aggressors.’’ ∞∞

In August 1933 Bonhoeffer worked in ‘‘happy collaboration’’ ∞≤ with




28

Hermann Sasse in Bethel, drafting a confession intended to serve asa theological foundation for the confessional groups at the NationalSynod at the end of September. A passage on the Jewish question was

also to appear; to Bonhoeffer’s elation, Old Testament scholar Wilhelm Vischer supplied the rst draft. ∞≥

Section 6.6 of the rst draft of the Bethel Confession was entitled‘‘The Church and the Jews.’’ Although it concerned only non-Aryan Chris-tians (referring to Jews only insofar as they were ‘‘to be called to conversion, and those who believe baptized in the name of Jesus Christ’’),the document emphatically rejected the formation of non-Aryan Chris-tian congregations. Otherwise, ‘‘a racial law would block entry to thechurch and such a church would itself become a legalistic Jewish Chris-tian community.’’ ∞∂

Pastor Fritz von Bodelschwingh, director of the Bethel institutions,urged that this initial draft be approved by twenty experts. ∞∑ (Amongthe more conservative Protestants who opposed the German Christians,Bodelschwingh was a respected leader; he was their candidate for Reich bishop in the synodal elections of May 1933.) Bodelschwingh’s recom-mendation annoyed Bonhoeffer. He foresaw that little would be left of the original draft, given such a diverse group of consultants, and that theimpending National Synod would be long over by the time nal editing was complete. Both these fears were realized, and Bonhoeffer nally

withdrew his endorsement of the radically altered nal version, par-ticularly because the content and tone of ‘‘The Church and the Jews’’ had been radically revised. ∞∏ Although the nal version retained the passagethat ‘‘through the crucixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ . . . the barrier between the Jews and Gentiles is broken down,’’ the Christiansstill appeared as God’s more favored, better children. Nothing remainedof the concept that God had preserved and was especially faithful to ‘‘a‘holy remnant’ of Israel.’’

The tone of the nal version was negative, not positive: God was nolonger devoted to Israel; it was more a case of not ‘‘rejecting’’ Israel. The Jewish convert to Christianity entered ‘‘the true Israel’’ and ‘‘separateshimself from his unbelieving people.’’ The non-Aryan Christian had noinherent right to membership; instead, the Christian community chose

to ‘‘grant’’ this ‘‘right’’! There was no longer an explicit position regard-ing non-Aryan Christian congregations. The sharpest statement in therst draft had fallen victim to the nal editing: ‘‘Christians descended



Dietrich Bonhoeffer

29

from the Gentiles must sooner subject themselves to persecution thanabandon in any respect—either of their own free will or through coer-cion—the ecclesiastical brotherhood with Jewish Christians, established

through the Word and the sacraments.’’∞π

The Bethel Confession was the rst failed test in the struggle againstthe state and the church loyal to that state. Already, the ranks ‘‘of olderand younger theologians could no longer be kept together.’’ ∞∫ They had been unable to reach an unequivocal position that opposed the Aryanparagraph not only in the church but in the state. All of them rejected aradical version of the Aryan paragraph, ‘‘but not, unfortunately, the‘mild form’ as well.’’∞Ω Bonhoeffer did not consider abandoning his ‘‘un-conditional opposition to the church’’ that neither desired nor wouldenter a total ‘‘solidarity with Jewish Christian pastors.’’ ≤≠ On the otherhand, he was forced to realize ‘‘that I would nd myself incomprehensi- bly in radical opposition to all my friends.’’ ≤∞ This made his decision to goto London (in October 1933) that much easier: ‘‘A further signal for me was the almost total lack of understanding for the Bethel Confession, on which I had collaborated really passionately.’’ ≤≤

Bonhoeffer would nd this understanding in the ecumenical world. The conict illustrated, however, that the early claims of Kirchenkampf scholars that ‘‘the’’ Confessing Church ‘‘never capitulated’’ on the Aryanparagraph were erroneous. ≤≥

Bonhoeffer still did not believe that the struggle on behalf of the Jews was lost. In August, he drafted a leaet, ‘‘The Aryan Paragraph in theChurch.’’ He immediately sent it to synods and congregations, hoping toinuence the Berlin-Brandenburg Synod on 24 August and the GeneralSynod on 5–6 September. ≤∂ Printed in bold type, the leaet was modeledon Hildebrandt’s ‘‘Leaet for the Church Election’’ from the summer of 1933.≤∑ Bonhoeffer’s leaet outlined the consequences of his April the-ses: since ‘‘the exclusion of the Jewish Christians from the ecclesiasticalcommunity . . . destroys the substance of the Church of Christ, there is but one way to serve the truth in a church that implements the Aryanparagraph in this radical form, and that is, namely, to leave it. This is thelast act of solidarity with my church, which I can serve in no way otherthan with the whole truth and all its consequences.’’ ≤∏

Bonhoeffer repeated his argument from April that when ‘‘the freedomof the Gospel is falsely made law, the demand of the weak becomes theprevailing law of the church.’’ If the state’s civil service law were applied




30

to civil servants in the church, he continued, the ofce of ministry would become a privilege, which would threaten it profoundly. Any ministry based on privilege must necessarily lead a pastor who served the truth to

resign his ofce.Bonhoeffer’s third point was that the 11 July 1933 Reich Church Con-

stitution, with its silence about the expulsion of non-Aryan studentsfrom the universities, had virtually abandoned a new generation of non- Aryan Christian theologians. Bonhoeffer urged his readers to protestthrough sermons and by opening ‘‘new doors to the ministry for JewishChristians. If it [the church] does not do this, then it makes itself respon-sible for the entire Aryan paragraph.’’ With his public and implacabledemands, Bonhoeffer stood alone.

∂

Gutachten and Synodal Resolutions

At the 24 August provincial synod in Berlin, the opposition group led by Berlin pastor Gerhard Jacobi was unable to prevent the adoption of thestate Aryan guidelines for church ofcials. This set the stage for theevents of the Prussian General Synod, which convened in Berlin on 5–6 September 1933. After a tumultuous vote, this ‘‘Brown Synod’’ (many of the delegates wore their brown sa uniforms) passed the Law Concern-

ing the Legal Status of the Clergy and Civil Servants in the Church—the Aryan paragraph. ∞

This law excluded from church ofce every minister and civil servant‘‘of non-Aryan extraction, or [who] is married to a person of non-Aryanextraction.’’ ‘‘Non-Aryan extraction’’ was dened according to the ‘‘provi-sions of the Reich laws.’’ At the Brown Synod, the church’s general super-intendents decided not to dismiss people already in ofce but voted torefrain from employing ‘‘non-Aryans’’ (or those married to ‘‘non-Aryans’’)in the future. When Westphalian church president Karl Koch rose to reada dissent on behalf of the opposition group Gospel and Church, he was‘‘literally shouted down.’’ ≤ With that, Koch and his group left the hall; asa result, none of the Gospel and Church members was named a delegateto the National Synod in Wittenberg on 27 September.

The radical opposition (Bonhoeffer, Hermann Sasse, and Martin Nie-möller) could have become resigned and retreated into private exile.Instead, their struggle really began, although differences of opinion




31

about strategy remained. Bonhoeffer viewed the Aryan paragraph asthe signal for a church schism. This conviction, shared by his friendFranz Hildebrandt—that the battle lines should be drawn along the front

marked by the Aryan paragraph—won little support from the other dissi-dents led by Jacobi and Niemöller. ≥

This group asked: Was such a stand worthwhile? Since the Reforma-tion, Jewish or half-Jewish descent had been established among sixty-three pastors in Germany. ∂ Thirty-seven of these pastors were alive in1933: twenty-nine were in ofce and eight had retired. Thus, the Aryanparagraph applied to fewer than 2 percent of the nearly eighteen thou-sand Protestant pastors in Germany. Of the aforementioned twenty-ninepastors, seventeen belonged to the regional Old Prussian Union Church.Of these, eleven already held ofce before 1 August 1914 or had beensoldiers during World War I. Because of the exemptions that applied tothese eleven men, the Aryan paragraph applied to six clergy in the OldPrussian Union Church (those married to non-Aryan women were notincluded in these numbers). ∑

Did this hardly visible number of non-Aryans, insignicant in light of far more serious questions, justify this effort? Didn’t Bonhoeffer have to be admonished to show moderation here? Since his own stake in thematter was personal (the fate of his brother-in-law Gerhard Leibholz andhis friend Franz Hildebrandt), some colleagues believed that Bonhoeffer

should have relented and abandoned ‘‘his non-Aryans’’ as a negligiblequantity.

But Bonhoeffer saw through the game being played. The state hadnever required the introduction of an Aryan paragraph in the church. The delegates to the Brown Synod did not just have their eye on the few non-Aryan clergy; their goal was a Gleichschaltung that would eventually ‘‘eliminate’’ all non-Aryan church members. Theologically and strate-gically, Bonhoeffer and Hildebrandt considered an ‘‘exodus’’ from thechurch to be more effective than a hesitant wait to see what happenednext. ∏

The day after the general synod, Bonhoeffer sent a telegram to thegeneral secretary of the ecumenical World Alliance in Geneva, seekingsupport: ‘‘Aryan paragraph now in action, please work out memoran-

dum against this and inform press at once.’’ π

In letters to Hermann Sasse and Karl Barth, Bonhoeffer conveyed hisintention to leave the Evangelical Church because of the Aryan para-




32

graph. Sasse replied that he considered such a step to be prudent andnecessary only if as many pastors as possible decided to withdraw, notonly from the Old Prussian Union but from the ‘‘so-called Lutheran

churches’’ as well.∫

In addition, he wrote, they ought to wait until theNational Synod (in Wittenberg on 27 September) to see how the otherregional churches would react. Ω Sasse added that he had already placedthe church’s Aryan law on the agenda of his next faculty meeting. ∞≠

Karl Barth answered immediately by return post. To Bonhoeffer’s sur-prise, he too advised waiting. In principle, Barth did not rule out the

necessity of leaving the church, but not yet! They could leave the sinkingship only as the ‘‘last ones . . . that may only be ultima ratio for us. . . .Perhaps the unholy doctrine that now governs the church must unfoldrst in other, even worse deviations and falsications. . . . Then it might be the case that the confrontation will occur at an even more centralpoint.’’ ∞∞

Karl Barth hardly lacked the courage to protest where it seemed neces-sary; but even he did not yet see the signicance of the Aryan paragraphfor non-Aryan Christians, and thereby for the church, the ConfessingChurch and its great confessions that he helped formulate. ‘‘It does not yet appear that they will go so far as to exclude non-Aryans from churchmembership,’’ Barth wrote Bonhoeffer. ∞≤

Nonetheless, in the rst issue of Theological Existence Today, Barth ac-knowledged, ‘‘If the German Evangelical Church were to exclude the Jewish Christians or treat them as second-class Christians, it would haveceased to be a Christian church.’’ ∞≥ Barth expected the enemy to pene-trate the church’s territory at another ‘‘even more central point,’’ whereit would be important to protest and confess. But he did not believe thatthe church already stood at that point where action was required. ‘‘Later

we will have no need to regret a highly active, polemical wait even here,’’he wrote Bonhoeffer; ‘‘it will be worth it if we resolve under no cir-cumstances to think tactically, but, as much as we are capable, to think spiritually.’’ ∞∂

In addition to sending his telegram to Geneva, Bonhoeffer worked with Martin Niemöller on a new declaration. After collecting other signa-

tures, they sent the statement to Bodelschwingh for further distribution:1. According to the confession of our church, the church’s teachers are bound only by the rules governing vocations. The Aryan paragraph of




33

the new church civil service statute creates a law that contradicts thisfundamental confessional principle. It proclaims as church law a situa-tion that is unjust according to the confession, thereby violating the

confession.2. There can be no doubt that the ordained clergy who are affected by the civil service law continue to possess the full right freely to proclaimthe Word and administer the sacraments in the Evangelical Church of the Old Prussian Union, which stands upon the Reformation confes-sions, as long as they are not deprived of the rights of the spiritual ofce by a formal procedure.

3. Whoever agrees to such a breach of the confession thereby excludeshimself from the community of the church. We therefore demand thatthis law, which separates the Evangelical Church of the Old PrussianUnion from the Christian Church, be repealed without delay. ∞∑

Bodelschwingh’s response was to water down the declaration consid-

erably. Calling on several colleagues for support, he reworded point 1to leave open the question of ordaining non-Aryans in the future. Bon-hoeffer’s demand for the law’s repeal was rephrased as an ‘‘urgent re-quest,’’ and, fearful of a church schism, Bodelschwingh sought to deletethe rst sentence of point 3 entirely. ∞∏

The Bonhoeffer-Niemöller declaration paved the way for two further

steps. On 12 September, Niemöller sent out the rst Pastors’ Emergency League pledges, which paraphrased the three points of the declarationsent to Bodelschwingh and committed the signers to stand by those being persecuted. Bonhoeffer’s appeal ‘‘To the German National Synod’’ was written two weeks later. ∞π In it, he implored the National Synod torepeal ‘‘regional church laws in conict with the confession’’ (in particu-lar the Aryan paragraph) without delay.

Both declarations found widespread resonance. As Martin Niemöller wrote in a 21 September letter, the Young Reformation Movement’s cam-paign had already obtained thirteen hundred signatures for the Emer-gency League pledges. ∞∫ By 27 September, the twenty-two people fromBerlin who signed Bonhoeffer’s ‘‘To the German National Synod’’ had been joined by two thousand supporters. ∞Ω This number rose to six thou-

sand by the end of the year. This astonishing gain in support for the group that soon became the

‘‘Pastors’ Emergency League’’ was helped by the decisions of the 6 Sep-




34

tember general synod. The outcome of this synod quickly led clergy from various provinces and districts to unite, realizing that collective protests would be more effective. On 11 September 1933, the Rhineland Brother-

hood responded, taking a ‘‘position on questions of the present day’’:From the perspective of our church’s confession, the church civil servicelaw is intolerable in form and content ( Gleichschaltung with state civilservants, exclusion of Jewish Christians).

. . . we practice spiritual resistance (the nonviolent resistance of the Word and of love)

(a) through the protest of collective, public confessions from the pulpit;

(b) through public advocacy on behalf of those affected;

(c) through charitable aid . . . for those affected. ≤≠

Another protest came from the Sydow Brotherhood. Led by its speaker,Barmen pastor Georg Schultz, it announced:

The civil service law and the Aryan paragraph did not stem from anecclesiastical but from a political spirit. This is conrmed by the exclu-sionary provisions of the law. This state of affairs also justies fears thatinterpretation and application of the law will be politically motivated,and its vague wording strengthens this anxiety. The church certainly has the right to demand of its pastors their declaration of loyalty to the

state in which it lives. We hereby give it. But, bound in conscience toGod’s word, which in the church of the Gospel allows only evangelicalstandards for evaluating the holders of church ofces, we must rejectthe present law.

. . . The Aryan paragraph violates the church’s confession in that itsets arbitrary limits on the forgiving and renewing power of the divine word and of the Holy Spirit that calls us. If the paragraph is applied toclergy already ordained, the signicance of ordination is nullied for usall. In point of fact, the state does not require the Aryan paragraph inthe church, as the Reich Church Constitution and the Concordat withthe Vatican demonstrate. Existing state and church laws already offersufcient protection against alien control of pastoral and civil servicein the church. Therefore, we demand the withdrawal of the paragraph,and we will reject all measures pertinent to its enforcement. ≤∞

The statement from the Rhineland Brotherhood promised full involve-ment on behalf of those persecuted. In contrast, the Sydow resolution,




35

for all its confessional enthusiasm, showed a certain reserve towardthose threatened by the Aryan paragraph. Concern for their plight wassecondary to the danger of ‘‘alien control,’’ which the state had averted.

Several other statements convey the tone of the church debatethroughout Germany about the Aryan paragraph in the weeks before theNational Synod. On 14 September, twenty-ve pastors from Nurembergurged Bishop Meiser to protest the introduction of the Aryan para-graph. ≤≤ In a letter of 21 September 1933, the moderate German Chris-tian clergyman Girkon and President Otto Koopmann of the ReformedChurch in Aurich appealed to Reich Bishop Ludwig Müller to use theauthority of his ofce to prevent the introduction of the Aryan para-graph in the German Evangelical Church. ≤≥ Their appeal to his ‘‘benev-olent pastoral understanding’’ for their concerns was not on behalf of those affected, however, for they afrmed ‘‘from deepest conviction and with a whole heart . . . Adolf Hitler’s national state and the GermanEvangelical church.’’ They viewed the Aryan paragraph as ‘‘an act of Volk-centered defense’’ against ‘‘dangerous foreign control of German blood’’;still, it posed a threat to ordination and their pastoral ‘‘ofce.’’ The Aryanparagraph, they wrote, ‘‘abolishes the difference between spiritual and worldly ofce, and denies the signicance of ordination as a divinely granted mission. . . . [It] is an encroachment upon the status of faith thatalone gives us the courage and the strength to be pastors.’’ ≤∂

This interpretation of the pastorate clearly placed more importanceon defending the spiritual status of ordained clergy than on protecting young non-Aryan theologians, who were still excluded from the ‘‘privi-lege’’ of ordination. In his August 1933 leaet, Bonhoeffer had addressedthe signicance of such privileges in the church: ‘‘Those who remainprivileged, unaffected by these measures, will prefer to stand together with those brethren with fewer rights than to make use of the privilegesof the church. For this reason, they will see that the only service they canstill perform for the church is to renounce the ministry that has becomea privilege.’’≤∑

A somewhat different response came from Westphalian presidentKoch, who, as leader of the Young Reformation Movement, had walkedout of the Brown Synod in protest—precisely because of the Aryan para-

graph! Koch, too, sent a letter to Reich Bishop Müller a week before theNational Synod. Like Girkon and Koopmann, Koch contended that ‘‘be-lief in a divinely sanctioned spiritual ofce may be violated when the




36

church deprives of ofce someone whom it has ordained and called tothe ministry for reasons unrelated to the personal guilt of the affectedclergy.’’≤∏

Yet Koch’s labored explanation of the church’s previous treatment of non-Aryan Christian pastors illustrated how difcult he found it to takea clear stand on their behalf. The church viewed conversion, wrote Koch,as ‘‘a demonstration of the sovereignty of the grace of God, who calls whomever he desires.’’ The opening of the ministry to those ‘‘of Jewish orhalf-Jewish descent, who were already baptized as young children . . . wasone of the consequences of the Jewish emancipation, for which the En-lightenment prepared the way.’’

Koch acknowledged ‘‘the blessing’’ of God’s gift of Jewish Christian‘‘messengers and teachers of the Gospel,’’ and it had not escaped himthat the Reich law did not apply ‘‘to civil servants, employees, and work-ers of the religious societies subject to public law.’’ ≤π Still, he added, if acongregation ‘‘can no longer hear the word of God because it is pro-claimed by a pastor of non-Aryan or nonpure Aryan blood, then the only course open to the church is to request such pastors to relinquish theirministry for the sake of love, and, through such an expression of Ger-manic sentiment, to honor the way of God.’’ ≤∫

These unambiguous reservations about non-Aryan Christians (andeven more about Jews) were hardly in harmony with the Pastors’ Emer-

gency League pledge. That pledge had intended that those unaffected by the Aryan paragraph were to suffer—for the sake of love—on behalf of those affected, not that the persecuted (for the sake of love!) were tosuffer out of sympathy with those spared de natura .

Professor Dr. Rudolf Hermann raised this point in a letter to Koch, ap-pealing to the Westphalian church president in ‘‘deep concern and agita-tion.’’ ≤Ω Hermann could not comprehend how Koch’s support for JewishChristian pastors could be consistent with a ‘‘request’’ to those pastors toseek retirement. ≥≠ ‘‘A church based upon the New Testament, a book in which there is not a line that was not written, probably or certainly, by ‘Jewish Christians,’ ’’ contended Hermann, could not bar converted Jews,their descendants, or spouses from the pastorate. ‘‘Any such ‘request’that a bishop would make of such a pastor to resign his ofce ought to

meet with a counter-request from the group ‘Gospel and Church.’ ’’ Her-mann concluded that ‘‘the Aryan paragraph is worse than anything thathas been brought upon the church by the German Christians.’’




37

The struggle within the church over the Aryan paragraph had intensi-ed. On 22 September, ve days before the Wittenberg meeting, leadingmembers of the various church factions met. ≥∞ Representing a wide theo-

logical spectrum, they included the German Christian pastor Girkon; the Westphalian Pastors’ Emergency League ( pel ) pastors Ludwig Steil, KarlLücking, and Hans Ehrenberg; Siegfried Knak, director of the Berlin Mis-sion; and New Testament scholars Wilhelm Brandt, Ernst Lohmeyer, andtheologian Rudolf Bultmann.

In the discussion, Brandt and Bultmann cited the Aryan paragraph’scontempt for baptism and its denial of salvation history (although Bult-mann still conceded the state’s right to do ‘‘what it considers proper forthe sake of the Volk’’). Girkon refuted this, arguing that the salvation-historical consequence of Israel’s election would not be restricted if Jew-ish Christians belonged to their own ‘‘church body.’’ Israel was not aninferior race, he said, merely a ‘‘different race.’’ Because ‘‘individual,Volk-centered churches’’ were necessary within the universal ChristianChurch, the establishment of non-Aryan Christian congregations did notcontradict Rom. 9–11. The only real issue, Girkon suggested, was thatthis be carried out as inconspicuously as possible: ‘‘The dismissal of anumber of pastors would arouse a considerable public scandal.’’

Knak’s experiences in mission work led him to plead for a separatenon-Aryan Christian congregation. ≥≤ The non-Aryan Christian, he ar-

gued, should have access to all ofces of the church, yet the ‘‘ rite vocatus’’of church ofce was based on certain rules that were subject to changingtimes: ‘‘The interests of race must be inserted into this rule.’’ ≥≥ Knak believed that the ministry was threatened by a ‘‘Jewish Christian inunda-tion’’ and concluded that the Aryan law could be applied to pastors of aVolkskirche (people’s church), as an expression of the church’s ‘‘solidarity with the Volk that is struggling for its existence.’’ ≥∂

Hans Ehrenberg suggested that the discussion was going in circles because of the complete lack of clarity about the concept of what was‘‘foreign’’ in the Jew. If this ‘‘foreign nature’’ were misunderstood, ‘‘wecould not reach consensus.’’ Yet, he stressed, the non-Aryan Christians belonged to the church, and thereby to the German church, because‘‘the cross crucies Jewish and German blood. The crucied belong to-

gether. . . . We are all a church of redeemed sinners, that is, of strangers who have been called.’’

Those present nally agreed on two minimal demands: non-Aryan




38

Christians could not be denied the Eucharist, and non-Aryan Christiansalready serving as pastors were to be left in ofce. Even a discussion in which three New Testament scholars had participated could not achieve

clarity; it showed how unprepared the church was for any confrontation with the Jewish question at the congregational, leadership, and aca-demic levels.

The theological faculties at the universities of Marburg and Erlangenproduced two decisive—and very different—responses to the Aryan para-graph. In anticipation of the National Synod, the church leadership inHessen had sought the ‘‘solemn and responsible guidance’’ of experts on both faculties about the Aryan paragraph and its consequences for theentire German Evangelical Church. ≥∑ The Marburg Gutachten, dated 20September, was approved unanimously by the entire theological faculty.It based its arguments on the New Testament; three sentences formedthe foundation of its opinion about the Aryan paragraph: ‘‘It is indisputa-

ble that the message of Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world is directedto all peoples and therefore to all races as well, and that, accordingly, all who believe and are baptized upon this foundation belong to the Churchof Christ. ≥∏ Among themselves, the members of the church are brethren. Theconcept of brotherhood rules out all legal inequality as well as all avoid-able estrangement in earthly relationships.’’

On these grounds, the Marburg faculty rejected the notion of separatenon-Aryan Christian congregations. Since the New Testament opposedracially based, apartheid-like thinking, the Jew converted to Christ and baptized in his name was ‘‘for the church no longer a Jew’’ but a Christian:‘‘Up to now, the entire history of the church, and the civil and canonicallaws of all nations, have not recognized the concept of the Jew in a racialsense, but exclusively in a confessional sense: that is, the Jew does notacknowledge the Christ of God in Jesus.’’ ≥π

In contrast to civil regulations, ≥∫ the church could ‘‘not surrender itsunity . . . to which all believers are baptized through the one Spirit.’’ ≥Ω

This unity was true for the invisible and the visible church; legal conclu-sions or justications were not to be drawn from the church’s shortcom-ings: ‘‘To tolerate imperfection in the church as anything but weakness—

and it will not be claimed that the deprivation of the rights of Christiansof Jewish lineage in the German Evangelical Church is so intended—makes a virtue out of the lack of faith and love, separates the Gospel




39

from the lordship of God, and repeals the justication of sinners by grace in faith.’’ ∂≠

The Marburg professors criticized the classication of race and na-

tionality as orders of creation that compelled church constitutions toprovide for special rights for those of other races. In a ‘‘true order of creation,’’ faith recognized only ‘‘God’s own reign over all whom He hascreated, and His redeeming judgment of sins, to which all are subject.’’Unanimously rejecting the Aryan paragraph, the Marburg faculty de-clared: ‘‘Whoever does not desire to recognize, along with the Apostles

and Reformers, the full unity between Jewish and non-Jewish Christians inthe church, as was impressively articulated in the Letter to the Ephesiansin the New Testament, and does not desire to realize it fundamentally inthe church’s constitution, deceives himself when he confesses that, forhim, the Holy Scripture is God’s Word and Jesus is God’s Son and Lord of all human beings.’’ ∂∞

The very title of the Erlangen Gutachten illustrated its contrast tothe Marburg document. The Marburg faculty took a position called the‘‘Aryan Paragraph in the Church’’; in Erlangen, two Lutheran systematictheologians composed the ‘‘Theological Opinion on the Admission of Christians of Jewish Origin to the Ofces of the German EvangelicalChurch.’’ The Erlangen faculty had asked theologians Paul Althaus and Werner Elert (who were not members of the Erlangen faculty) to writethe opinion.

Althaus’s and Elert’s earlier writings help explain why the Erlangenopinion was markedly different from the Marburg one. The previousrecords of both men reveal anti-Jewish resentment and a markedly völ- kisch and ‘‘German’’ understanding of the Volkskirche.∂≤ A 1914 essay, in which Elert venerated the mystic Jakob Böhme as possessing a ‘‘piece of

the soul of Faust, with which only the German soul can sympathize,’’illustrated Elert’s enthusiastic nationalism. ∂≥ Such sentiments, joined by Althaus’s animosity against ‘‘Jewish nationality,’’ contributed to thetone of the Erlangen ‘‘theological opinion.’’

Paul Althaus’s early views on the relationship between ‘‘church andnationality,’’ ∂∂ presented at the second German Evangelical Church Con-

vention in Königsberg on 17 June 1927, were also revealing:Irrespective of what has just been said about anti-Semitic Pharisaismand the corruption and adulteration of nationality by the Germans




41

new state excludes men of Jewish or half-Jewish extraction from ofcesof authority. The church must acknowledge the fundamental right of the state to such legislative measures. It knows that it is called, in the

present situation, to new reection on its task of being the people’s churchof the Germans. Inherent in this is the reassertion of the fundamentalprinciple of völkisch solidarity of ofceholders with their congregations,and this applies to Christians of Jewish extraction as well. For the posi-tion of the church in the life of the Volk and for the fulllment of itstask, the lling of its ofces in the present situation with those of Jewishdescent would constitute a heavy burden and hindrance. The churchmust therefore demand the restriction of Jewish Christians from ofce. Thisdoes not question or limit their full membership in the German Evan-gelical Church, just as little as would be the case among other membersof our church who, in some way, do not meet the requirements foradmission to the ofces of the church.

Thus, the Erlangen opinion equated non-Aryan Christian applicantsfor the ministry with Aryans whose ‘‘biological features’’ (age, gender,and physical disability) excluded them from the pastorate. The non- Aryan Christian was to receive the treatment that church agencies re-served for an Aryan Christian who, because of tuberculosis or a speechimpediment, was considered incapable of coping with the ministry. ∂∫

The plea for special legal provisions—which, of course, emphasized theexclusionary nature of the regulation—referred ‘‘primarily to clergy andofceholders of Jewish or half-Jewish extraction already in ofce’’ (point7), where dismissal might damage ‘‘the particular nature of the ministry,and the call and ordination to it.’’ But even here, the Erlangen writersconsidered dismissal to be conceivable and justied—for instance, incases of ‘‘the breakdown in the relationship of trust between pastor andcongregation.’’ Despite such ‘‘mitigating’’ restrictions, the Erlangenopinion was a statement adapted to the hyper-German, völkisch zeitgeist.

In addition to the Marburg and Erlangen opinions, a third indepen-dent scholarly Gutachten was sent to the National Synod. Twenty-twoscholars, mainly New Testament specialists, sent a petition entitled‘‘New Testament and the Question of Race.’’ ∂Ω At rst glance, this petition

appeared similar to the Marburg opinion, but the difference between thetwo was so pronounced that three of the signers withdrew their signa-tures in indignation one month later, protesting the notion ‘‘that an




44

the practice of indulgences; for Bonhoeffer, it offended the Holy Spirit by the Aryan paragraph. Luther (according to tradition) had been content with a single placard on the door of the Castle Church; Bonhoeffer trans-

formed whole streets into billboards. He, Hildebrandt, and Staewenposted the handbills on the trees. In response, the German Christiannewspaper Evangelium im Dritten Reich reported: ‘‘Impossible though itmay seem, it is true: the enemy is making his presence felt. Appeals with-out any printer’s name, minutes, communiqués, details, etc., are beingcirculated. But unerringly and surely, our leaders will take steps.’’ ∑Ω

Inside the Wittenberg meeting, there was no mention of Bonhoeffer’saction. But, as Pastor Fritz Loerzer (deputy Reich director of the GermanChristians) acknowledged during the synod: ‘‘This calm is the calm be-fore the storm.’’ ∏≠ It was a calm achieved by deliberately ignoring the Aryan paragraph, whose ‘‘contradiction of the confessions’’ was not evenmentioned by the regional churches outside the Old Prussian UnionChurch. Although the Lutheran regional churches of Bavaria, Württem-

berg, and Hannover had not yet been affected by Nazi measures, their bishops (Meiser, Wurm, and Marahrens) remained silent at the synod topreserve ‘‘calm.’’ ∏∞ The outcome of the Wittenberg meeting, accordingto Bonhoeffer and Hildebrandt, was nothing less than ‘‘disastrous—precisely because it had produced nothing that was not predictable.’’ ∏≤

This silence, when protest still was possible, was to have disastrous

consequences; the memory of it would be evoked twelve years later inthe Stuttgart Confession of Guilt. There was no longer much readinessamong Bonhoeffer’s friends to treat the Aryan paragraph as a status confessionis, with all the consequences. There were no resignations from theministry—such actions were postponed ‘‘for an indenite period.’’ ∏≥ Bon-hoeffer saw no chance of a credible engagement in the church withinGermany; he took a position in England, deciding that ‘‘it was time to gointo the desert for a while.’’ ∏∂

Franz Hildebrandt was determined to follow his friend. A few dayslater, in a resigned letter to Martin Niemöller, he turned down an offer to work in the Pastors’ Emergency League. ∏∑ But he stayed after all, untilNiemöller’s arrest in summer 1937.



45

∑

The Pastors’ Emergency League

Inspired by the Bonhoeffer-Niemöller declaration to the National Synod,opposition to a church Aryan paragraph grew steadily. Under Niemöl-ler’s guidance, the opposition founded the Pastors’ Emergency League inOctober. It was governed by a Council of Brethren; its ‘‘constitution’’ was based on the Emergency League pledge:

To the best of my ability, I acknowledge my responsibility for those

who are persecuted for the sake of this confessional position. Through this commitment, I attest that the application of the Aryan

paragraph in the church is a violation of the confessional position. ∞

The early drafts of the Emergency League pledge reveal the theologicaldevelopment of this solidarity. With its vow ‘‘not to neglect prayers of intercession for the brethren, and, wherever possible, to render assis-

tance to them in their distress,’’ the rst draft expressed solidarity withpersecuted non-Aryans between the lines. ≤

The second draft, which came from a Westphalian congregation, cited2 Sam. 16:17: ‘‘Is this your kindness to your friend? Why did you not go with your friend?’’ ≥ It listed ‘‘Ten Commandments of Holy Scripture’’ asthe foundation for the Emergency League pledges; Matt. 22:37–39—the

commandment to love one another—was the third commandment. Yet there were already indications that this challenge was too great formost Christians. ‘‘General public sentiment’’ kept most from recog-nizing how virulent and destructive the Aryan paragraph’s challengeto Christian conscience really was. Those who resisted the Aryan para-graph were more threatened by their church than by the state: in mid-November 1933, church authorities twice dismissed (and subsequently reinstated) pastors Martin Niemöller, Eitel-Friedrich von Rabenau, andKurt Scharf. ∂

At a meeting of the Reich Directorate of the German Christians on27 October, Reich Bishop Müller emphasized the importance of merci-less enforcement of the Aryan paragraph. ∑ Two weeks later, the GermanChristians’ rally in the Berlin Sports Palace nally aroused opposition

among those who had been silent. The rally was an early turning point inthe church struggle. Before an enthusiastic crowd, German Christianleaders openly called for the deletion of the Old Testament from the




46

Bible and an ‘‘Aryan’’ revision of the New Testament and Protestant litur-gies. For the rst time, many Protestant leaders realized how radical theGerman Christians really were; German Christian membership dropped

dramatically after the rally. Even at the Berlin rally, however, it was‘‘remarkable that it was not this resolution [ that is, the demand for an Aryan paragraph and for the establishment of a separate church for non- Aryans] that provoked the greatest furor, but the preceding speech by regional party chairman Dr. Reinhold Krause.’’ ∏

People throughout Germany worked to rescind the Aryan paragraph

in the church. A group of Breslau clergy declared ‘‘that Protestant Chris-tians of foreign blood may not be excluded from the communion of anEvangelical church.’’ π In a statement that did not explicitly mention the Aryan paragraph, Karl Barth challenged the notion that the Reformationcorresponded to German national character: ‘‘It was, and is, as suitableor unsuitable for the Germanic race as it is for every other race.’’ ∫ TheUnited Evangelical parish in the town of Unterbarmen condemned the Aryan paragraph as worldly, since it disregarded baptism and violatedordination. Ω The Reformed congregation in Oberschbach resolved that‘‘a church Aryan law contradicts the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit.’’ ∞≠

Individuals spoke out as well. In November, Karl Bernhard Ritter fromMarburg offered another version of a Pastors’ Emergency League pledge;somewhat sharper than Niemöller’s version, it condemned the Aryanparagraph as ‘‘an especially agrant violation of Scripture and confes-sion.’’∞∞ Systematic theologian Heinrich Vogel published ‘‘Eight Articlesof Evangelical Doctrine,’’ in which he condemned ‘‘the banishment ordeprivation of the rights of Jewish Christians,’’ since it was ‘‘not . . . the Jews alone, but all peoples of the world, even we Germans, . . . [who are]implicated in the cross of Christ.’’ ∞≤ The Holy Spirit, wrote Vogel, couldnot be tied to ‘‘the principle of racial politics.’’

Yet even those who opposed the Aryan paragraph were not free of anti-Semitic sentiment. No one epitomized this as clearly as the cofounder of the Emergency League, Martin Niemöller. As a decorated World War Ihero and outspoken patriot, Niemöller seemed almost predestined forthe conict between German patriotism and Christian faith that he

faced under Nazism. After 1945, he was one of the few veterans of the Kirchenkampf who

showed courage and honesty in facing their own past. In an October 1963



The Pastors’ Emergency League

47

television interview with German journalist Günter Gaus, Niemöllerspoke about his early prejudices against the Jews:

Gaus: In the [Niemöller’s] trial early in 1938, you fearlessly defended your Evangelical standpoint against the Aryan paragraph. But you alsosaid that, as a former ofcer and the son of a Westphalian farmer, youcould be believed when you said that you certainly did not like the Jewspersonally. Does this statement bother you today?

Niemöller: Yes, of course, it bothers me—that was also a part of tradi-tion. In my native Tecklenburg, there were many farmers who were in

debt to Jewish moneylenders and livestock traders. At that time, themood in this area was not systematically anti-Semitic, but it was intu-itively and traditionally so, and I never especially questioned it. And inthe Wehrmacht of 1910, there was also this certain reserve toward Juda-ism. Today, I regret that very much. But at that time, it was not atall clear to me what only dawned upon me later in the concentrationcamp: that, as a Christian, I must conduct myself not according to my sympathies or antipathies, but must see in each human being, even if he is unsympathetic to me, the fellow human being for whom JesusChrist hung on His cross as much as for me. This simply precludes any form of rejection and action against a group of human beings of any race, any religion, any skin color.

Gaus: Is this something you realized later?

Niemöller: This is something I realized later. ∞≥

Niemöller was determined to sign Bonhoeffer’s 7 September declara-tion and to include some of the radicality of Bonhoeffer’s protest in thePastors’ Emergency League pledge. ∞∂ But in the weeks and months thatfollowed, Niemöller was under growing pressure to consider whether

the opposition’s energies should be employed at a ‘‘more central’’ spot—as, undoubtedly, Barth thought they should be. With Bonhoeffer’s departure for London, Niemöller’s situation was

that of the old submarine commander and soldier. More a front-line warrior than a staff intellectual, he had lost his chief planner and mas-termind. He found these qualities in Karl Barth. The initial reserve be-tween the two men was soon replaced by mutual appreciation. By 1934,Niemöller had developed a liking for Barth’s ‘‘theology of the Word,’’ andBarth saw a good chance for a Confessing Church in Niemöller’s organi-zational talent and combative spirit. ∞∑



Ecumenical Developments

51

Louis Henriod informed Kapler that three thousand German Jews hadentered Switzerland by the beginning of April 1933. Two other Europeanecumenists contacted August Schreiber, a member of the church consis-

tory in Berlin who worked in the Church Foreign Ofce, demanding a‘‘statement from German church circles in light of the boycott under-taken by the German government against the Jews.’’ ∫ In a letter to Kapleron 8 April 1933, Schreiber bemoaned ‘‘the appalling ignorance’’ amongthe Americans, Swiss, Dutch, and others about conditions in Germany.‘‘We remain the most hated nation in the world,’’ Schreiber wrote. ‘‘But we must defend ourselves.’’ Ω In a ‘‘condential’’ two-page report, he sentSwiss ecumenical leader Adolf Keller his own interpretation of ‘‘how . . .the atrocity propaganda against the alleged German persecutions of the Jews’’ had come about. In the process of state reorganization, Schreiber wrote, it had been necessary to reshufe positions on a widespread scale. Jews had been dismissed not for racial reasons but because of their party status. Unfortunately, people abroad had other opinions, but ‘‘foreigncountries have no idea to what extent for decades . . . Jewry exerted acorruptive inuence in Germany, through the press, theater, and lm.’’ Jewish emigrants abroad were defaming Germany with propaganda thatdistorted the true state of affairs: ‘‘Reich Chancellor Hitler has saidclearly before the entire world that abuses have occurred in the ‘Germanrevolution.’ But never before has a great state revolution taken place

with such modest losses of life and property.’’∞≠

Criticism of events in Germany came not only from foreign churches but from German-speaking congregations abroad that were afliated with the German Evangelical Church. Following a 3 April meeting of the board of the Federation of Churches and Protestant Associations in Ge-neva about ‘‘persecution in Germany,’’ Pastor Otto Fiedler, on behalf of the board of the German Lutheran Church in Geneva, asked the Evangeli-cal Church Federation what the church intended to do against the nu-merous anti-Jewish measures. Not least of all, he wrote, the reputa-tion ‘‘of our German Protestant people here in Geneva’’ was at stake. On10 April, the Church Federation in Berlin replied, describing German ef-forts to condemn the ‘‘atrocity propaganda’’ and prevent exaggerationabout possible ‘‘excesses’’ and asking for more understanding for Ger-

many abroad. ∞∞

On 5 April, Pastor V. A. Günther of the German Evangelical congrega-tion in Oslo reported to the Evangelical Church Council in Berlin that ‘‘in




53

The Swedish Protestant Church was particularly concerned aboutevents in Germany. Bound by their common religious heritage, the Swed-ish and German churches had worked together in the renaissance of re-

search on Martin Luther. Söderblom’s work had awakened a strong ecu-menical interest, and the Swedes were vitally committed to continuingand deepening their good relations with German Protestantism. In 1932,Söderblom’s successor, Archbishop Erling Eidem, had received honorary degrees from the universities in Tübingen and Halle-Wittenberg.

Despite this, the German Church Council did not want Eidem med-dling in the Jewish question. ∞∑ As the leader of the Swedish EcumenicalCommission, Eidem had sent a warning (on 3 April) to the Church Coun-cil in Berlin. His conciliatory tone drew criticism in the Swedish press. ∞∏

Eidem expressed regret over false news reports but could not conceal hisdeep concern about anti-Semitic tendencies in Germany: ‘‘We pray andhope that the German Evangelical churches will nd it possible, withGod’s help, to work successfully for genuine Christian principles. . . . ‘Themore hatred there is, the more love there should be.’ ’’ ∞π Eidem’s regretabout ‘‘false’’ news reports can only be interpreted as a benevolent ges-ture, for he was too well informed about the German situation by theSwedish pastor in Berlin, Birger Forell, to have been justied in express-ing sympathy for a Germany ‘‘unjustly treated’’ by supposedly untruepress reports. ∞∫

Throughout April 1933, the Berlin Central Church Council—the high-est council of the Evangelical Church in Germany—had been besieged by inquiries and protests from the ecumenical world and from Germany’sown overseas congregations. The matter had reached such an extent thatit could no longer be settled by replies from low-level ofcials like Schrei- ber. On 25–26 April, the Church Council called a meeting to discuss the

‘‘treatment of the Jewish Question.’’∞Ω

Two documents served as the basisfor their discussion: a private theological study, ‘‘The Church and the Jewish Question in Germany,’’ and a document prepared by the regionalchurch of Baden, ‘‘The Evangelical Church and Its Jewish Christians.’’

the church council meeting

These two documents laid the foundation for a discussion in the Church

Council and the memorandum it subsequently sent to the Germanchurches. ≤≠ The rst document, ‘‘The Church and the Jewish Questionin Germany,’’ was a summary of the arguments that theologian Walter




54

Künneth published the following year in ‘‘The Jewish Problem and theChurch’’; ≤∞ it is likely that Künneth wrote the document examined by the Church Council. ≤≤ Künneth’s tone was pragmatic: the issue raised by

the Jewish question, he wrote, was not how Christians should conductthemselves toward those aficted by the racial laws but how the church’sactions in this matter could best preserve ‘‘the dignity of the church.’’

Künneth believed that state measures to restrict Jews were necessary ‘‘to protect the German people.’’ Within this context, the church’s task was to ‘‘ensure that the exclusion of the Jews as a foreign body in the life

of the Volk does not occur in a manner contrary to Christian ethics’’ andto protest ‘‘any kind of violent persecution of the Jews which damagesthe reputation of the national state.’’ At the same time, church actionshad to be based on ‘‘Christian love, not to be confused with the liberalconcept of humaneness.’’ The right of the church to evangelize and convert Jews ‘‘must remain unimpaired’’; indeed, through ‘‘the now historic bond between Christian faith and Germanness,’’ Jewish converts toChristianity could be more easily integrated into German culture. ≤≥

The Baden church document, ‘‘The Evangelical Church and Its Jew-ish Christians,’’ emphasized the church’s responsibility for JewishChristians:

Our Evangelical church is magnanimous enough for all who are in dis-tress of any kind. . . . Our church, of course, is not able to guarantee themlegal rights; but, within its own sphere, our church will show complete brotherly love and compassion toward those among our members whoare willing to assimilate themselves into the German national charac-ter, that is, in accordance with Volk and race. The church expects, of course, that these foreign brothers and sisters in the faith [will] seri-ously attempt to discard those qualities inherited from their fathers

that are foreign to what is German, to integrate themselves into ourVolkstum (the heritage of our people), and to exercise restraint in publiclife, so as not to hinder the practice of brotherly love or disturb thepresent community of life and faith. ≤∂

The minutes of the Central Church Council meeting revealed seriousdissent within the council about the merits of both declarations. Dis-

tressed by the plight of Jewish Christians, Baron Wilhelm von Pechmann,a prominent lay leader in the Evangelical Church, proclaimed his as-tonishment that neither document offered a word of consolation or pro-




55

tection for those affected by the Aryan laws. (Pechmann was so dismayed by the outcome of the meeting that he resigned from all church ofces inprotest.) ≤∑ The meeting could not adjourn, he declared, ‘‘without such a

statement,’’ continuing that such a statement was important to foreignchurches with ecumenical ties to the Church Federation. ≤∏ The president of the Baden church, Dr. Klaus Wurth, conceded that

perhaps the church should acknowledge ‘‘that the Jewish Christians areour brothers and have a right to the New Testament.’’ But he worried‘‘that individual sentences, taken out of context, can be used against thechurch’’ and concluded that the Church Council could make such a dec-laration clear in private discussions but not publicly.

Church president Kapler reported on his attempts to intervene in the Jewish question with the highest government authorities. Of course, henoted, during his interview with Hitler, ‘‘I didn’t mention the Jewishquestion as such!’’ The outcome of Kapler’s attempts to mitigate someindividual cases remained uncertain; and he acknowledged that the

Baden document, whose remarks were conned to the Jewish Christians,did not address the problem adequately. The church, for example, wouldhave to protest ‘‘should the attempt be made to exclude Jewish Chris-tian children from Christian schools,’’ but he questioned ‘‘whether thechurch, with respect to religious matters, has the right to ask the state,on behalf of Jewish Christians, to disregard racial aspects when llinggovernment positions.’’

Several of those present opposed any public church position on thematter. One, Dr. Michaelis, saw no offense against God’s word if ‘‘Jews were treated differently than Germans in their relationships to thestate’’ and warned that, ‘‘considering the tremendous danger in which it[the church] presently nds itself, it is muzzled.’’ Several other bishopspresent agreed. The church could not oppose the state, Mecklenburg bishop Rendtorff noted; after all, it had just ‘‘gratefully welcomed thefact that there is nally a strong authority again.’’

Pechmann persisted, suggesting a resolution on behalf of

all members of our church irrespective of racial heritage . . . precisely those members who are completely or partially of Jewish descent. Wesympathize with them and we will intercede for them to whatever ex-tent is possible.

We seriously warn representatives of public authority, when redress-ing grievances, not to overstep the boundaries established by the com-mandments of justice and Christian love.




56

Pechmann predicted a ‘‘grateful sigh of relief’’ from many Christianhomes ‘‘if the Church Council speaks a courageous word from its con-science.’’ Only Rendtorff, however, joined Pechmann in pleading for a

public statement. Because of his ecumenical contacts through his orga-nization’s overseas work, Rendtorff feared serious reactions to the Ger-man treatment of the Jews.

The outcome of the meeting was a resolution that, though public, wasnot intended to be proclaimed too loudly: a church promise of ‘‘sympa-thetic intercession’’ for ‘‘members of the Jewish race . . . within the limitsof what is practically possible.’’

An ofcial church memorandum based on this resolution appeared inmid-1933.≤π Its tone exemplied the ambivalence and caution that hadmarked the Church Council meeting. The memorandum defended the validity of German resentment against the Jews, stating that ‘‘anti-Semitism is merely the other side of deep reection about German char-acter, with the intention of shaping the German mind and German fatein accordance with this character.’’ ≤∫ It described the anti-Jewish mea-sures of the German state as ‘‘understandable’’ and the boycott of Jewish businesses as a mark of ‘‘German discipline.’’ ≤Ω The real issue was not the‘‘persecution of the Jews with the goal of economic and personal exter-mination’’ but ‘‘a protective measure for the safeguarding of the GermanVolk. A struggle against the Jewish religion or the free practice of Jewish

culture is not occurring at all.’’ The memorandum created an alibi for the church to say little or noth-ing at all about what was happening, and it included a church declara-tion of loyalty to the ‘‘Order of the Party Leadership of the nsdap [Na-tional Socialist German Workers’ Party] from 28 March 1933.’’ ≥≠ Thechurch’s task, according to the memorandum, was to mitigate the sever-ity of state measures, above all to ‘‘look after the suffering Jewish Chris-tians . . . through the practice of brotherly love. Already, much of thisnature—in many cases quietly—has occurred.’’

The memorandum concluded that ecclesiastical and theological doc-trine had ‘‘not dealt seriously and deeply enough with the Jewish ques-tion in recent decades.’’ Churches at home and abroad had been guided by ‘‘humanitarian aspects’’ in a question that could be approached only

‘‘from the depth of the Gospel . . . theologically, really, from the perspec-tive of the Word of God.’’ ≥∞

On 7 June 1933, Church Councillor Dr. Johannes Hosemann sent the




59

1933; relief activities intensied after the 1935 Nuremberg Laws. Gener-ally speaking, the relief efforts of the World Alliance reached a remark-able level, helped by Siegmund-Schultze’s contacts with the relief agen-

cies in various countries.∂≥

Had a few years of preliminary ‘‘theological’’discussions been allowed to slip by until it was too late, this relief work would have been impossible. Frank Ritchie from the United States, LordDickinson and Bishop George Bell of Chichester from London, Swedisharchbishop Eidem from Uppsala, Norwegian bishop Ammundsen fromHaderslev, Pastor Marc Boegner from Paris, and Bishop Irenaeus fromNovi Sad led the World Alliance’s efforts. In Germany, Dr. Burghart, Pas-tor Hermann Maas, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer collaborated on the project. They were joined by Roman Catholic prelate Wienken (director of theGerman Caritas Association) and Dr. Hans Lamm and Rabbi Leo Baeck from the Jewish community. Supported by Superintendent Martin Al- bertz, Maas maintained ties to the Confessing Church.

The declarations that began to emerge from the ecumenical world were as signicant as its relief efforts. From 9 to 12 September 1933, theExecutive Committee of ‘‘Life and Work’’ convened in Novi Sad, Yugo-slavia. It could hardly remain silent about the Brown Synod that hadended three days before, but the German Evangelical Church delegation was led by Bishop Theodor Heckel, who ‘‘had failed to draw conclusionsfrom the Brown Synod with regard to his ofcial position’’ and had no

affection for the church opposition.∂∂

Particularly after 21 February 1934, when Reich Bishop Müller named him bishop in charge of the newly established Church Foreign Ofce, Heckel viewed his task as ‘‘to bringthe tossed ship of the church in Germany, along with its congregationsabroad, through the reefs.’’ ∂∑

In Novi Sad, Heckel completely ignored the outcome of the BrownSynod and the related issue of the treatment of the Jews. His remarksabout the German church situation failed to satisfy French churchleader Wilfred Monod. ∂∏ The lively debate that ensued ended in two reso-lutions, both introduced by Bishop George Bell; for the rst time at anecumenical conference, the Germans went on record as dissenting. ∂π

First, the conference expressed ‘‘grave anxieties . . . in particular withregard to the severe action taken against persons of Jewish origin and the

severe restrictions placed upon freedom of thought and expression inGermany.’’ ∂∫ Bell sent this statement to the London Times, which printedit on 4 October 1933. Second, as chair of the meeting and president of the




60

Ecumenical Council, Bell was asked to write a letter to the interim lead-ership of the German Evangelical Church expressing ‘‘the concern of thecommittee members and the churches they represent about these re-

strictive measures.’’∂Ω

In writing this letter, Bell was advised by Bonhoeffer, who was able tolessen Heckel’s inuence and correct the information being conveyed.Even in ecumenical circles, however, Bonhoeffer’s views were by nomeans widely held and had only minor inuence. Except for Bishops Belland Ammundsen, most ecumenical leaders avoided jeopardizing thecontacts with Heckel’s ofce. ∑≠

At the executive committee meeting of the World Alliance for Promot-ing Friendship through the Churches in Soa (15–20 September 1933),the church’s language was clearer than it had been at Novi Sad. ∑∞ In NoviSad, Heckel had prevailed; in Soa, it was Bonhoeffer who (as honorary youth secretary and invited speaker at the upcoming Fanö conference in1934) represented the German church, along with Prof. Julius Richter. ∑≤

Bonhoeffer had done preliminary work on what he saw as the most im-portant point on the agenda—‘‘Racial Minorities.’’ The night before theconference, he attended a gathering of several European and U.S. ecu-menical leaders and appealed forcefully to the consciences of those pres-ent to address the Aryan paragraph. As he wrote Siegmund-Schultze on6 November 1933: ‘‘I spoke quite openly about the Jewish question, the

Aryan paragraph in the church, the General Synod . . . and found muchsympathy.’’ ∑≥ After the subsequent plenary discussion about the Jewishquestion, the following resolution was adopted, with Bonhoeffer’s help:‘‘We especially deplore the fact that the state measures against the Jewsin Germany have had such an effect on public opinion that in somecircles the Jewish race is considered a race of inferior status. We protestagainst the resolution of the Prussian Synod and other synods that apply the Aryan paragraph of the state to the church, putting serious disabili-ties upon ministers and church ofcers who by chance of birth are non- Aryan, which we believe to be a denial of the explicit teaching and spiritof the Gospel of Jesus Christ.’’ ∑∂

With some difculty, Julius Richter, who was anxious about the possible displeasure of authorities at home, persuaded Bonhoeffer to accom-

pany him to the German embassy in Soa ‘‘to assure them that nothing is being directed against the German government as such.’’ ∑∑

Even Siegmund-Schultze was somewhat alarmed by the resolution. He




61

feared for the future security of Richter and Bonhoeffer in Germany andfor the continued success of the World Alliance’s relief activities. This was why they had agreed before the Soa meeting not to draft any resolu-

tions, so as not to ‘‘browbeat’’ either the German state or the GermanChurch Federation. Now, since the plenary session had decided to ignorethis agreement (largely at Bonhoeffer’s insistence), Bonhoeffer empha-sized to Siegmund-Schultze that Henriod had initiated the eveningmeeting with ecumenical leaders. ∑∏

It was understandable that Siegmund-Schultze, in the nal issue of his

journal Eiche (The Oak; it was banned soon thereafter), reported on theSoa meeting in ‘‘an account dressed up with much goodwill’’:

During the Soa conference, however, the executive committee over-rode this agreement, and wrote a resolution on the racial question withregard to the German church’s position. The representatives of thechurches of the great powers declared that it would mean the end of the

World Alliance’s work if one of its councils, meeting this year, failed totake a position on this question of such import to all of Christianity. Thus, the German representatives who participated in the session wereunable to prevent a resolution from being composed. They saw to it,however, that this included no criticism of their nation’s government,and that it was only a statement about church measures that werecontroversial within Germany as well. It would not be fair if we wanted

to conceal this resolution in Germany. ∑π

On 6 November 1933, Bonhoeffer informed the worried Siegmund-Schultze that he considered the resolution ‘‘good and justiable’’ andthat he could not retreat from it. Since he had information that thechurch government in Berlin possessed a copy of the resolution anyway, Bonhoeffer believed: ‘‘I really don’t think we need be afraid of spreading it about as much as we can. Junge Kirche (Young Church), too,ought to publish the text.’’ ∑∫ Bonhoeffer was more preoccupied withecclesiastical difculties than political ones. The Soa resolution very nearly prevented his assignment to London; indeed, as Bonhoeffer wroteSiegmund-Schultze, the ‘‘terrible furor’’ at the Spiritual Ministry inBerlin had almost led to Heckel’s own ‘‘downfall.’’ ∑Ω

Heckel could strengthen his position only by sending a letter to allGerman pastors abroad, giving his version of the ecumenical events inSeptember: ‘‘In difcult discussions, the German delegation hindered




62

all attempts at a detailed statement of the Executive Committee [ that is, in Novi Sad] . . . so that, nally, the attached vague resolution wasaccepted.’’∏≠

With support from the German Christians, Heckel committed the Ger-man pastors overseas to loyalty toward state and church: ‘‘The GermanChristians . . . can claim for themselves the merit of having taken chargeof the creation of the new with particular fervor.’’ The Aryan paragraph, which had been suspended on November 16, was not dead: ‘‘It can beexpected that appropriate, albeit milder, provisions will be included inany planned legal guidelines for the German Evangelical Church.’’ It wasimportant to ensure that there be no church demonstrations abroad—especially ‘‘in former enemy countries,’’ which ‘‘in the eyes of the Ger-man people [have] to a great extent lost the moral right to judge theGerman circumstances.’’ ∏∞

On 23 October 1933, Siegmund-Schultze wrote Bishop Bell of the dif-culties that had arisen for relief work as a result of the ecumenical meet-ings.∏≤ He noted that the reorganized German church leadership favoredthe German Christians, who had gained signicant representation onmost regional church governing councils in the July 1933 church elec-tions. This would soon affect the composition of the German delegationto the World Alliance as well. As a result, foreign agencies would have totake the initiative in matters concerning Jewish relief, which up until

then had come strongly from Germany. The work begun in Amsterdamhad come to a standstill, since Holland had grown cautious due to the‘‘difculties that arose in Germany and America.’’ It was absolutely nec-essary that these efforts be continued, Siegmund-Schultze told Bell: ‘‘Thefact that non-Aryans who belong to the Jewish religious community aresuffering in a Christian state, and even with the support of the Christianchurch, makes it seem desirable to me that Christians also do somethingto help the members of the Jewish religious community who have falleninto distress.’’ ∏≥

The voices from abroad did not fall silent; their pressure on the Ger-man church leaders continued. The Copenhagen Dagens Nyheder hadpublished an interview with Prof. Emanuel Hirsch about the Aryan para-graph, in which Hirsch defended the German Christian perspective,

drawing shocked reactions throughout Denmark. ∏∂ A similar response was reported in a 10 October letter to Heckel from the pastor of theGerman congregation in Stockholm, following a lecture there by Prof.




64

‘‘Even in the matter of the Jewish question, which is difcult to makeunderstandable in foreign countries, I found a sympathy that truly sur-prised me. I repeatedly found that students had dealt intensively with

the fundamental aspect of this question and, therefore, expressed a very extensive and objective endorsement of the German government’s ac-tions in this area. This appears to be a point where the German authori-ties’ persistent efforts at clarication have been effective.’’ π≠

Plaintively, Lilje noted that the reaction in Sweden ‘‘with regard tothe Aryan paragraph [is] as negative as before. . . . Yet, occasionally Ihave found open-mindedness in this area, too.’’ His ‘‘overall impression’’ was that the Swedes ‘‘(have) recognized the historical magnitude of ourChancellor and the purity of his desire. I am of the rm conviction thatthe good and fair judgment about Germany will win out in the fore-seeable future.’’ π∞

π

The Aryan Paragraph and the Protestant Press

the early impact of the aryan paragraph

After mid-November 1933, it appeared that the church opposition’s des-perate efforts to abolish the Aryan paragraph (in the church, at least) had

not been entirely in vain. The excesses of the 13 November German Chris-tian Sports Palace rally, especially a wildly anti-Jewish speech by Berlinregional party chairman Dr. Reinhold Krause, led Reich Bishop Müller tosuspend the Aryan paragraph. It was a demonstrative attempt to dis-associate himself from the chaotic events in Berlin and save his job.Müller’s unexpected move deferred (‘‘until the announcement of a Ger-man Evangelical Church law’’) the implementation of all laws affectingthe legal status of clergy and church civil servants that had been passed by the individual regional churches after 1 January 1933. ∞ Because thisdismissed all pending actions against non-Aryan pastors, many in thechurch opposition concluded that their efforts on behalf of these col-leagues had succeeded and were no longer necessary.

This assumption proved to be false, as one example illustrates. In a

letter to the Reich bishop on 11 October 1933, Breslau pastor Ernst Hor-nig protested the application of the Aryan paragraph to ordained clergy,in particular the termination notice given Pastor Friedrich Forell. ≤ Hor-




65

nig wrote that Forell’s great merits made it incomprehensible that heshould be the only Prussian clergyman dismissed because of the Aryanparagraph; others had been retained ‘‘under similar circumstances.’’

Hornig requested the ‘‘unconditional’’ guarantee of Forell’s pension,along with a promise of his possible ‘‘return to church service in Silesia.’’

Hornig received no reply until 4 January 1934, when the Aryan para-graph was reintroduced in the church. In its response, the EvangelicalCentral Church Council consented to Forell’s petition for premature re-tirement (as though Forell had ever requested retirement!) and guaran-teed his pension. ‘‘Pastor Forell presumably will enter into the service of the Swedish Society for Missions to Israel. We consider the matter hereby settled.’’ ≥

The council’s letter revealed the church bureaucracy’s true colors asan adversary of the ‘‘Christian love’’ so often aspired to. Forell’s case was‘‘settled’’ by aligning the church’s decisions with state laws. At the timeHornig’s letter arrived at the Central Church Council in Berlin, the sus-pension of the Aryan paragraph was imminent, and any further assur-ances were superuous. But, since Müller had only suspended the Aryanparagraph, not annulled it, the church simply waited for the suspensionto expire before it ‘‘settled’’ Forell’s case with a gesture of Christian ac-commodation. There may have been other such cases, particularly afterthe Aryan paragraph was repealed again in April 1934.

The entire situation illustrated the bankruptcy of the church leader-ship. Junge Kirche, the journal of the church opposition, commented thatthe Aryan paragraph had become ‘‘almost a ‘shibboleth’ in the churchstruggle. How has the church government behaved? Just observe: (1) Thelaw is passed (resolution of the General Synod of the Regional Churchesof the Old Prussian Union from 6 September 1933). . . . (2) The law isrepealed (16 November 1933). . . . (3) The repeal is repealed (Reich bishopdecree of 4 January 1934). . . . (4) The repeal of the repeal is repealed (sec. 1of the Church Law for the Pacication of the Situation in the Church, 13 April 1934). . . . (5) The repeal of the repeal remains in effect (sec. 4 of thesame law).’’∂

The Reich bishop’s intellectual and spiritual confusion was matched by the contradictory attitudes within the Pastors’ Emergency League. On

the one hand, the pel stressed the necessity of protecting ordained non- Aryan clergy from the Aryan law; on the other hand, it proclaimed itsreadiness, in the wake of völkisch euphoria, to guard the ministry against




67

Many wrestle in vain to achieve a balance between the völkisch-nationalideal and the Christian-ethical demand. . . . It will be the task of all legalthinkers to mitigate the hardships, so far as possible, without becoming

weak or challenging the fundamental necessity [of these measures].Likewise, all those with a sense of integrity are called to see sternly to itthat this struggle, which is necessary for the sake of our people, is notundermined by so-called Christians who use this opportunity to thwarttheir troublesome opponent. . . .

But, of course, we may not become soft either! Our weakness shouldnot allow the continuation of a development that has proved to be

misguided for the German and for the Jewish people. It is hard whencivil servants, teachers, professors who are guilty of nothing more than being Jews have to move aside. It is hard when Germans who . . . have been accustomed to being citizens with equal rights for a hundred yearsmust nd themselves again in the role of foreigners. But never shouldsuch considerations lead to sentimental weakness and paralysis. ∞≠

Although not a German Christian publication, the Westphalian Prot-estant Sunday paper, Friede und Freude (Peace and joy) expressed its anti-Semitism by ridiculing Albert Einstein: ‘‘It is not necessary to say any-thing more about Mr. Einstein. At the time he advanced his theory of relativity, he achieved only limited renown, despite the feverish effortsof his Jewish friends; for there were physicists of non-Semitic origin

whose service to science was substantially greater, even if they did notsurround themselves with such ballyhoo; but, now, Professor Einsteinhas reached his goal: he has become immortal— immortally ridiculous!’’∞∞

Stoll discovered some statements in defense of the Jews, but these were ‘‘very cautious . . . compared with the patriotic and obstreperousanti-Semitism’’ that dominated the Protestant press. One advocate wasKarl Ludwig Schmidt, a colleague and friend of Karl Barth who had toleave Germany because of his membership in the Social Democraticparty. In a famous public dialogue with Martin Buber in Stuttgart,Schmidt overestimated the genuine solidarity of ‘‘many’’ Christians withthe Jews when he declared, ‘‘in the name of many Protestants, an appre-ciative, brotherly sentiment toward Jewish believers and fellow citi-zens.’’∞≤ Schmidt’s words were an ‘‘attempt to be allowed to understand

you as Jews, you who, as our brothers, live together with us, must livetogether with us, should live together with us—as it is in the entire world, so also in our German Fatherland.’’ ∞≥




68

Another defense appeared in the Deutsches Pfarrerblatt (German pas-tors’ paper), where an article against the Aryanization of Jesus and thedenigration of the Bible as a ‘‘Jewish book’’ noted that the biblical au-

thors, almost without exception, had been Jews.∞∂

Thus, the writer con-tended, the term ‘‘Jewish book’’ was a defamation not of the Jews but of the Bible itself.

One journal that was unafraid to defend the Jews was Eiche, edited by Friedrich Siegmund-Schultze. ∞∑ Another was Christliche Welt (Christian world), whose editor, Hermann Mulert, wrote after the April 1933 boy-cott of the Jews: ‘‘Anti-Semitism today often takes forms on the streetsthat denitely are not in accord with the intent of the fathers of thenational movement of our day, forms that the representatives of Chris-tianity must oppose in the name of reason, justice, and humanity.’’ ∞∏

Theologische Blätter (Theological pages) and Junge Kirche were somewhat more outspoken in their attempts to defy the church’s anti-Semi-tism. Zwischen den Zeiten (Between the times) and Reformierte Kirchen- zeitung (Reformed Church paper) were also part of the ‘‘defensive frontagainst the penetration of völkisch-racial ideas into the church.’’ ∞π

Numerous periodicals, however, defended the völkisch zeitgeist. Onesuch paper, Licht und Leben, revealed its anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi sympa-thies in an article entitled ‘‘Christian Pulpit Monitored by Synagogue’’(originally entitled ‘‘Israel the People of God? Or the People of Satan?’’). ∞∫

In other issues, Licht und Leben welcomed the National Socialist ac-tions against the Roman Catholics and the German Jewish press. Afterthe surrender of Roman Catholicism, with its internationalist politicaland religious tendencies, one foe remained: ‘‘Gilded internationalism,namely Jewry. Now this is a particularly hard nut to crack, and it is doubt-ful whether National Socialism can come away without some bruises. To be sure, it is clear to us that anti-Semitism is justied, because Jewry has behaved too impudently even in Germany; but, this anti-Semitism mustremain within the limits shown in the Bible.’’ ∞Ω

In June 1933, Licht und Leben published a statement on the Jewishquestion by Pastor Dr. Walter Michaelis which the editors noted might‘‘astonish many a reader’’ because of its ‘‘humanitarian’’ demands: ‘‘Wedo not rack our brains over the question Jew or half-Jew. We simply de-

clare: there is no biblical objection against containing the Jewish inu-ence and assessing it as non-German. Rather, we are of the opinion thatthis lies within the lines of the divine plan. . . . Our concern, however,



Early Confessional Synods

69

must be that this path is followed without violating humaneness. Here, too,it is important to watch and pray that this legitimate struggle does not re-nounce its humanity and, through that, bring guilt upon our people.’’ ≤≠

Stoll concludes that ‘‘the overwhelming majority of the Protestantpress in 1933 offered no serious resistance to the anti-Semitism of the Third Reich.’’ On the contrary, during the early period of the Nazi cam-paign against the Jews, ‘‘patriotic delusion, nationalistic exuberance,anti-Jewish resentment’’ led it to speak the same language as the Nazis. ≤∞

‘‘In the second phase, as anti-Semitism gained ground in the Evangelical

Church, differences do appear between explicitly German Christianchurch groups and the conservative and more confessional groups, butonly in exceptional cases does this lead to a clear disassociation fromNational Socialist racial agitation in the church. On the whole, one can’tavoid seeing the Protestant presses’ failure here.’’ ≤≤

Nonetheless, there were isolated instances of real courage. On 14 Octo- ber 1933, the Breslau weekly paper Evangelischer Ruf (Evangelical call)published a provocative piece in large letters on the title page:

vision

Worship service. The opening hymn has died away. The minister standsat the altar and begins:

‘‘Non-Aryans are requested to leave the church!’’ No one moves.‘‘Non-Aryans are requested to leave the church!’’ Again, all remain

still.‘‘Non-Aryans are requested to leave the church!’’ Then Christ climbs

down from the cross on the altar and leaves the church. ≤≥

∫


the aryan paragraph

The nal months of 1933 brought renewed debate about the Aryan para-graph among theologians and at church synods. Rudolf Bultmann de-fended the Marburg Gutachten against Georg Wobbermin, the ‘‘psycholo-gist of existential religion.’’ ∞ Using arguments similar to Bultmann’s,

Georg Merz protested the introduction of the Aryan paragraph in thechurch—although he gave the state the prerogative to forbid Jews ‘‘entry into the natural Volk,’’ for ‘‘Volk-political considerations.’’ ≤




70

On 10 December 1933, after a report by Evangelical Central CouncillorDr. Walter Grundmann, the sixteenth Evangelical-Lutheran Synod of Saxony unanimously accepted ‘‘Twenty-Eight Theses of the Saxon Peo-

ple’s Church on the Internal Organization of the German EvangelicalChurch.’’ ≥ It demanded an Aryan paragraph for the church; the Saxontheses were adopted by the regional church council and synod of Schleswig-Holstein, by the regional churches of Braunschweig, Olden- burg, and Mecklenburg, and by the German Christians. ∂

In a Gutachten requested by fteen Saxon superintendents (dated 28December 1933), the theology faculty in Leipzig took a relatively mildstand against the Saxon Theses. The Leipzig scholars observed that theReich bishop’s (temporary) repeal of the Aryan law proved that this was‘‘a difcult problem. . . . Hasty solutions conned to the regional churchlevel are in the interests neither of the church nor of the state.’’ ∑

In June 1934, Junge Kirche published the ‘‘Principles of the RhinelandBrotherhood of Pastors against the Twenty-Eight Theses.’’ ∏ Addressed tothe Reich government, this document described the church Aryan para-graph as ‘‘a false doctrine that destroys the very essence of the church. A church that adopts the Aryan paragraph has become a Judaistic, völkischsect and will share the fate of all Judaistic sects: disintegration and re-lapse into sub-Christian piety, that is, paganism.’’ π

On behalf of the theological faculty in Berlin, Dean Reinhold Seeberg

responded to the Rhineland Brotherhood document. Seeberg defendedthe Saxon theses, arguing, ‘‘The ‘essence of the church’ would be de-stroyed only if it were said that a non-Aryan has an inferior Christianity or if he were kept out of the Christian church. Here, however, we arespeaking only about the exercise of an ecclesiastical ofce. It is obviousthat such an ofce is not to be recommended for a non-Aryan in thefuture and will hardly be sought.’’ ∫

With the beginning of 1934, the tone of the debate about the Aryanparagraph and its implementation changed. Discussion began to focusmore on retaining the Old Testament; Christians of Jewish descent weredefended with generalized rejections of ideological racism.

This new emphasis was apparent at the Westphalian Provincial Synod

and Confessional Synod, both of which met in Dortmund on 16 March1934. In a statement about the Saxon theses, the president of the Rhine-land Confessional Synod expressed concern about the threat to the




71

Old Testament. Ω He did not mention the Aryan paragraph, which theRhineland Brotherhood still considered a threat to the substance of thechurch. Discussion of the so-called Jewish question had taken a new

form: protest against contempt for the Old Testament.It was an unmistakable sign that the last half of the Pastors’ Emer-

gency League pledge (which explicitly opposed the Aryan paragraph andpromised ‘‘shared responsibility . . . with those who are persecuted’’) had been sacriced to a stronger emphasis on the rst half (which promisedto defend the ministry and its ‘‘confessional position’’). Scripture andconfession moved into the foreground. This shift was not necessarily linked to the Law to Restore Order in the German Protestant Church (theso-called Muzzle Law of 4 January 1934). This decree permitted a quick resolution of the Aryan question, which led Reich Bishop Müller to re-introduce the church Aryan paragraph the same day.

But the more volatile question, even in the Pastors’ Emergency League, was whether the Aryan paragraph was the worst threat posed by theanticonfessional tendencies of the German Christians, or whether other,more important issues violated the Christian confession. Even MartinNiemöller, who was not intimidated by the Muzzle Law, underscoredhis November 1933 statement on the Aryan paragraph by giving his‘‘personal opinion’’ that Jewish ofceholders could be expected to show restraint. ∞≠

Given such a weakening of the Pastors’ Emergency League pledge, it was hardly surprising when some Emergency League members timidly asked civil authorities how they should respond to a questionnaire sentfrom the Reich Church requiring certicates of Aryan ancestry from can-didates for the ministry. ∞∞ On 2 November 1933, Niemöller’s rst newslet-ter to Emergency League members had recommended that they not re-spond to the questionnaire. ∞≤ Several months later, circumstances hadchanged so much that a regional Emergency League was seeking thestate’s support against Reich Church decrees. Reich Minister WilhelmFrick replied that he took the ‘‘grave misgivings of a dogmatic nature’’against a church Aryan paragraph seriously. In a swipe at the ReichChurch, he remarked: ‘‘If, in the laws and ordinances, a strong publicinterest in the elimination of non-Aryan inuences has played a role, it

still overshoots the mark if the principles of section 3 are indiscrimi-nately and uncritically transferred to areas for which they are not in-tended, as has occurred in many cases. . . . Such endeavors fail to recog-




72

nize that there are also limits that must be observed in Aryan legislation,and that the government has repeatedly and emphatically rejected theseendeavors as well.’’ ∞≥

Unimpressed, the Reich Church government decided to reintroducethe Aryan paragraph on 4 January. That same day (although he hardly could have known that the suspended Aryan paragraph had just beenreenacted), Karl Barth delivered his lecture entitled ‘‘Confession of theFree Church Synod,’’ ∞∂ which became the foundation for the Barmentheses several months later. Barth’s lecture was the last decisive publicstatement against the Aryan paragraph for some time:

As far as its message and its character are concerned, the church of JesusChrist is one and the same in different times, races, peoples, states, andcultures. The right of ecclesiastical diversity stands or falls here uponthe church’s compatibility with the unity of its message and character. With that, the view is rejected:

As though it were compatible with the unity of the message and

character of the church to limit membership and aptitude for service tomembers of a certain race.

Unity. The accusation of humanitarian egalitarianism isn’t accuratehere. It won’t do to see diversities [among peoples] as a special revela-tion from God. These diversities stand under the one message and aremeasured against the one standard. No form of the Aryan paragraphcan be made compatible with it. ∞∑

The declaration of the Reformed confessional synod (held in Barmenin January 1934) did not include Barth’s remarks on the Aryan para-graph. ∞∏ It was the beginning of a pattern that became more striking insubsequent declarations and confessions, which failed to mention the Aryan paragraph. It was left up to each individual to decide where adeclaration defended the Old Testament and opposed a racially deter-mined faith. Once the seed of a ripening opposition, the Aryan paragraphhad become a fruit that was better left untouched. If it were to avoidcomplete fragmentation, the church opposition had to nd a strongerfoundation for withstanding future, even worse confrontations. In itsefforts to consolidate its strength and create a strong public image, theConfessing Church no longer attached such importance to attacking the

Aryan paragraph as a violation of the confession and a threat to the es-sence of the church. It had no desire to prolong or intensify the discus-sion on this point.




73

The draft for the new ‘‘Guiding Principles of the Pastors’ Emergency League’’ was watered down. ∞π The original Emergency League pledge wasunrecognizable in the new version:

. . .Volk and Fatherland, Blood and Race can be interpreted properly andrecognized as God’s gift and task only on the foundation of this Word of God. We reject the doctrine that sees Volkstum and Race as the standardsfor the validity of the biblical revelation.

Membership in the church is not dependent upon Blood and Volks- tum, but rather upon baptism and faith.

In 1934, this draft (a vestige of the Emergency League pledge that hadaroused such hopes six months earlier) offered little comfort to non- Aryan Christians or much threat to their persecutors. The confessionalmovement had a new theme: the church must become the church again. This demanded collective theological reection and a renaissance of ‘‘pure doctrine,’’ which, based on the foundations of Scripture and the

Reformation confession, would be in the position to resist the powerfulpseudochurch.

barmen and its aftermath

Thus, led by the words of Karl Barth, the rst confessional synod at Bar-men (29–31 May 1934) proclaimed a ‘‘Theological Declaration’’ that rejected the German Christians. At the Dahlem Confessional Synod in

October 1934, the Confessing Church born in Barmen established itsown ‘‘Provisional Church Administration of the German EvangelicalChurch.’’ ∞∫

The declarations of 1933 had shown that dogmatic reection aboutthe church’s essential identity could not simply ignore the non-AryanChristians. As late as June 1933, Barth unconditionally rejected ‘‘thespirit and the letter’’ of German Christian doctrine in an essay (which became the basis for Theological Existence Today). He declared his opposi-tion in point 6: ‘‘The communion of those belonging to the church is notdetermined by blood or, therefore, by race, but by the Holy Spirit and by baptism. If the German Evangelical Church would exclude the JewishChristians or treat them as second-class Christians, it would cease to be aChristian church.’’ ∞Ω

Yet one searches the Barmen theological declaration in vain for anexplicit inclusion of non-Aryan Christians in the church as the completeBody of Christ—and the Barmen document was the constitutive declara-




74

tion of the Confessing Church. Such a statement would have t in thethird thesis of the Barmen Declaration:

But let us be righteous in love and grow in every respect to Him who isthe head, Christ, from whom the entire body is joined together (Eph.4:15–16).

The Christian congregation is the congregation of brethren, in which Jesus Christ acts in the present as Lord in the Word and the sacramentthrough the Holy Spirit. With its faith as well as through its obedience,in its message as well as through its order, it must witness in the midst

of the world of sin as the church of the blessed sinners to the fact that italone is His property, that it lives and desires to live alone from Hiscomfort and from His direction, in expectation of His appearance.

We reject the false doctrine that the church may be permittedto abandon the form of its message and its order at its discretion, orin response to the uctuation of prevailing ideological and politicalconvictions.

Karl Barth apparently formulated the third Barmen thesis solely onthe basis of Eph. 4:15b–16a. In the process, Barth even reworded Luther’stranslation, ‘‘to be truthful,’’ with a more active word [ Recht schaffen], sothat Eph. 4:15a can be understood almost as a summons: ‘‘But let usestablish justice in love!’’ In any case, Barth’s translation provided anexcellent springboard for an appeal to create and do something—but thispotential was not realized.

The compelling question is whether Barth, at this critical point, sacri-ced the righteous creation in love to the righteous act of being in theBody of Christ. Barth would have said that the two belong together. Butthe rst aspect had fallen de facto under the table; the other remained onthe table and on the agenda. Barth’s exposition was abstract and dog-matical instead of concrete and ethical. This was exactly where Bon-hoeffer offered a counterpoint—the melody of ethics that seems absentfrom Barth’s harmony of dogmatics.

Or was it simply impossible in Barmen to win a consensus for such acorrelation between ‘‘theological existence’’ and an ethical agenda? Would the participants and observers in Barmen have viewed an appeal

that dened Christian love as justice for the persecuted as too concrete,too detailed, or, indeed, too monomaniacal? Perhaps a cry on behalf of the Jews would not have served the institutional church, but it would




75

have served the Body of Christ. And wasn’t Barth’s fervent subject pre-cisely this Body of Christ as the community of theological existence? Addressing the task of this Body of Christ—of the church—Barth wrote:

‘‘The church does not at all have to serve human beings or, therefore, theGerman people. The German Evangelical Church is the church for theGerman Protestant people. But it serves the Word of God alone. It is God’s will and work if, through His Word, human beings and, thereby, theGerman people are served.’’ ≤≠

In other words, Barth insisted on a very specic order of importance:proclamation (the service to God’s Word) came rst, and then action(that is, allowing the Word of God to work by serving human beings). Theidea that the will of God was transparent in human action was a view that Barth rejected as an attack on his theory of revelation, for we arecharged primarily with ‘‘serving the Word of God in this people.’’ ≤∞ ‘‘Wesin again not just against God, but against our people as well, when wepermit this priority to be assailed at even the most insignicant point.’’ ≤≤

In the nal analysis, Barth’s concern was the restabilization of thechurch (albeit a renewed church). His merit lay in the establishment of dogmatic truth as the basis for a timeless and independent validity, forall time and particularly for that present time. For ‘‘that which under nocircumstances may occur now is this: that we, in zeal for what we con-sider to be a good cause, lose our theological existence. Our theological

existence is our existence in the church and, indeed, as preachers andteachers called in the church.’’ ≤≥ Bonhoeffer, however, considered anunqualied stand for the non-Aryan Christian brethren, or possibly evenfor all persecuted Jews, to be a good cause—and intended to gain histheological existence precisely through this!

Despite the Barmen theses’ historical signicance, important ques-tions remain, based on our insights a half century after Barmen. Criti-cism of Barmen is not so much moral condemnation as it is a simple rec-ognition that the discussion about the Barmen Declaration continues.

In Barmen, for the rst time since the Reformation, German Protes-tants sought to speak with one voice and one confession. Their desirefor unity exceeded their willingness to risk letting the entire synod (tothe malicious glee of the German Christians and the National Socialist

party) disintegrate in controversy about the treatment of the non-AryanChristians or the Jews. In the turbulent debate, Wilhelm von Pechmann’sresignation from the church two months earlier and his farewell letter to




76

the Reich bishop (printed in the April 1934 issue of Junge Kirche) were for-gotten. The constitutional president of the German Evangelical ChurchConvention from 1924 to 1930 had left the church! It was not mentioned

in Barmen. In a long letter, Pechmann wrote: ‘‘Now as you well know, Ihave protested frequently and repeatedly since April of last year againstthe rape of the church, against its lack of strength to resist, and againstits silence in the face of much injustice and in the face of all that misery and heartache that . . . has entered numerous ‘non-Aryan’ hearts andhomes, Christian and Jewish. But, until now, I have protested only with words . . . and always utterly in vain. It is time to go one step further, thatis, to protest by resigning from a church that ceases to be a church.’’≤∂

Pechmann’s letter was addressed to the leaders of the German Evan-gelical Church. But was he not also addressing the church opposition when he lamented ‘‘the lack of strength in resistance’’ and the ‘‘silence’’about the misery in ‘‘non-Aryan homes’’? After all, Pechmann had thechance to join the Confessing Church. He did not do so but joined theFree Lutheran Church instead. ≤∑ Wilhelm Niemöller astutely observed,‘‘There will remain some things to atone for in the case of Pechmann.’’ AsNiemöller implied, Pechmann’s voice was absent in Barmen—as a voicethat could have spoken for the Jews. ≤∏

In Barmen, the Confessing Church had severed itself from the issue that

had brought it into being—the Aryan paragraph. From that point on, the Aryan paragraph would no longer be an intrinsic part of the ConfessingChurch, a status confessionis, but could be treated as a separate question. This abandoned the non-Aryan Christians to an isolation from whichdeliverance (or reintegration into the church) was almost impossible. This was precisely the German Christians’ goal: once the non-AryanChristians were separated from the Christian community, it would befairly easy to eliminate the non-Aryan Christian congregations en blocfrom the body of the German people.

Increasingly, the energies of Confessing Church leaders became tiedup in organizational, legal, and practical matters. Resistance against theestablishment of separate non-Aryan Christian congregations was wan-ing, even if the church had not yet fallen completely silent.

One individual who continued to raise the issue—albeit for purposesof evangelization—was Pastor Gerhard Jasper of Bethel, who later ac-tively helped persecuted non-Aryan Christians. Jasper ‘‘had been raised’’




77

to hold many of the völkisch prejudices against Jews and non-Aryan Chris-tians. ≤π At the same time, as a pastor active in the proselytization of Jews,he strove to win back ‘‘those gone astray’’ to the true theology. Both

tendencies led to a strict refusal to let the non-Aryan Christians be bro-ken away from the Body of Christ. In a 1934 book, Jasper noted that the‘‘Jewish Christian’’ congregation, ‘‘as the congregation faithful to theLaw,’’ had ‘‘never called longevity its own.’’ ≤∫ Focusing on the specialnature of the ‘‘Jewish Christians,’’ instead of on Christ alone, had led to‘‘the danger of weakening the basic New Testament truths.’’ A sectlikeseparation, which would damage the rest of the church, would be un-avoidable.

Moreover, Jasper wrote, it was wrong to assume that ‘‘Jewish Chris-tian’’ congregations facilitate ‘‘the evangelization of the Jews. . . . The Jews themselves would deem the Jewish Christian solution a compro-mise. Halfway methods do not win over the polarized and eccentric Jew-ish person.’’ ≤Ω It was a fact that ‘‘most Jews were won to the Gospel by Gentile Christians, not by Jewish Christians. This substantiates Paul’s view (Rom. 11:11 ff.) that the Jews are aroused to ‘holy jealousy’ primarily through the Gentile Christians.’’ ≥≠

Israel was the ‘‘thorn of conscience for the Christian congregation,’’ wrote Jasper, and the church would be guilty if it refused to provide roomfor its non-Aryan Christian members. How could the evangelization of

Jews be continued ‘‘if we can offer the Jewish Christian no home in thechurch?’’ ≥∞ ‘‘The mission to the Jews requires not only our prayers, ap-peals not only to our sense of sacrice [ sic ], but demands that . . . throughour manner, we either arouse the Jews to blessed jealousy or . . . offendthem because we are not able to overcome ‘a shudder,’ as Stapel puts it, when face to face with them.’’ ≥≤ Jasper agreed with Gerhard Kittel ≥≥ that,‘‘in consideration of the present völkisch sentiments,’’ it was legitimate toask non-Aryan Christians to refrain from holding pastoral ofce. ≥∂ Still,‘‘considerations for the attitude of the Volk’’ could not affect the Chris-tian love ‘‘shown toward Jewish Christians. . . . The confession may re-quire that precisely this ‘skandalon’ be prominently displayed.’’

Jasper’s words evoked the earlier polarity between Bonhoeffer andNiemöller in the debate about the Bethel Confession. Bonhoeffer be-

lieved that Gentile Christians had to bear the skandalon [i.e., the ‘‘scan-dal’’ of Jews in the church] of the Cross (‘‘which today creates for itself asymbol in Jewish Christianity’’) ≥∑ for the sake of their love for the non-




79

Aryan Christians, the regional Councils of Brethren quietly continued tohelp individuals. But it did not seem prudent to make energetic publicstatements, although their position had been strengthened through the

establishment of their own church government (the Provisional Church Administration) at the Dahlem Synod in October 1934. The GermanChristians held powerful positions in a number of regional churches. If the Confessing Christians were to retain the few posts remaining tothem, they had to be cautious.

There were still a few determined individuals, such as retired Frank-furt Church counsel Dr. Johannes Kübel, who did not hesitate to take apublic stand on behalf of the non-Aryan Christians. As he informed theFrankfurt Council of Brethren, the Gestapo tried to prevent him fromdelivering a lecture entitled ‘‘The Struggle for the Freedom of the FirstChristian Congregation’’ to the Frankfurt Reich Association of Non- Aryan Christians. ∂≥ Viewing Kübel’s prepared remarks as church politics,the Gestapo banned the lecture; Kübel tried to read selected New Testa-ment passages instead. The Gestapo then demanded that he submit thepassages in advance. Kübel resisted this unreasonable demand by asking whether the Holy Scripture had ‘‘the right to be heard . . . always andeverywhere.’’ The Gestapo replied that, ‘‘Because it concerns non-Aryans,this is a special case and the State Police must know which biblical pas-sages are read.’’ ∂∂

Appealing to the Council of Brethren, Kübel requested it ‘‘to resolvethe question once and for all: In proclaiming the Word, is the EvangelicalChurch free only within the walls of the church, and is the Gestapo lordover the Word of God?’’ He also protested police censorship of his lectureand asked for ‘‘a fundamental decision’’ on the matter by the ProvisionalChurch Administration. No reply to his letter seems to exist, but it wasalready too late for any ‘‘fundamental decision’’ about such matters.

In the period that followed, the Confessing Church offered only indi-rect public support for ‘‘its’’ non-Aryan Christians. It conned itself toghting against racially determined Christianity and to warning againstthe elimination of the Old Testament. One example was the ‘‘Fundamen-tal Position of the Provisional Leadership of the German EvangelicalChurch on the Question of Neopaganism,’’ ∂∑ which explicitly condemned

German Christian attempts to eliminate the Old Testament from the biblical canon and to defame Paul as a ‘‘falsier of the pure doctrineof Jesus.’’ Another example was the February 1935 Provisional Church




80

Administration proclamation addressed to parents of schoolchildren, warning them to ght the neopagan demand in the schools that the Old Testament be removed from religion classes. ∂∏

One of the best-known church statements from this period was the‘‘Resolutions of the Confessional Synod of the Protestant Church of theOld Prussian Union.’’ ∂π In March 1935, the police arrested and briey detained almost 715 pastors in the Old Prussian Church to prevent thisstatement from being read in the pulpits. ∂∫ The ‘‘Resolutions’’ threw thegauntlet before the neopagan, anti-Christian religion supported by thestate: ‘‘We see our people threatened by a deadly danger. The dangerexists in a new religion. . . . In it, the racist- völkisch ideology becomesmyth. In it, blood and race, Volkstum, honor, and freedom are turned intoidols. . . . Whoever makes blood, race, and Volkstum the Creator and Lordof state authority in place of God undermines the state.’’ ∂Ω

After the 715 pastors were released, several leading church agencies wrote Reich Interior Minister Frick: ‘‘We rejoice at all that has grown inGerman history out of blood and soil, and see race as a gift from theCreator that we honor and love, and which imposes great obligationsupon us. But if religion should be merely a product of blood and soil,then the sources of the Spirit, which exist far above time and history inanother world, are denied.’’ ∑≠

As such statements illustrate, the claim that ‘‘there was not, in gen-

eral, complete silence in the Confessing Church on the Jewish question’’during 1934 and 1935 is problematic. ∑∞ The battle on behalf of the Jews(which, for the church, usually meant the non-Aryan Christians) had been abandoned long before. Most Christians found themselves in re-treat. In both Barmen and Dahlem, there was a sense that the church hadto consolidate new positions and gather its forces, in order to take theoffensive in 1935. Most church leaders felt that their very institution wasunder attack. The church opposition had considered the Aryan para-graph to be a profound contradiction of the confession, but this recogni-tion had faded in importance. It was no longer as important to protectthe non-Aryan Christians from the Aryan paragraph as to defend thechurch and its proclamation, in light of the attacks on the Holy Scriptureof both Testaments. The Old Testament itself was now at stake, as well as

the ‘‘over-Judaized’’ pericopes in the New Testament.By September 1935, the struggle on behalf of the non-Aryan Chris-

tians had turned into a revolt against a brown-tinged Marcionite renais-




81

sance. ∑≤ The crucial point was no longer the Aryan paragraph’s disparity with the confession but neopaganism’s contradiction of scripture. Littlethought was given to the fate of non-Aryan Christian pastors and lay

Christians, despite Westphalian church president Karl Koch’s reminderthat ‘‘God has placed us in fellowship. If one member suffers, then allmembers suffer.’’ ∑≥

the meusel memorandum

In the months before the Nuremberg Laws, one of the most importantdocuments on behalf of non-Aryan Christians was the memorandum written by Marga Meusel, director of the Protestant district welfare service in Berlin-Zehlendorf. Berlin superintendent Martin Albertz hadasked Meusel to write the statement, which he sent to Westphalianleader Koch and other Confessing leaders. ∑∂ ‘‘Since the Jewish Chris-tian question has become of immediate interest to us in Germany, ourchurch’s obligation toward our members of non-Aryan blood concernsme especially,’’ wrote Albertz. ‘‘I do not need to point out to you how

much material and spiritual distress aficts these Christian brothersand sisters.’’ ∑∑ Bodelschwingh had advised Albertz to turn to the Provin-cial Board for Inner Mission, where his concerns met with understand-ing but no action.

Now Albertz hoped to raise the issue of ‘‘the Confessing Church’s re-sponsibilities toward Protestant non-Aryans’’ at the upcoming confes-

sional synod in Augsburg.∑∏

Albertz believed that the synod would haveto assume these responsibilities itself or charge the Provisional Church Administration or its Presidium with the matter. Practically, he thoughtthat ‘‘here in Berlin, a start could be made by offering counseling andspiritual care, in connection with a larger Protestant institution or asso-ciation, under the direction of a very suitable person, who herself is non- Aryan and brings good qualications and a special interest in the work.’’

Explicitly citing the Marburg opinion, which had opposed the ex-clusion of non-Aryan Christians from church membership or ofce,Meusel’s memorandum asked the Confessing Church to ‘‘draw the prac-tical conclusions from this and nally speak the redeeming word to itsnon-Aryan brethren. Then it [the church] must take on their distress andseek to help them, whatever the external consequences.’’ ∑π

Meusel sought both ‘‘spiritual and material aid’’ for non-Aryan Chris-tians. Spiritual aid was rooted in the professed solidarity of all within thecommitted community of the Christian faith. This understanding would




82

automatically lead to ‘‘material aid’’ in the form of appropriate action.Meusel was addressing specic issues that had arisen in Berlin, includ-ing the establishment of special ‘‘church [job] training centers for non-

Aryan Christians,’’ which she rejected on the same grounds that thechurch had to reject the formation of separate ‘‘Jewish Christian’’ con-gregations. She appealed to the Ofce of Inner Mission and, by extension,to the entire Confessing Church: ‘‘If the Inner Mission, as it has de-clared, ∑∫ remains loyal to the Confessing Church, then it must supportthis work. There must be a separation between it and those institutions

engaged in works of Protestant charity that do not do this. One cannotremain loyal to the Confessing Church and then simply rule out thedemands of the Gospel that are not pleasing.’’ ∑Ω

Despite Meusel’s courage, the statement might have been more ef-fective had it not been conned to the question of Christian respon-sibility in the church sphere but, given the treatment of all Jews, hadappealed to the conscience of the state as well. But everyone, includingthe writers of the Marburg Gutachten, had conceded the autonomy of thestate on this point—perhaps in the quiet hope that the state, for its part, would recognize the church’s autonomy in its own sphere. ∏≠ The Lu-theran attitude toward the government, based on Rom. 13, prevented thechurch from assuming the role of public social guardian (as Bonhoeffer,in lonely isolation, had demanded). This was reected in Meusel’s memo-randum: ‘‘For this reason, the work on behalf of the Protestant non- Aryans may not occur as opposition against the state, nor may it lead tosuch an attitude. This would not only be unjustied from the perspectiveof the Gospel, but would offend God’s command. Every appearance of theInner Mission’s work as a possible ‘reaction’ must be avoided. On thecontrary, it must be pointed out again and again that we are obligated toobey the state, even when we suffer personal harm through its orders.’’ ∏∞

There was a reason for Meusel’s appeal to the Inner Mission. In August1935, the director of the Protestant Charitable Service in Zehlendorf hadmet with Martin Niemöller to discuss the question of aid to Protestantnon-Aryans.∏≤ In contrast to Niemöller, who believed that Christian lovemade it a duty to give such individuals ‘‘work in church organizations,’’

the Zehlendorf director contended ‘‘that the church, including the InnerMission and other institutions, cannot avoid the application of legalaspects along with the Christian notion of love. It cannot be permitted




83

that . . . non-Aryans are pushed into Christian service organizations,eventually into the pastorate as well, in such numbers that a pro-nounced foreign inltration develops . . . care must be taken that the

Christian organizations do not become collection centers for such peo-ple who do not nd employment elsewhere.’’ ∏≥

Given such views, Albertz could not exactly count on effective support;nor was the response from another Berlin church charity, the City Mis-sion, encouraging. Its director, Pastor Hans Dannenbaum, had writtenan essay that made no secret of his animosity toward the ‘‘Jewish spirit.’’

A certain sympathy with the fate of the Jewish people, and the hope for Jewish conversion to Christianity, induced Dannenbaum to write whatsounds like an involuntary preview of the ovens in Auschwitz: ‘‘‘He can-not repent of God’s election and call!’ God saves this people for a last, andone of the greatest, deeds of world history. Puried in the oven of suf-fering—and who knows through what bloody tribulations anti-Semitism

will yet hound this people!!—it becomes ripe for conversion. And if thispeople, standing under the curse, still has such capability, then how marvelous must be its blessing for the world when it once again will bereceived by God in grace! And the day will come someday.’’ ∏∂

Ironically, Dannebaum’s essay was attacked in the Völkischer Beobach- ter (People’s Observer) for even suggesting that the Jews might one day beredeemed. ∏∑ Under re, the City Mission director eventually distancedhimself from his remarks, assuring his critics, ‘‘I can only declare inpublic that the City Mission, mindful of its founder, Adolf Stoecker, stillconsiders the removal of every inuence of the Jewish spirit from the lifeof the German Volk one of the most important tasks of state leadership,and this is supported by us in the spirit of Christianity.’’ ∏∏

Although a few Christians acknowledged the distress of those beingpersecuted, few non-Aryan Christians found help or refuge in the Con-fessing Church. ∏π Some Nazi ofcials thought otherwise, however. On 14 June 1935, Gauleiter (Nazi regional director) Wilhelm Kube, a founder of the German Christians and chief president of the Kurmark region, wrote:

‘‘Additional accomplices of the Jews are the groups in the confessionalfront, which continue to have the impudence today to describe the Jews

to us as a ‘chosen people.’ ’’ ∏∫ It is not clear whether Kube ever read MargaMeusel’s paper, but he attacked the Confessing Church several monthslater in an article entitled ‘‘Public Enemies’’:




84

Next to the reactionaries, public enemies are those ecclesiastically dis-guised groups that repeatedly sow discord among the Volk and whoarrogantly upbraid the authority of the National Socialist state. . . .

It needs no special emphasis that the Jew is to be considered andtreated as a public enemy of the Third Reich. It is indisputable thatthe Jew has his theologically disguised bodyguard in the confessionalfront.’’∏Ω

Shortly before the Nuremberg Laws were passed, Marga Meusel wrotean appendix to her memorandum, intended as a working draft for the

Confessing Church synod meeting in Berlin-Steglitz from 23 to 26 Sep-tember. π≠ Owing to the critical situation following the passage of theNuremberg Laws, she expanded her remarks, altering her position onchurch obedience to governmental authority. π∞ The rst memorandumhad acknowledged the legitimacy of requiring that Christians obey thestate; now Meusel argued for a different kind of obedience. She afrmedthe ‘‘Statement to the Authorities’’ (‘‘Wort an die Obrigkeit’’) passed by the Augsburg Confessional Synod (4–6 June 1935): ‘‘With respectful se-riousness, however, we must note that obedience may not be rendered incontradiction to God’s command.’’ π≤

Meusel portrayed the desperate situation of the non-Aryans using individual examples, particularly cases of defamation by children (‘‘it isChristian children who do this, and Christian parents, teachers, andpastors who let it happen!’’). She also noted the attacks on marriages with one non-Aryan partner: ‘‘The church is wont to publish the banns of engaged couples with the words that they desire to enter into the holy state of marriage. Can it allow the state of marriage to be slandered inthis way?’’

She decried the critical economic situation facing those affected by the increasingly severe Aryan laws, which now threatened to abolisheven the most meager livelihoods. Nuremberg had annulled the originalexemptions for children of World War I veterans. Giving a few examplesto characterize the critical situation, Meusel concluded ‘‘that it is not anexaggeration to speak of an attempt to exterminate Jewry in Germany.’’ As early as 1933, an English visitor to Germany had characterized the

situation quite correctly: ‘‘It is not shooting in the streets that makes thisrevolution so terrible, but the slow poison in the homes.’’ π≥

‘‘At rst, this devastating statement was reported from Sweden: ‘The




85

Germans have a new god; it is race, and to this god they bring humansacrice,’ ’’ wrote Meusel in her memorandum: ‘‘Who dares to say thatthis is a lie? How shall we one day answer the question: where is your

brother Abel? There will be no other answer left even for us, even for theConfessing Church, than the answer of Cain.’’ π∂

She concluded by imploring the participants of the Steglitz Synod:

What is to be done? Should the refugees starve? But who recognizes theobligation to help them? Who feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, visits the prisoners? Who does good to everybody, even if it is only to

their fellow believers? Why must one always be told from the ranks of non-Aryan Christians

that they feel forsaken by the church and the ecumenical world? That Jewish persons and Jewish aid organizations help them, but not theirchurch? That they would not have to worry about their Catholic members, for these would not perish, because the church cares for them, butthat one can only say about the attitude of the Protestant Church: Lord,forgive them, for they know not what they do? Why does the CatholicChurch employ non-Aryan doctors and nurses where it can—but theProtestant Inner Mission has the Aryan paragraph? . . .

What should one say in response to all the desperate, bitter questionsand accusations: Why does the church do nothing? Why does it toleratethis unspeakable injustice? How can it repeatedly make jubilant decla-rations to the National Socialist state, which are political declarationsdirected against the lives of some of its own members? Why does it notprotect at least the children? Should then everything that is absolutely incompatible with the humanity so despised today be compatible withChristianity?

And if the church can do nothing in many cases because of the threatto its own existence, why does it not at least admit its guilt? Why does it

not pray for those who are aficted by this undeserved suffering andpersecution? Why are there not worship services of intercession, asthere were for the imprisoned pastors? The church makes it bitterly difcult for one to defend it. . . .

Judaism believes that God is calling it back in this time. It lives fromthis faith and from it derives the strength for martyrdom. And we know that God is calling us back, through the judgment poured upon thechurch and the people. But we are seized with cold dread when therecan be people in the Confessing Church who dare to believe that they are justied, even called, to proclaim to the Jews that God’s judgment




86

and grace are present in the current historical events and in the suffer-ing that we have brought on them. Since when does the evildoer havethe right to pass off his crime as the will of God? Since when is it any-

thing other than blasphemy to assert that it is the will of God that wecommit injustice? Let us take care that we do not hide the outrage of our sins behind the holy shrine of the will of God. Otherwise, it could well be that the punishment meted out to the desecrators of the Templemight befall us, too, that we would have to hear the curse uttered by theOne who braided the lash and drove them out. π∑

None of the previous declarations and protests of the Kirchenkampf —much less any of the statements from the synods—had made such anoutraged indictment. No one had spoken with such ery words or suchpassionate commitment.



part two

The Isolation of the Jews∞Ω≥∑–≥∫



89

The foundation had been laid for the next phase of the persecution of the Jews.∞ Hitler’s political success at home and abroad allowed him to pur-sue his policy toward the Jews without any fear of repercussions. He hadnumerous followers who had waited a long time to win their spurs by resolving the ‘‘Jewish question.’’ Nazi propaganda, including a special Der Stürmer issue on ritual murder, helped pave the way. ≤ On 15 Sep-tember 1935, at the Reich Party Convention of Freedom, the so-calledNuremberg Laws—‘‘the most devilish body of laws known to the history of Europe’’—were announced. ≥

Ω

The Nuremberg Laws

The purpose of the Nuremberg Laws was twofold. The Reich Citizens Law isolated the Jews politically; the Law for the Protection of German Bloodand German Honor isolated them socially.

The Reich Citizens Law distinguished between ‘‘citizens of the Reich . . .of German or kindred blood’’ and mere German nationals—that is, citi-zens of mixed nationality without equal rights. The Law for the Protec-

tion of German Blood and German Honor prohibited marriage between Jews and Aryans under the threat of imprisonment. In cases of extra-marital intercourse between Jews and nationals of German or kindred blood, the man involved was subject to a prison sentence or forced labor. Jews were prohibited from employing female Aryans under the age of forty-ve years in households and from displaying the Reich and na-tional ags. Violations were to be punished by a prison sentence or ne.

The rst amendment to the Reich Citizens Law, dated 14 November1935, distinguished more specically between Reich citizens and statecitizens. Paragraph 4 stated: ‘‘A Jew cannot be a citizen of the Reich. Hehas no right to vote in political affairs; he cannot hold public ofce.’’ ∞ Allnon-Aryan civil servants had to retire (this invalidated the previous ex-emption for front-line soldiers). Veterans of the front were ensured a

pension of ‘‘the full amount of the most recently drawn salary and fringe benets . . . until they reach retirement age,’’ although those who had notserved for at least ten years were excluded.



The Isolation of the Jews

90

It was now necessary to dene legally who was a Jew (the term ‘‘Jew’’had not appeared in the 15 September Reich Citizens Law). ≤ The term‘‘Jew’’ was used legally for the rst time (the term previously used was

‘‘non-Aryan’’). ‘‘The notion of German or kindred blood . . . should replacethe previous notion of Aryan extraction,’’ since ‘‘Aryan’’ was insufcient‘‘to indicate what ought to be indicated.’’ ≥

In the 14 November amendment, for the rst time, those previously denoted ‘‘non-Aryans’’ were divided into ‘‘Jews’’ and ‘‘half-breeds.’’ Non- Aryans with two Jewish grandparents were ‘‘rst-degree half-breeds,’’

or half-Aryans. Non-Aryans with one Jewish grandparent were ‘‘second-degree half-breeds,’’ or three-quarter Aryans. Non-Aryans with three orfour Jewish grandparents were considered Jews, as were ‘‘rst-degreehalf-breeds’’ married to Jews or members of the Jewish religion as of 15 September 1935. In contrast to half-breeds, full Jewish ancestral iden-tity was determined primarily on a religious basis: ‘‘A grandparent isconsidered unquestionably a full Jew if he has belonged to the Jewishreligious community.’’ ∂ The 14 November First Decree to the Law for theProtection of German Blood and German Honor observed this denitionof Jews and half-breeds.

The 14 November law also regulated marriages between Jews andhalf-breeds. Marriages between ‘‘second-degree half-breeds’’ and Jews were forbidden (section 2). ∑ Marriages between those ‘‘of German blood’’and rst- or second-degree half-breeds required the permission of theReich interior minister and the deputy of the Führer (section 3.1)— which was seldom granted. ∏ Marriages between ‘‘second-degree half- breeds’’ ‘‘should not be contracted’’ (section 4). Marriages between Jewsand ‘‘rst-degree half-breeds’’ were permitted, although the half-Aryanspouse was considered a Jew through the marriage, and any offspring were considered Jewish as well. Finally, to protect ‘‘German blood andhonor,’’ this decree regulated the employment of temporary work-ers of German blood in Jewish households; only those who had com-pleted ‘‘the thirty-fth year of age by 31 December 1935’’ were allowedto remain in previously existing employer-employee relationships (sec-tion 12.3).π

Thirteen statutes of implementation for the Nuremberg Laws wereeventually passed. These included a ban on the ‘‘disguising of Jewishnames.’’ ∫ After 1 January 1939, Jews had to take ‘‘an additional given



The Nuremberg Laws

91

name, namely, the name Israel for males and the given name Sara forfemales.’’Ω Three years later (5 October 1938), another provision invali-dated all the passports of Jews still living within the Reich. ∞≠ Passes could

be revalidated only with a special stamp from the Reich interior ministerthat identied the passport holder as a Jew. After this, Jewish passportsand identity cards (an identity document issued by the domestic policeafter 22 July 1938, which was optional for German nationals and re-quired for German Jews) were stamped with a red J . The thirteenth andnal implementation provision, issued on 1 July 1943 (by which time the

Reich was virtually ‘‘free of Jews’’), ‘‘proscribed the Jews completely,placed them at the mercy of the police, and denied them any access tothe courts.’’ ∞∞

The notorious Nazi propaganda newspaper, Der Stürmer , used Old Tes-tament texts to introduce some of the racial laws to the public. The frontpage of its issue on the Nuremberg Laws reprinted the Law for the Protec-

tion of German Blood and German Honor.∞≤

At the top was the bannerheadline, ‘‘Ezra the Savior of the Jewish People’’; below, in a commentary on the Nuremberg laws, was the heading, ‘‘Adolf Hitler, New Creator of the German Volk.’’ At the bottom, in large letters, stood: ‘‘The Jews AreOur Misfortune!’’ The biblical references must have led naive readers to view the Nuremberg Laws as the conclusive fulllment of the scripturalprophecies.

Readers who did not think much of the Old Testament could becounted on to venerate Goethe, who was cited as a ‘‘witness’’ who ew ‘‘into a passionate rage over the new Jewish law that allows marriage between two partners of kindred faith’’; in parentheses was the com-ment, ‘‘Goethe speaks of those of kindred faith because he did not recog-nize the Jews as a race!’’ Der Stürmer also quoted a Canadian nationalist:‘‘To hate the Jews is not immoral at all, but can best be characterized aspious hatred, which seems justied in every Christian.’’ The headline was ‘‘To hate the Jews is a Christian duty!’’

Many Germans viewed the excesses of the Nuremberg Laws as a trivialmatter. From the beginning, Hitler’s anti-Jewish policies were given theappearance of legality, underscored by Reichstag legislation that explic-

itly gave the state the right to sharpen the individual laws. On 15 Septem- ber, minutes before the parliamentary vote that passed the NurembergLaws, Hitler declared to the Nuremberg Party Convention:




92

Should this action (Hitler had just referred to renewed Jewish ‘‘boycottpropaganda’’ against Germany) not lead to very determined, wide-spread defensive reactions by the indignant population, the only re-

maining route is a legislative resolution of the problem (cries of ‘‘bravo’’and applause).

The German Reich government is guided by the notion that it mightstill create a unique secular solution that will make it possible for theGerman people to nd a tolerable relationship to the Jewish people.

Should this hope not be fullled, and Jewish agitation in Germany and abroad persist, the situation will be reviewed again.

The body of Nuremberg Laws ‘‘is the attempt at a legislative resolu-tion of a problem that, in the case of repeated failure, ought then to betransferred by means of law to the National Socialist party for the FinalSolution.’’ ∞≥

After the Reichstag unanimously approved the laws and ‘‘the renewedstorm of applause had subsided, the Führer stepped to the balustrade of the gallery and directed the following concluding words to the house’’:‘‘My dear Representatives! You now have approved a law whose signi-cance will be recognized in its entirety only after many centuries. See toit that the nation itself does not offend against the way of the law. See toit that our people itself changes the way of the law!’’ ∞∂

The German people, whom Hitler characterized in the same speech as‘‘the united Volk of brothers, free from the reciprocal prejudices andinhibitions of past times,’’ could now take condence in a body of lawsthat proclaimed that Germany was ‘‘healthy’’ again and its institutionsentirely in order.

Initially, this attempt to preserve domestic stability and give the ap-pearance of such stability abroad gave Jews a certain grace period in the

sectors of economics and sports. In light of its four-year plans and em-phasis on rearmament, the German economy could not afford a reces-sion or a restriction of exports. Both were possibilities if the Nazi gov-ernment expropriated Jewish-owned industries. ∞∑ Moreover, the Germangovernment wanted to postpone the removal of the Jews from competi-tive athletics until after the 1936 Olympic Games. The detested inter-

national community (for whose sake all ‘‘Jews Not Welcome’’ signs had been removed from the entrances to towns, bathing facilities, cafés, busi-nesses, and Der Stürmer kiosks during the Olympic Games in Bavaria and



A Divided Confessing Church

93

Berlin) had a decisive inuence on the Nazi Jewish legislation, particu-larly in the timing of the Nuremberg Laws. ∞∏

We turn now to the reactions in the Confessing Church to the Nurem-

berg Laws. ∞≠


The Confessing Church’s response to Nazi racial laws was marked by growing disagreement among its leaders about what direction thechurch should take. ∞ Their unanimous hostility to the German Chris-tians no longer compensated for their other differences, particularly those rooted in the theological traditions of the various regionalchurches.

These theological differences were underscored by the different cir-cumstances facing each regional church after 1933. Of the twenty-eight regional churches, three—the Lutheran churches of Hannover, Ba-

varia, and Württemberg—remained ‘‘intact’’ after the July 1933 churchelections. These churches continued to be governed by their power-ful bishops (Marahrens of Hannover, Meiser of Bavaria, and Wurm of Württemberg).

In most of the other regional churches, however, the German Chris-tians gained enough administrative seats in the church elections to

make life difcult for those who opposed them. These churches weretorn by quarreling factions of German Christians, Pastors’ Emergency League members, and moderate members who viewed both other groupsas extreme. In some churches, Confessing Christians set up parallelchurch councils or governments (for example, the Provisional Church Administration established at the 1934 Dahlem Synod, and the local andregional Councils of Brethren) and either ignored or fought the estab-lished church authorities. This was the case in much of the Church of the Old Prussian Union (which included the regional churches of West-phalia, Berlin-Brandenburg, and the Rhineland). In Westphalia, for ex-ample, church president Karl Koch represented the Confessing Churchand ignored the elected German Christian Church Consistory in Mün-ster as best he could.

The unanimity achieved at Barmen had transcended regional and con-fessional lines. Even the bishops of the intact churches initially attendedConfessing synods and were members of the Provisional Church Admin-




94

istration. Increasingly, however, the conservative Lutheran bishops dis-agreed with their more radical colleagues in the Pastors’ Emergency League.

In October 1935, the state stepped in. In an attempt to bring orderto the increasingly divided German Evangelical Church, Reich Ministerof Church Affairs Hanns Kerrl convened the Reich Church Committee. This committee included the prominent bishops of the intact churchesand was led by the seventy-ve-year-old retired general superintendentDr. Wilhelm Zoellner. ≤

The intact Lutheran churches and the Councils of Brethren in thedivided Lutheran regional churches supported the Reich Church Com-mittee; the regional churches with a more Reformed theological tra-dition (such as the Rhineland church) viewed it as a wolf in sheep’sclothing. These divisions led to the nal split within the ConfessingChurch. At the fourth confessional synod in Bad Oeynhausen (17–22 Feb-ruary 1936), the rst Provisional Church Administration of the Confess-ing Church, which had been chaired by Hannover’s Bishop Marahrens,resigned. The second Provisional Church Administration, appointed by the Reich Council of Brethren, represented the more radical line.

In supporting the establishment of the Reich Church Committee, theintact church leaders had hoped to keep Confessing Christians, the Ger-man Christians, and the ‘‘middle’’ together, thereby preventing a church

schism. The German Christians were so radical, however, that there wasnever much chance that the committee would succeed in calming inter-nal church tensions. State restrictions, particularly on the committee’secumenical freedom, eventually led Zoellner to resign. The committee was dissolved in February 1937. ≥

In the fall of 1935, the different factions continued to debate the Con-fessing Church’s proper course under Nazism. In the wake of the Nurem- berg Laws, it was not surprising that the delegates to the Steglitz Synodavoided any position that might generate more controversy. It was onemore instance of the Confessing Church’s hesitation to speak or act on behalf of the Jews.

the steglitz synod

At the Augsburg Synod in May 1935, Reformed Berlin superintendent

Martin Albertz had urged Westphalian church president Koch to remindthe synodal delegates that ‘‘many thousands of Protestant non-Aryans . . .have long awaited a word from the Confessing Church.’’ ∂ Albertz cited




96

an article he had written in 1926, where he listed ve ‘‘commandments’’for Christian behavior toward Jews. He suggested that Christians shouldrst ‘‘greet the Jews with friendliness; second, bear them with self-

denial; third, strengthen them through hopeful patience; fourth, invigo-rate them with true love; and fth, save them by means of persistentprayer.’’ ∞∞

On 13 September 1935, at the Provisional Church Administrationmeeting about placing the Jewish question on the agenda of the upcom-ing synod, Meiser stated: ‘‘I would like to raise my voice against a martyr-dom that we bring upon ourselves. I look with some concern at the up-coming Prussian synod if it desires to broach such things as, for example,the Jewish question.’’ ∞≤

On 24 September (the day after the synod began), the Steglitz Synod was burdened further by the announcement of Hitler’s Law for the Se-curing of the German Evangelical Church, which provided for state in-tervention in the church administrations of the Old Prussian Unionchurches. ∞≥ (This set the stage for the creation of the Reich Church Com-mittee the following month.) ∞∂ It is unlikely that the timing of this law was coincidental. Indeed, the Steglitz Synod encountered outright statedisapproval. Ministerial councillor Julius Stahn, deputy without port-folio for Reich Minister Kerrl, attended the opening session and spoke. It was the only time that a state representative made a statement at a

confessional synod during the Kirchenkampf : ‘‘I state the fact that theReich Minister does not send his greetings to this conference. The ReichMinister would very much prefer to have seen the conference not takeplace. . . . So, ladies and gentlemen, wherein do you now see a specialreason to confess Christianity once again in such a synod?’’ ∞∑ Citing JesusSirach 23:7 (‘‘Dear children, learn to hold your tongue; for whoever doesso will not make a mistake with words’’), Stahn advised that Scripturecontained ‘‘words that counsel silence.’’ ∞∏

Stahn’s speech met with loud demonstrations of displeasure, under-scored by the heckling of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his Finkenwaldeseminarians. Thanks to Bonhoeffer’s ‘‘lightning-fast decisiveness,’’ theFinkenwalde group had appeared on the guest benches. Franz Hilde- brandt had called Bonhoeffer from Dahlem (where Hildebrandt served

as assistant to Martin Niemöller) ‘‘and sounded the alarm, because in thepreparation for the synod . . . the idea had come up of a favorable clauseon the just-enacted Nuremberg Laws.’’ ∞π The Steglitz Synod wanted to




97

eliminate the Aryan paragraph from the church. Still, the synod was alsoconsidering a motion that explicitly conceded the state’s right to makelaws in its own sphere; this would have been tantamount to a sanction of

the Nuremberg Laws. In the event of such ‘‘a concession to the new laws,’’Hildebrandt told his colleague Martin Niemöller, he would immediately resign his ofce in the Pastors’ Emergency League. ∞∫

This time, Bonhoeffer no longer stood completely alone. Martin Al- bertz and theologian Heinrich Vogel shared his criticism of the June 1935 Augsburg Synod for its silence on the Jewish question. Albertz had takena clear position by encouraging Marga Meusel to compose her memoran-dum. Vogel fearlessly placed himself at the forefront of the debate aboutthe Jewish question with a report that was central for the resolutionsthat followed; ∞Ω Vogel’s report was ‘‘censored, of course, by Koch.’’ ≤≠ Vogelargued that the church could not ‘‘make the administration of the sacra-ments dependent upon standards that are not established in the Word of Holy Scripture. . . . Whoever holds the baptism of Jews against the church,

as a betrayal of Christ, blasphemes the sacrament of holy baptism.’’ ≤∞

The resolutions passed by the Steglitz Synod did not include the fearedconcession to the Nuremberg Laws. Still, the synod’s silence about thesufferings of non-Christian Jews was ‘‘embarrassing.’’ ≤≤ Marga Meusel’sdocument was not placed on the agenda. Another statement on behalf of the Jews was included in the rst draft of the synodal declaration but was

struck from the nal text:≤≥

‘‘As little as the church can deny baptism tothe Jews, so little is it released from Jesus Christ’s commandment to lovethe unbaptized Jew. We owe our salvation alone to God’s unfathomablelove, which knows no barriers. Nor are there any barriers to the love that we, as His own, must witness to in the world, through word and deed.’’ ≤∂

In Heinrich Vogel’s words, the nal statement passed at Steglitz con-tained only ‘‘a minimum of a minimum’’ of what needed to be said.Martin Niemöller concurred, insisting that the protocol register ‘‘thatfor me, in any case, this resolution . . . is in no way satisfactory.’’ ≤∑

What resonance did Marga Meusel’s memorandum nd at the SteglitzSynod? Meusel had hoped

that the church—late, much too late, but better too late than not at all—might say a word in this matter. For the church, the issue is not atragedy that simply occurs, but the sin of our people and, since we aremembers of this people and responsible before God for our people, theissue is our sin.




98

To the present day, the church has not found this word. Today, we approach matters on the foundation of Good Friday and

Easter. We nd comfort in the fact that the Lord of the church has borne

the sins of the world. But are we permitted to do this, we who, with openeyes, let ourselves be chained anew every day to this sin of our people, without defending ourselves? At no time can the church live otherwisethan on the basis of the forgiveness of sins. But how should it hopefor forgiveness when, day after day, it abandons its members in thisdesperate distress, tolerates the mockery of all God’s commandments,and, indeed, does not even dare to acknowledge public sin, but—stays

silent? ≤∏

Meusel hoped that her concerns were ‘‘shared most urgently by many members of the Confessing Church,’’ but existing documents do not sug-gest this was the case. The protocol of the meeting gives no evidence thather memorandum met with any response. Even Vogel’s report does notgive the impression that he had read the Meusel paper beforehand. And

the protocol indicates that Martin Albertz attended the synod, but, ap-parently, not once did he request permission to speak.

How was the Steglitz Synod judged, at the time and today? On 5 Octo- ber, Pastor M. Stallmann circulated his ‘‘Observations and Impressions’’as an observer (and nondelegate) to the synod. ≤π Apparently unaware of Meusel’s memorandum, he expressed regret that far too little had been

said ‘‘about the neglect and falsication of the doctrine of baptism’’throughout the church; this, he wrote, was far more important thandiscussing the baptism of Jews.

Nonetheless, he made a pertinent observation: ‘‘What kind of helpless-ness is revealed when the church permits its word to be determined by the manner in which the questions of the times are put? What kind of achurch is it that sees its task as ‘saying a word’ about all things possible?’’≤∫ The synod’s helplessness was evident in the embarrassment of ‘‘hearing delegates ask, What does ‘one’ really want of us?!’’ ≤Ω

Bishop Meiser had already posed the question ‘‘to certain groups’’at the 13 September Provisional Church Administration meeting in Ber-lin: ‘‘What do you really want?’’ ≥≠ Both Meiser and Hannover’s BishopMarahrens viewed the Steglitz Synod with great skepticism. Meiser had

voiced his misgivings at the Provisional Church Administration meet-ing; Marahrens had signaled his own extreme distance toward theplanned synod in advance, in his weekly newsletter. ≥∞



The Jewish Question after Steglitz

101

Since, according to the doctrine of the Evangelical Church, the natural bonds of race, Volkstum, homeland, and history should be respected andnurtured as a gift from God the Creator, the teacher of religion will pass

on to his students, without misgivings, all the knowledge that he hasacquired by means of careful study in the questions of racial doctrine. Onthe other hand, he will reject calmly but resolutely all attacks againstthe Old Testament, parts of the New Testament, the person of Jesus, theChristian sacraments, and the fundamental doctrines of the church— whether from students, parents, or colleagues—that are based upon thecurrent racial mysticism and racial religion. ≤

The churches still displayed a remarkable degree of condence in theNational Socialist state. Prof. Martin Rade, editor of Christlicher Welt , wrote an article about the Nuremberg Laws, ‘‘On the German JewishLegislation,’’ which reected the attitudes of many in the EvangelicalChurch. ≥ Depicting the Nuremberg Laws as the basis for a positive solu-tion to the Jewish question, Rade had no reservations about entrusting

the Jews and ‘‘half-Jews’’ completely to the state. Since the NurembergLaws did not regulate ‘‘public practice with regard to ‘half-Aryans’ ’’ (thelaw referred only to ‘‘full Jews’’), noted Rade, this unresolved problemhad to be solved by the state and the church. The treatment of ‘‘half- Aryans’’ was becoming acute, for example, in the schools. Reich MinisterRust planned to organize special Jewish schools, not only for children

belonging to the Jewish religion but for all racially Jewish children. Only here, with respect to ‘‘Jewish Christians,’’ was Rade interested in theirinviolable rights. In his view, it was permissible for the state to deal withfull Jews in whatever manner it considered proper, but baptized Jewshad a claim on state-guaranteed immunity.

His argument depended on the illusion that the church would remainsafely ensconced in the lee of state-ensured invulnerability, even amidfuture political and ideological storms. ‘‘Half-Jewish or half-Aryan’’ chil-dren baptized as Christians, with ‘‘Christian parents,’’ deserved ‘‘the con-sideration of the church’’; it was impossible for these children to be sentto a ‘‘Jewish-Mosaic confessional school.’’ Rade deluded himself with thehope that a ‘‘reasonable understanding’’ on this point could be reached with the state.

He also expressed condence that the state would continue to guaran-tee the possibility of the conversion and baptism of Jews. This right had been conrmed, he said, in various issues of the German Christian pub-




102

lication Positives Christentum. It did not concern Rade if the baptism of Jews were approved only under the proviso ‘‘that the racial labeling of the Jews be carried out by the state’’! The possibility and practice of the

baptism of Jews remained ‘‘necessary for our Christian religion.’’∂

Yet the best solution for the ‘‘half-Aryans,’’ wrote Rade, was emigra-tion. Where this was not possible, the Sermon on the Mount requiredthat Christians treat the ‘‘alien people’’ as a ‘‘guest people’’: ‘‘Not only out of our goodness as Christians, but for the sake of our honor as Ger-mans.’’ He concluded with the conviction that the state’s adherence tosection 24 of the Nazi Party Program (which guaranteed religious free-dom) would ensure such freedom for German Jews as well.

Rade’s article elicited a response from Wilhelm von Pechmann, theformer president of the German Evangelical Church Convention, whohad left the church in 1933 because of its fainthearted attitude towardthe Aryan paragraph. ∑ In a letter of 18 November 1935, Pechmann ex-pressed astonishment at Rade’s naive appraisal of the Jewish situation.He could not imagine how Rade could pretend to be so blind about theactual situation: ‘‘The material and spiritual distress into which the so-called non-Aryans are being surrendered, without any distinctions, isheartbreaking. . . . I can’t conceive that you don’t feel and judge all this asI do.’’∏

Rade replied immediately and apologetically, noting that he had ‘‘to

reckon with the present-day public’’ and that he was involved in tremen-dously difcult ‘‘work on behalf of the half-Aryans.’’ π Pechmann’s letter was his rst statement since withdrawing two and a half years earlierfrom the church stage. He expressed ‘‘deep distress’’ at his isolated posi-tion at the church committee meeting on 26 April 1933. The lonelinesshe expressed evoked Bonhoeffer’s earlier statement: ‘‘I felt as though Ifound myself, in an incomprehensible way, in radical opposition to allmy friends; with my views on the matter, I fell more and more intoisolation, although I stood, and remained, in the closest relationship with people personally.’’ ∫

Meanwhile, the Reich Church Committee had assumed the role of medi-ator in the treatment of the Jewish question. In the Reformed Church of

Hannover, a working committee tied to Confessing groups in that regionapplied for permission to read a proclamation on the Jewish questionfrom the pulpits. After a meeting of its executive board, the Evangeli-




103

cal Reformed Church Council turned the request down on 7 November1935.Ω Despite an offensive Der Stürmer article, the evidence was ‘‘un-deniable’’ that the government sought ‘‘to regulate the problem of the

Jewish question in a legal and just way.’’ Anything that was necessary had already been said; furthermore, the church had not been ‘‘a disin-terested observer.’’ ∞≠ The Church Council cited a Reich Church Commit-tee statement that confessed the ‘‘Savior and Redeemer of all peoples andraces’’; ‘‘it is not as though the church up to now has remained silent onthese matters.’’ ∞∞

Indeed, the Reich Church Committee had not remained silent. In itsproclamation ‘‘to the people of the Evangelical Church,’’ it had con-fessed: ‘‘We afrm the National Socialist formation of the Volk on thefoundation of race, blood, and soil.’’ ∞≤ Even the venerable Dr. Zoellner, who headed the Reich Church Committee, had lent his good name to thisstatement.

Given this situation, Superintendent Carl Schweitzer of Wustermark, who was affected by the Aryan paragraph and later forced to emigrate,could expect little from his letter of 19 December 1935 to Zoellner. ∞≥

Schweitzer implored the Reich Church Committee ‘‘not [to] close its eyesany longer to the ever increasing internal distress of the non-AryanChristians affected by the new laws’’ and asked the committee nally to‘‘complain to the state authorities.’’ ‘‘Further silence on this would bur-

den the German Evangelical Church with a guilt unanswerable beforethe Lord of the church.’’

Only two years before, the Aryan paragraph had been regarded as pro-foundly ‘‘contrary to the confession.’’ Those days were long forgotten. Itno longer seemed remarkable when Bishop Wurm of Württemberg, re-sponding to the question, ‘‘What does it mean today to stand upon the

ground of the Confession?’’ did not once mention the situation of the Jews but merely joined the chorus of those who sought to protect the Old Testament against a faith ‘‘of the blood or the racial soul.’’ ∞∂

But the topic of ‘‘the Jews’’ was not just silently ignored. A number of theologians addressed the issue, and their reections showed how muchthe mainstream theology of the time prevented any solidarity with the

Jews. Two particularly odd commentaries came from leaders of whom some-

thing else might have been expected: the renowned Tübingen professor




104

Adolf Schlatter and Wilhelm Halfmann, spiritual director of the Confess-ing Church in Schleswig-Holstein from 1936 to 1937 and (after 1946) bishop of Holstein.

As early as 1930, Schlatter had seen the Christian necessity of seeking,‘‘along the path of Jesus, association with the Jews. Admittedly, we haveecclesiastical goals in this’’: ‘‘But our great concern must remain that, inour dealings with the Jews, we stay on the path and in the service of Jesus. We can judge for ourselves when and how that occurs. For a large portionof the New Testament shows us the struggle of Jesus and his messengers with the Jews.’’∞∑

The ‘‘ecclesiastical goals’’ had changed by 1935, however, and Schlat-ter was moved to write a monstrous libel against ‘‘the’’ Jews. ∞∏ The Tü- bingen theologian, a noted Hebraist and New Testament scholar of somestanding, now viewed Judaism as an ally of the anti-Christian Nazi statein the struggle against Christianity:

Today, the rabbi can say proudly: ‘‘Look how the situation in Germany has changed; of course, we are despised, but only because of our race;until now, we were alone in striving for the madness preached at Christ-mas, that Christ has come, to disappear from the public consciousness;now, however, there are those who struggle with us, those to whom theinstruction of the German Volk is entrusted. . . .’’

. . . It cannot be denied that, in the German Reich, the situation for his[the Jew’s] ideology was never so favorable as now. He [the Jew] can only rejoice when the celebration of the re-ascending sun supplants Christ-mas, and when it is impressed upon young people that their sole confes-sion from now on is that they are Germans, because the name ‘‘Christ’’has become meaningless for them. ∞π

Schlatter equated Judaism with the ‘‘Nordic racism’’ of Nazism andthe Nazi understanding of community as an ‘‘association’’ formed by ‘‘the compulsion of the blood.’’ National Socialism was the enemy of both Judaism and Christianity, he argued, and the Old Testament would nec-essarily fall with the New: ‘‘If the promise of Jesus is dead, one cannot believe in the promise of the prophets.’’ ∞∫ He concluded: ‘‘It is possible, of course, that the Jew initially will gain a powerful victory over us; but this victory will not be nal. For the Jew has not brought faith in God into the

world, and just as little can the Jews and their partners destroy it. They cannot do this because they are not able to undo the fact that the Christhas come into the world.’’ ∞Ω




105

Fifty thousand copies of Schlatter’s text were distributed. On 27 Febru-ary 1936, it was criticized in the weekly Vienna paper Gerechtigkeit (Jus-tice): ‘‘Dr. Schlatter is a defender of the Confessional Church against

National Socialism. Thus he is an opponent of the present regime inGermany. Does he really believe that he can struggle successfully if hemocks, ridicules, and slanders other victims of National Socialism whoare persecuted, tormented, and oppressed even more than the Protes-tants loyal to the confession?’’ ≤≠

Like Schlatter, Wilhelm Halfmann was more concerned about the re-

tention of the Old Testament and the future of the church than theexistence of the Jews. ≤∞ He believed that the ‘‘Jewish question’’ was nolonger a ‘‘political-social’’ issue but an ideological and, ultimately, a re-ligious question: ‘‘The defensive struggle against Judaism has become anattack of unparalleled severity upon the Old Testament; but the attack upon the Old Testament has become an attack upon the whole Bible, andthe attack upon the Bible an attack upon the Christian Church in gen-eral.’’≤≤

Halfmann noted that, ever since John the Baptist asked whether Jesus was the Messiah, there had been an unresolved difference between Juda-ism and Christianity. Because of this, Judaism could not be understoodsolely as blood and race: ‘‘No, its deepest essence is its anti-Christiandecision.’’≤≥ Citing Schlatter’s libelous text, Halfmann argued that, be-cause of a ‘‘legitimate’’ Christian anti-Semitism, it was not the church’sduty ‘‘to interfere in the state’s Jewish legislation’’:

Far more, we of the church must say, based upon almost two thousand years’ experience with the Jews: the state is right . It is attempting to pro-tect the German people . . . with the approval of the Christian church. . . .

Whoever decided against Christ has made the same decision as Juda-ism. . . . What a monstrous reversal of the fronts is occurring today: because they are enemies of Christ, opponents of the Jews become part-ners of the Jews; because they ght against Christ, German people jointhe same front with Jewish-led Bolshevism! In the process, they becomemired in the most terrible accusation that has ever slandered Chris-tianity in Germany: Christianity is in bondage to the Jews. ≤∂

The solution of the Jewish question was up to God. The four-thousand- year history of this people showed that it could not be eradicated withthe sword, he said: ‘‘We believe that all political means, as temporarily




106

necessary as they might be, are not capable of solving the Jewish ques-tion. This people must go its own way until God Himself solves the Jewishquestion.’’ ≤∑

Similar theological perspectives emerged in other statements in1936.≤∏ Pastor Erich Gross of Essen-Borbeck produced an essay enti-tled ‘‘The Jewish Question in Light of the Bible,’’ writing that Judaismneeded periods of great afiction for its purication: ‘‘Thus, for the Jew, the German racial laws of the Third Reich have once more illumi-nated, like a bolt of lightning, a section of his thorny path through the world. They have become for him a genuine call to reection, indeed, torepentance.’’ ≤π

Alfred de Quervain, lecturer at the school of theology in Elberfeld,reminded the Christian community of its responsibility toward the peo-ple of Israel. In an April 1937 Gutachten≤∫ requested by the Old PrussianUnion Council of Brethren, Quervain wrote: ‘‘If the congregation (of Christ) diverts its sight from Israel, then it is no longer the church of Jesus Christ; something will be absent from its witness or the form of thecongregation. Israel is given to the congregation as a warning, so that itmight not follow the path of Israel; as a sign that God will do somethingstill greater; as a sign that the Kingdom of God has not yet arrived in itsglory. Israel remains as the scandal, and the church cannot simply ex-plain, discuss, and clear this scandal away.’’ ≤Ω

Quervain held Israel up as a warning to the church. But he also admon-ished the church to bring the straying sheep of Israel back into the fold of Christianity, for only there could the chosen people nd salvation andpeace. Israel must be made to understand ‘‘that there is only one deliv-erance for this people, namely the return to the church, to the congrega-tion of Jesus Christ, the faith no longer in its own life, but rather in itshead, its king, Jesus Christ.’’ ≥≠

But the visible church hardly offered the Jews a refuge. Herein lay thearrogance of evangelism: playing with the re of its claim to absolutetruth, Christianity placed itself in a light that would ‘‘illuminate’’ the Jews if they became Christians but consume them if they remained Jews!Quervain’s assurance that Jewish ‘‘apostasy’’ had caused the fate of the Jews was astonishing, as was his belief that ‘‘God’s will’’ had merged in

such an extraordinary fashion with the German need not to be ‘‘inl-trated by foreigners’’: ‘‘God, however, intercedes for His apostate people.It is His will that they remain, as a sign established by Him. Where a




107

people defends itself against the danger of foreign inltration, in thefear of God, in the faith in the triune God, there this resistance will not beone founded upon an ideology. . . . The confession of faith creates the

necessary distance to Judaism. The confession of faith recognizes that which is in opposition; but this distance based upon faith does not abro-gate charity.’’ ≥∞

It was surprising how often these theological writings proclaimed‘‘charity’’ as their goal. In a theology characterized by reservations toward Judaism, ‘‘charity’’ had become the search for a dubious alibi ratherthan the credible consequence of a Christian position.

Still, a few Confessing Christians continued to advocate genuine soli-darity with the Jews. In May 1936, Marga Meusel appealed once more tothe Confessing Church, quoting a Provisional Church Administrationstatement that ‘‘because Christ pleads for us before the Father, we can-not permit the honor of the defenseless to be trampled into the dust.’’ ≥≤

During the same period, the new, more radical members of the sec-ond Provisional Church Administration wrote a document that soonachieved unintended renown at home and abroad: the May 1936 mem-orandum to Hitler. ≥≥ The memorandum objected to the concepts of ‘‘blood, race, Volkstum, and honor’’ as ‘‘eternal values’’ and protested theincitement of hatred against the Jews: ‘‘If, in the framework of NationalSocialist ideology, an anti-Semitism is forced upon the Christian that

obliges him to hate the Jews, then the Christian commandment to loveone’s neighbor stands in opposition to this. It is a particularly oppressiveconict for the members of our Protestant congregations when they, inaccordance with their duty as Christian parents, must combat the inva-sion of these anti-Christian ideas among their children.’’ ≥∂

The memorandum timidly protested the state pressures on Christiancongregations. It failed to speak out against all forms of anti-Semitism,including those within the Confessing Church. The document seemedless concerned with defending Jews and non-Aryan Christians than withprotecting members of Protestant congregations from an ‘‘especially op-pressive conict of conscience.’’

Despite its cautious wording, however, the memorandum (particu-larly after its publication in the foreign press) provoked a vehement reac-

tion from Nazi authorities. Several of those involved were arrested, andFriedrich Weissler, a Jewish lawyer who worked with the ConfessingChurch, was taken to Sachsenhausen and murdered.




108

As the state’s brutal response to the publication of the memorandumillustrated, any Christian advocacy on behalf of the persecuted Jews had become more dangerous. The Provisional Church Administration felt

trapped between the state and the German Christians, and feared theconsequences for the church. The Provisional Church Administration’snext major statement, a pulpit proclamation issued on 23 August 1936,completely avoided the issue of anti-Semitism and the Jews. ≥∑

Between 1935 and 1937, discussion of the Jewish question was particu-larly inuenced by Alfred Rosenberg’s Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts(Myth of the Twentieth Century, published in 1930) and Protestantische Rompilger (Protestant pilgrim to Rome, published in 1935). ≥∏ In 1937, thechurches in Kassel prepared a response to Protestantische Rompilger , to beread from their pulpits; despite its mildness, it was prohibited by theGestapo. ≥π At the 1937 commemoration of the Reformation, the triumvi-rate of Bishop Marahrens (representing the leaders of the German re-

gional churches), Pastor Fritz Müller of Dahlem (speaking for the Pro- visional Church Administration), and Thomas Breit (for the Council of the Protestant-Lutheran Church of Germany) also issued a declarationagainst Protestantische Rompilger .≥∫ None of these statements, however,did more than object to state and ideological encroachments into therealm of the church.

In general, the church statements made between 1935 and 1938 illus-trated the consequences of the church’s 1933 concessions to the state Aryan laws. The church was beginning to grasp the state’s real aim: hav-ing ‘‘solved’’ the Jewish question, it intended to solve the church ques-tion as well.

The Reich Church Committee had failed to fulll its mandate ‘‘to bringthem [the Confessing Church and the German Christians] togetheraround one table.’’ ≥Ω On 12 February 1937, the state’s Ministry for Church Affairs dissolved the committee and, at the same time, intensiedthe pressures on non-Aryan Christians. At an assembly of the regionalchurch committee chairmen on 13 February 1937, Reich Minister Kerrlannounced categorically that ‘‘the church must be purged of subjects who work against the state. The civil service laws will be applied to the

pastors. Jews will no longer be pastors.’’ ∂≠

Otto Dibelius responded publicly to Kerrl with a stinging letter thatled to charges against him. ‘‘For the relationship between the Evangeli-




109

cal Church and its Ministry [the Ministry for Church Affairs],’’ wroteDibelius, ‘‘this speech represents approximately what the Sports Palaceassembly of November 1933 represented for the relationship between us

and the German Christians: the veil that disguised reality from many eyes until now has been rent apart; the contradictions are clear.’’ ∂∞

Such forthrightness might have led to a clear statement about Kerrl’spolicy against non-Aryan Christians. Yet Dibelius only emphasized thechurch’s claims (which Kerrl found monstrous) that Jesus and Paul were Jews and that salvation came from the Jews. Dibelius could not recall

‘‘whether, in earlier times, the preaching of the Evangelical Church hadsomehow emphasized these things,’’ but the church had to defend itself against any attack on the Scripture and its proclamation. ‘‘Here is thepoint at which the church must and will offer resistance.’’ ∂≤ Dibelius saidnothing about a church Aryan paragraph, which Kerrl’s speech had de-manded. The fate of the Jews was not mentioned.

On 15 February, Hitler’s Election Decree implied that free church elec-tions might be held to form a general synod. When this failed to mate-rialize, the Provisional Church Administration expressed vehement in-dignation at the reprisals suffered by Confessing Church pastors and lay members at the hands of the state police. Several letters were written tothe Führer’s deputy, Rudolf Hess. ∂≥ In a letter of 1 April 1937, the Provi-sional Church Administration protested the Gestapo arrest and inter-rogation of a Hamburg parish worker who had been charged for hisinterpretation of Rom. 11 as well as his statement ‘‘that Jesus is not an Aryan, but a Jew’’: ‘‘How do the responsible state authorities justify thefact that a church employee is called a friend of the Jews or a slave of the Jews in the concentration camp, and is told that the best thing would beto get him off humanity’s back?’’ ∂∂

But the Nazi state was growing stronger and less inhibited. It no longersent written replies to church protests. The Confessing Church was com-ing under re, and its declarations met with a new response. Numerousarrests began to take place (including the arrest of Martin Niemöller on 1 July 1937). The state had run out of arguments; its true intentions wereunmasked, even to the gullible.

It was an illusion for the Confessing Church to appeal to the often citedarticle 24 of the Party Program (which supposedly protected religiousfreedom)—as it did in its letter to Rudolf Hess. Even in its May 1936




110

memorandum to Hitler, the Provisional Church Administration showeda trusting condence in the totalitarian system, lamenting that thingshad reached the point where ‘‘leading personalities in the state and the

party have interpreted the words ‘Positive Christianity’ arbitrarily.’’ ∂∑

But Hermann Sasse, editor of the church yearbook, had foreseen thisin 1932, when he warned that the explicit emphasis in article 24 on the‘‘public good before private interest’’ opened the door for state arbi-trariness. ∂∏ It was not necessary to interpret article 24 ‘‘arbitrarily’’ toeradicate the church. Reich Administrative Director Derichsweiler had

actually explained the party’s true intentions to the Provisional Church Administration. In the memorandum to Hitler, the church leaders re-peated Derichsweiler’s ominous words that the ‘‘ ‘Positive Christianity’of the Party Program was a phrase employed to disguise the truth, just asone withholds the whole truth when facing a sick person.’’ ∂π

A widely distributed statement from the May 1937 confessional synod inthe Rhineland shows how the Confessing Church viewed its situation atthat point. ∂∫ The Rhineland statement refuted the German Christiandemand for separate non-Aryan Christian parishes: there was no pos-sibility, ‘‘according to the New Testament, to apply state racial laws asthe standard for membership in the church.’’

In its third resolution, the synod spoke ‘‘to the persecuted’’ and ad-monished its congregations to pray for them and be mindful of those who ‘‘are deprived of their freedom in prison or in a concentrationcamp.’’ ‘‘We are bound together by love: ‘If one member suffers, then allmembers suffer with him.’ ’’ ∂Ω Could the name of a non-Aryan Christiannally be included on the list of those to be prayed for by the churches? A statement from this period by Martin Rade (who had apparently under-gone a radical change since his defense of the Nuremberg Laws) indi-cated that individual congregations did indeed include non-Aryan Chris-tians in their intercessory lists. ∑≠

Three other theological opinions from 1937 indicate the hopeless confu-sion among theologians who tried to solve the Jewish question with

racial interpretations or by isolating it from the Old Testament. The journal Deutsche Kirche explained in April 1937 why the church had toreject the idea of race:




111

Christian baptism, of course, nullies all racial origin. The Jew ceases to be a Jew; the Teuton ceases to be a Teuton. For Christianity, ‘‘race’’ is nolonger a moral concept. Christianity knows only one people and race

that matters before God. The Jewish people! It is the only religious peo-ple on earth. The God of the Old Testament made His covenant with it. Through that, all other peoples and races are of subordinate rank. Chris-tianity knows no other God than the one who revealed Himself in theOld Testament and transferred His covenant to the new covenant peo-ple, the new Israel, the people of the church brought together in thesupranatural community of Christ. . . . The integration into this cove-

nant people of the New Testament rigorously requires the detachmentand separation from one’s own race and Volk.∑∞

The statement interpreted the rite of baptism as a genetic recasting of the baptized person—all within the framework of a racial worldview in which all non-Jewish ‘‘peoples and races . . . are of subordinate rank.’’ Yet its understanding of baptism was awed: although it is correct that

‘‘race’’ has no inherent meaning within Christianity and that baptism isnot a racial privilege, it can hardly be claimed that baptism ‘‘nullies allracial origin.’’ The command to baptize ‘‘all peoples’’ in Matt. 28:19 ac-knowledges all peoples and races as worthy and capable of baptism; itdoes not affect the baptized individual’s racial heritage. By leaving be-hind one’s own race and people, eventually even one’s family, the bap-

tized person enters a new existence in the supranatural community of Christ.

A second statement came from theologian Gerhard Kittel. Kittel at-tempted to transpose Judaism’s inimitable unity of Volk and faith, basedon its covenant with God, to the supposed necessity for Volkstum andfaith in the German Volk that was ‘‘struggling for its existence’’: ∑≤

Even we who stand upon the ground of the Holy Scripture can protestearnestly and energetically against the notion that genuine biblicalfaith and thought might ever stand in the way of the legitimate de-mands of genuine biological thought, which result wherever a Volkstumstruggles for its existence. . . .

National Socialism was the rst to radically eliminate the connubial-ity between Jews and non-Jews. Adolf Hitler has taught the Germanpeople anew (to) listen to its genuine instincts and (to) feel good aboutit. In no way is this barbarity or cruelty, or unreasonable toward the Jews, as those almost everywhere in the world say about us; rather, it is




112

primarily a return to the norms of nature and thus to a genuine andtrue culture. Second, as our historical ndings conclusively show, it isthe salutary compulsion for assimilated Judaism to return to its own

genuine foundations and ancient laws.∑≥

The supranaturalism of the statement in Deutsche Kirche spiritualizedthe ‘‘community of Christ’’; the natural bonds of the newly converted were obliterated through baptism. Kittel, in turn, was advocating a natu-ralism that would vitalize the community of the Volk; the preconditionfor membership in the Volk was Christian- völkisch faith. Both demands

attempted to remove the Jewish question from the Christian world—either by drowning the Jews in Christian baptism or through a completeChristian dissociation from Jewish nationality and faith that would bring the Jews to themselves.

A third statement, a September 1937 essay by Gerhard Schmidt, illus-trates that Confessing Christians who fought to retain the Old Testa-

ment did not necessarily hold pro-Jewish attitudes, even theologically.∑∂

Referring to Luther, Schmidt characterized ‘‘the fusion of the Jewishquestion with the things of the Old Testament’’ as a ‘‘false path’’: ‘‘Exactly at the point where Martin Luther ∑∑ criticizes the insolence and imperti-nence of contemporary Jews, he commits himself with all his power on behalf of the Old Testament and its character as revelation. . . . He does not reject the Old Testament because of the Jews, but rather the other way around: Because of the Old Testament, he rejects the Jews.’’∑∏

With this text from Luther, Schmidt, a Confessing pastor and contribu-tor to Junge Kirche, sacriced the Jews in order to save the Old Testament. The Nazi state, he wrote, intended to destroy the Jews in order to liqui-date the Old Testament as well. That same year, ‘‘the city of Nurembergpresented a copy of the rare edition of Luther’s text ‘On the Jews and Their Lies,’ published in the year 1543 with a frontispiece by Lucas Cra-nach, to the Gauleiter Julius Streicher in honor of his birthday.’’ ∑π

The Confessing Church had protested too quietly or not at all and hadfailed to interfere with state treatment of the Jews. Ironically, the 4 April1937 issue of Nationalkirche (National church), edited by Thuringian Ger-

man Christian leaders Lefer and Leutheuser, compared the ConfessingChurch to Der Stürmer : ‘‘They are united in their radical rejection. Theone [ Der Stürmer ] for anti-Jewish reasons, the other [the Confessing




113

Church] for anti-Christian reasons. Common to both is the anti-Christianattitude, the hostility toward Christ, [who is] the anti-Jew and Liberatorof the human soul to God.’’ ∑∫

The German Christian slogan during the 1937 church elections echoedthis tone: ‘‘We ght for the Jew-free German Evangelical Reich Church.’’ ∑Ω

This slogan, announced German Christian leader Wilhelm Rehm, wasnot an attack on the Old Testament: ‘‘When we demand the Jew-freechurch, then we do not speak about the Bible, but rather about thechurch. With that, we mean not just the removal of racial Jews or Jewishhalf-breeds from the pulpit and the church, but the removal of all crea-tures who can be considered, according to their inner attitude, as com-pletely Judaized.’’ ∏≠ In response to an inquiry from Junge Kirche, Rehmdened what he meant by the ‘‘Judaizing’’ of the church, concluding:‘‘What we want is the clear separation from the Jew in the German Evan-gelical Church. Whoever among the pastors does not want this separa-tion or does not want to go along should draw the consequences, and become a member of the new Jewish-Christian church to be established. With his internally Judaized mental attitude, he cannot minister to thesoul of a German individual.’’ ∏∞

The Confessing Church’s situation was so precarious that Junge Kirchemade only a subdued response to Rehm’s remarks: ‘‘Is it possible that agenuine separation and purication in the Evangelical Church can be

brought about with this suggestion? We do not share this view, becausethe decisive ecclesiastical question is ignored with such formulations. Thedecisive ecclesiastical question is the question of doctrine and heresy, as was emphasized by the Reich Confessional Synod in Barmen.’’ ∏≤

Since the Barmen Confession had taken no position on Jews and non- Aryans, those persecuted could hardly depend on the Confessing Churchto protect them. In the same issue of Junge Kirche, the editors triedto downplay Rehm’s demand for a ‘‘Jewish-free church’’ by noting thesmall percentage of Jews among Protestant pastors: ‘‘It has been shownthat, among the Protestant pastorate, 0.3 percent are not Aryan, in thesense of the Reich civil service law (that is, including grandparents). Thenumber of full non-Aryans is a fraction of this already extremely smallnumber.’’ ∏≥ Four years before, the Aryan legislation in the church had

been a confessional question. Now it had been reduced to a question of percentages.

In late 1937 and early 1938, statements on the Jewish question ceased




114

almost completely. This was not surprising in light of the intensicationof state reprisals against the Confessing Church. The voices of those whomight have wanted to speak out had been silenced behind prison walls. ∏∂

In despair, those who still could speak had to ask whether their con-gregations would not be helped more by whispers behind the closeddoors of a parsonage than by an inaudible scream behind bolted prisongates. The path had been paved for the situation that followed the so-called Kristallnacht: those condemned to silence were transformed intoclandestine helpers. Having missed the moment in which it was possible

‘‘to stop the wheel itself ’’ with boldness and determination, the Confess-ing Church’s only recourse in the Jewish question was now secretly to bind the wounds of ‘‘the victims under the wheel.’’ ∏∑

It would be incorrect to conclude that the Confessing Church did noth-ing simply because nothing can be found in the records. On the contrary,only after it was forbidden to speak out did the church—which so oftenhad spoken too much, too long, and too indirectly—nally begin to helppeople. Once it was persecuted itself, the church began to reect on itsnature and its task, thereby moving toward becoming a ‘‘true’’ church.

∞≤

The Evangelical Church and Its Non-Aryan Members

ministry to non-aryan christians

Throughout the Kirchenkampf , individual pastors faced conicts in min-istering to non-Aryans. As early as 1933, ‘‘two cases concerning the be-havior of the church toward Jews’’ caused ‘‘difculties’’ for the pastor of St. Gertrud’s in Hamburg, Walter Uhsadel. ∞ The rst case concerned aChristian woman who desired to wed a Jew in a church ceremony. Shehad been turned down in Berlin, although a church ofcial there hadtold her that marriage between a Christian and a Jew would be possiblein Hamburg. Now Uhsadel had caused bitter disappointment with hisrefusal to perform the wedding.

In the second case, a Jewish banker had requested baptism. The eventsof April 1933 led Uhsadel to point out to the banker that, in case he hoped

‘‘to eliminate difculties in his situation as a Jew, his baptism would beimpossible and . . . useless.’’ The banker replied that ‘‘he was ‘really aChristian,’ that throughout his schooling he had never had Jewish but




115

Protestant religious instruction, and that his children had been baptizedand educated as Christians.’’ The pastor wrote his bishop, ‘‘What should Ido? Should I instruct the old gentleman of sixty-six after all? Would it not

be good if in Hamburg we would entrust several older and especially suitable gentlemen with the instruction of converts and proselytes?’’ ≤

Hamburg bishop Schöffel’s reply was terse. In the rst case, a churchorder already stated that only weddings with two Christian partnerscould be performed. A non-Christian partner (whether Jewish, Moslem,atheist, or whatever) could be baptized and accepted into the Protestantchurch before the wedding. (Uhsadel’s letter to Schöffel had not men-tioned such an offer.) Should the Jewish partner reject baptism, the wed-ding had to be refused, according to church regulations.

In both cases, however, Uhsadel clearly assumed that he should treatapplicants of Jewish origin differently from other non-Christians. It isunlikely that Uhsadel (who had been in the ministry for seven years)faced the question of adult baptism for the rst time in 1933. Why, then,did he resist giving the sixty-six-year-old Jewish banker several hours of baptismal instruction? Why did he wish to evade his specic duty—thepastoral care of an individual (in this case, an accomplished professionalman who was not indifferent to the church)—by delegating the matter?Schöffel responded that he would prefer ‘‘to leave these things for thetime being up to the parishes,’’ since ‘‘such personal cases like the one

taken to you . . . can really only be dealt with personally in the parishes. . . .However that may be, I request you to accept this gentleman.’’ ≥

In another early case, an ofcial from the German Evangelical ChurchChancellery defended Württemberg bishop Wurm against a written at-tack from Nazi party leaders in Stuttgart. Wurm had defended the bap-tism of Jews. Such baptisms, the chancellery ofcial argued, posed athreat only ‘‘if through the Christian churches’ reception of Jews, the Jews who become Christians are technically conferred a civil statusequal to that of the Christian Aryan comrades of the Volk, thus encourag-ing a further mixing of the races.’’ Since this danger was ‘‘to a largeextent eliminated, partly through civil provisions, partly through publicopinion,’’ he could not share the party’s reservations against the baptismof Jews.∂

The Bavarian regional church also came under early pressure on theissue of ministry to non-Aryans. Nuremberg and Munich were Nazi party strongholds, and the Nuremberg-published Der Stürmer had an espe-




116

cially high number of subscribers there. Der Stürmer ∑ published vehe-ment attacks on the head preacher at St. Sebald’s in Nuremberg, Chris-tian Geyer, and the auxiliary dean of St. Lorenz, Pastor Brendel, after

Geyer baptized and married Communist leader Kurt Eisner’s daughter.∏

Brendel not only baptized some Jewish children but employed their fa-ther as custodian of St. Lorenz Church.

In Magdeburg, Pastor Carl Zuckschwerdt was vilied in Der Stürmer in August 1935, after baptizing a Jew. Although Zuckschwerdt’s congrega-tion stood behind him, Bishop Friedrich Peter, a German Christian, advised his colleagues in Magdeburg to distance themselves from him. Inresponse, the Saxon Council of Brethren circulated the facts of the casein a letter to Confessing Church members, announcing that the Councilof Brethren intended to protect Zuckschwerdt. π The council also sent aprotest letter and led a criminal complaint against Der Stürmer ‘‘be-cause of libel against Christian baptism and the defamation of PastorZuckschwerdt.’’ Citing a sermon by Luther, the baptismal command inMatt. 28:19, and Jesus’ words ‘‘to Nicodemus, the Jew with a nationalconsciousness,’’ in John 3:16, the Saxon Council of Brethren defended itsright and duty to baptize Jews. ∫

The Nuremberg Laws put new wind into the sails of Der Stürmer ’s anti- Jewish agitation. Der Stürmer attacked Bielefeld pastor Karl Niemann asone who, ‘‘in clerical garb, encourages racial delement by the Jews.’’ Ω

Niemann had baptized a local chemist, Dr. Ernst Goldstein, and ofci-ated at his wedding. Emphatically refuting Der Stürmer ’s attack, the presbytery of Niemann’s church defended him: ‘‘Pastor Niemann has actedconscientiously in executing his ofce as a servant of the church. This isalso with respect to the subsequent church consecration of the marriage,all the more since there was no violation of the civil laws proclaimed atthe last Nuremberg Party Convention.’’ ∞≠

On 14 November 1936, Reich Minister for Church Affairs Hanns Kerrlcomplained to the German Evangelical Church that Pastor GüntherHarder had ‘‘baptized a full Jewish woman’’ in Fehrbellin, ‘‘about whichgreat exasperation prevailed in the entire population. Harder deemed itnecessary to announce the baptism of this Jewish woman from the pulpiton Sunday, 19 July.’’ ∞∞ Furthermore, Kerrl noted, Harder tolerated the

membership of the woman’s two half-Jewish children in the Fehrbellinchurch choir. Since the ‘‘extremely detrimental experiences with the baptism of Jews’’ were as well known to Harder as to the Reich Church




117

Committee, Harder should possess enough political tact to keep suchthings ‘‘as inconspicuous as possible.’’

The Council of Brethren tried to make it easier for pastors to minister

to non-Aryans by ordering the establishment of parish registers in thechurches. ∞≤ Pastors whose seal of ofce had been revoked could recordthe pastoral services they performed in the parish register of anothercongregation and have them notarized by one of the pastors there. ∞≥ On3 August 1937, Nazi District Court V in Berlin, in agreement with theSupreme Party Court, declared that there could be no legal consequencesagainst a pastor who baptized non-Aryans: ‘‘As a pastor, he is obligated toperform the baptism of Jews, if he is convinced of the integrity of the onereceiving baptism.’’ ∞∂

This did not prevent the German Christian–governed regional churchof Thuringia from issuing an order, soon after the Kristallnacht, that‘‘ministry to non-Aryans is ruled out for clergy of the Thuringian Protes-tant Church, as a matter of course. This notice is to be brought to theattention of the pastors insofar as it still should appear necessary.’’ ∞∑ Thisorder was the preliminary form of the law on the ecclesiastical status of Protestant Jews that was later passed by the regional churches of Thurin-gia, Mecklenburg, Saxony, Anhalt, and Lübeck. ∞∏

In the fall of 1938, Dr. Erwin Reisner, who worked in the Grüber ofcein Berlin (which offered help to Jews and non-Aryan Christians), sub-

mitted a ‘‘Theological Opinion on the Applicable Legal Provisions for theGiven Names of Jews or Non-Aryans.’’∞π Reisner was responding to whathe saw as the usurpation of church authority by the state’s Second De-cree on the Implementation of the Law on the Modication of Family Names and First Names, enacted on 17 August 1938. ∞∫ In condemning thelaw, Reisner concluded that there was a theological relationship be-tween the sacrament of baptism and the legal giving of a name. Thisunderstanding had existed originally, he maintained, but had been sur-rendered by the church. As a ritual of rebirth, baptism required thegiving of a name independent of human law and guided by the call anddemand of God (Isa. 43:1). Accordingly, each baptized Christian mustcarry a Christian name given by the church at baptism, which reectedthe mutual relationship between that individual and God.

But, since the church had long dispensed with this practice, it could‘‘hardly comment fundamentally’’ on the civil law ‘‘until it has restoredorder within itself and has radically revised the practice of name-giving.




118

Here, there are probably only two possibilities: either giving a name tothe baptismal candidate is dispensed with completely and left to thesecular authorities, or the giving of names is placed completely under

the sacrament.’’ As long as the church ‘‘does not resolutely stand by thisstrict point of view, there is no reason why one should deny recognitionto the names prescribed by the state.’’

Reisner added (and who can say whether this was a wink at the Jews orat the state?):

Moreover, there exists no reason whatsoever to reject the names pre-

scribed or authorized by the law for non-Aryans, as long as the names inquestion are biblical names. These names certainly are intended by thelegislators as a kind of branding and stigma, but what is disgrace andshame in the eyes of human beings can be the highest tribute in the eyesof God; the one, for example, who is permitted to bear the name ‘‘Israel’’or ‘‘Sara’’ is, without doubt, honored and treated with distinction by God. It is undoubtedly no accident that precisely these two names, God-given names, are the words of God, and therefore they are a judgmentagainst those today who misuse them for their own ends. ∞Ω

Once the church had claried its position, Reisner wrote, it would havea good foundation for resisting the state demand that the church dis-tinguish Aryans from non-Aryans: for ‘‘by one spirit we were all baptizedinto one body, whether Jews or Greeks’’ (1 Cor. 12:13).

In addition to the cases publicized in Der Stürmer , there were probably a number of unrecorded baptisms of Jews by Confessing Church pastorsuntil 1938. ≤≠ The church continued to baptize Jews until Germany wasdeclared ‘‘free of Jews’’ in 1942.≤∞ Although the marriage and baptism of non-Aryans inspired malicious tirades, it was still possible to conductthese rites secretly. This was more difcult for funerals, although the banon the burial of non-Aryans in community cemeteries was never madelaw. ≤≤

Still, some individual Confessing Church pastors tried to conductchurch funerals for non-Aryan Christians in public cemeteries. On 10November 1936, a retired pastor led a complaint with the regionalchurch council of the Evangelical Church of Kurhessen-Waldeck, stating

that Fulda city authorities had forbidden him to bury the distinguishedmerchant and non-Aryan Christian Justus Jacobsen in the city cemetery.‘‘A full member of the Evangelical Church is denied acceptance in a mu-




119

nicipal cemetery,’’ he protested, ‘‘while any tramp frozen to death in adrunken stupor in a ditch by the side of the road will nd his burial placein this cemetery.’’ ≤≥

In April 1939, the Bavarian regional church councillor lodged a com-plaint with the lord mayor of Munich because non-Aryan Christians had been denied burial in municipal cemeteries. ≤∂ In a case reported by Mar-tin Rade, a non-Aryan Christian woman was unable to nd a restingplace in the public or the Jewish cemetery: ‘‘Non-Aryans are not given a burial place in the public cemetery. We appealed to the local Jewish con-gregation, since her husband was an architect for it and is buried there, but received a negative reply, because Mrs. H. was a baptized Jew—an Aryan Christian would have been accepted, but not an apostate! What asituation!’’ ≤∑ Only through the personal intervention of Rabbi Leo Baeck could the woman’s wish to be buried beside her husband be fullled.

Presumably, there were other pastors like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, wholater expressed great remorse for his failure to perform a service for anon-Aryan. Bonhoeffer’s refusal to perform the funeral of the non-Aryanfather of his brother-in-law, Gerhard Leibholz, fell within the formalguidelines of the church, since the fact that the elder Leibholz had not been baptized could have been taken as his own nal decision, supersed-ing the wishes of Bonhoeffer’s sister and brother-in-law for a Christian burial. Bonhoeffer’s general superintendent in Berlin ‘‘advised him

strongly against taking a funeral service for a Jew at this particulartime.’’ ≤∏

Bonhoeffer concluded that extraordinary times demanded extraordi-nary action. Evidently, the little phrase ‘‘at this particular time’’ in thesuperintendent’s reply acquired special signicance for Bonhoeffer. Hehad failed a Jew during a period marked by anti-Judaism, precisely whensymbolic acts were required. In November 1933, Bonhoeffer wrote to his brother-in-law: ‘‘I am tormented by the thought . . . that I didn’t do as youasked me as a matter of course. To be frank, I can’t think what made me behave as I did. How could I have been so afraid at the time? It must haveseemed equally incomprehensible to all of you, and yet you said nothing.But it preys on my mind . . . because it’s the kind of thing one can nevermake up for. So all I can do is to ask you to forgive my weakness then. I

know now for certain that I ought to have behaved differently.’’ ≤π

Bonhoeffer suffered under his sin of omission. The other examplesgiven here show that many of his colleagues cited church and state reg-




120

ulations to avoid having to minister to non-Aryan Christians. But Bon-hoeffer had stood alone in demanding that the church take up the causenot just of non-Aryan Christians but of all persecuted Jews. His failure

to act in this one instance strengthened his resolve to be consistentelsewhere.

non-aryan church musicians

In 1954, Oskar Söhngen, former music consultant and member of theBerlin Evangelical Central Council, reviewed church ofcials’ responseto the Reich Chamber of Music’s attempts to remove non-Aryan churchmusicians from cultural and church life. ≤∫ Söhngen’s study was basedprimarily on a July 1936 letter from the Berlin Evangelical Central Coun-cil to the president of the Reich Chamber of Music. ≤Ω

An examination of the documents used by Söhngen requires severalcrucial additions to his version of events. The Berlin Central Councilletter (with which Söhngen, in his capacity as musical expert for theconsistory, was involved) expressed astonishment that in the fall of 1935

the Reich Chamber of Music had barred a number of non-Aryan churchmusicians from continued membership in the chamber. ≥≠ At the time,the council noted, ‘‘the agreement of 23 January 1936 between the Ger-man Evangelical Church and the Reich Chamber of Music, which de-clares in section 1.3 that measures taken by the Reich Chamber of Musicagainst professional musicians are authorized only in agreement with

the responsible agency of the regional church, had not yet been con-cluded.’’ ≥∞

The Reich Chamber’s actions led the Evangelical Central Council toconfer with the Reich and Prussian ofcials for church affairs, as well as with the regional church council of the Old Prussian Union. After con-sulting with these bodies, the Evangelical Central Council tried ‘‘to out-line the following aspects which have determined our position.’’

These aspects revealed a certain duplicity. On the one hand, the Evan-gelical Central Council charged that the Reich Chamber of Music’s intru-sion into church affairs was ‘‘of a fundamental nature’’—thus implyingthat the church was prepared to defend its non-Aryan musicians. On theother hand, the council agreed to conrm which church musicians were‘‘full- , half- , and quarter-Jews.’’ ‘‘The number of non-Aryan church musi-

cians in the Evangelical Church of the Old Prussian Union is innitely small,’’ the council noted: ‘‘According to the present investigations by the Reich Chamber of Music, it totals 7. We do not need to explain what




121

this means in view of a total number of over ten thousand (full-time andavocational) church musicians.’’ ≥≤

As Söhngen later wrote, there was ‘‘no serious practical threat to

church music work for the very reason that the number of non-Aryansemployed as church musicians was minimal.’’ ≥≥ The Church Chancellery jubilantly informed the Reich Chamber of Music that ‘‘only nineteen Jews and half-Jews in all’’ among the ten thousand Jewish musiciansin Germany were ‘‘active in the area of church music or of organ per-formance.’’ ≥∂

These nineteen musicians included twelve full Jews, one Jew withthree Jewish grandparents, and six half-Jews. ≥∑ Of the twelve full Jews,nine were not employed by the Evangelical Church. About half of them‘‘had been active as organists, choir directors, or cantors in synagogues.’’ The tenth full Jew lived in Switzerland and it was ‘‘fairly certain that hehas not been employed by a Protestant congregation.’’ ‘‘Thus, only two

full Jews remain who served Protestant congregations in 1933, in Co-logne and in Königsberg (Prussia). Both were retired years ago. . . . Of thesix half-Jews, only four were employed in the service of a Protestantcongregation in 1933; two of these left ofce years ago.’’ ≥∏

The Church Chancellery’s letter concluded: ‘‘Thus, of the total numberof nineteen Jews and half-Jews performing organ or church music, only two or three Jews and four half-Jews were active in church music withinthe Evangelical Church during 1933. If one compares this to the fact thatmany thousands of men and women are employed as church musiciansin German Evangelical congregations, then it can be said that churchmusic in the Evangelical Church has kept itself almost completely Ju- denfrei (free of Jews). This characteristic distinguishes it from nearly all branches of public music in the years before the national revolution.’’ ≥π

As this letter illustrates, Söhngen’s later assertion that the EvangelicalCentral Council had treated the matter as one of ‘‘fundamental signi-cance’’ was scandalous. ≥∫ The chancellery had boasted of its Judenfreichurch music. Although the church expressed ‘‘astonishment’’ at theReich Chamber of Music’s measures, its words indicated approval for theprinciples behind those measures. ≥Ω

Thus, the Evangelical Central Council was more interested in protest-ing ‘‘on principle’’ against outside intervention in the church than inprotecting the few non-Aryan church musicians:




122

The Evangelical Church believes it has demonstrated that it not only accedes to the requirements for the racial renewal of our German peo-ple, but is prepared to collaborate enthusiastically. In agreement with

the Reich and Prussian Minister for Church Affairs, we must, however,point out that if the application of the Aryan paragraph in the church becomes a matter of consideration at all, then the scope and limitationsof this application are set by the Law for the Restoration of the Profes-sional Civil Service of 7 April 1933, and the Reich Citizens’ Law of 15 Sep-tember 1935, in conjunction with the First Decree to the Reich Citizens’Law of 14 November 1935. We do not see ourselves in a position to

consent to an implementation of the Aryan paragraph in the churchthat goes beyond the scope of these laws. ∂≠

Yet the church at one point ordered the suspension of the seven non- Aryan church musicians, which Söhngen later explained as having only ‘‘hindered those musicians affected in the public practice of their profes-sion.’’∂∞ It later tried to rescind these suspensions, since ‘‘according to the

rst provision of the Reich Citizens’ Law they still qualied as citizens.’’ ∂≤

The Central Council’s main concern, however, was that the state did notchallenge the church’s jurisdiction in other areas.

The position taken in the July 1936 letter had immediate repercussionsfor non-Aryan church musicians, who were barred from the Reich Cham- ber of Music in ‘‘Königsberg (Prussia), Berlin-Friedenau, Cologne-Nippes,

Eberswalde, Offenbach (Main), Jever, Brandenburg, and Berlin’’∂≥

and inMecklenburg, ∂∂ Zittau, and Bremen. In Saxony, the regional church gov-ernment supported the Zittau church council’s prohibition of a perfor-mance of the Bruckner E-Minor Mass, since the director of the ZittauPeople’s Chorus, Bernhard Seidmann, was non-Aryan. ∂∑ On 20 October1936, the regional church government of Saxony informed the Evangeli-cal Church Consistory that there were no longer any non-Aryan churchmusicians in the Saxon church. In an isolated contrast, the president of the Evangelical Church in Bremen joined the congregation at St. Mi-chael’s there in supporting its organist, Friedrich Blankenburg, after theReich Chamber of Music ruled that Blankenburg could not continue. ∂∏

In general, the National Socialist authorities did not pursue the issueof non-Aryan church musicians intensely. Had it not been for the com-

promises of the Evangelical Central Council, a few non-Aryan churchmusicians might have retained their positions until the end of the ThirdReich.∂π




123

organizations for converted jews

The Reich Association of Christian German Citizens of Non-Aryan orNon-Pure Aryan Descent (usually referred to as the Reich Association

of Non-Aryan Christians) was founded in 1933, soon after the onset of state persecution of the Jews. In 1936, the intensication of anti-Jewishpolicies led the Reich Association of Non-Aryan Christians and similarsmaller organizations to form one large federation, which was approved by the responsible ofce in the Reich Propaganda Ministry in agreement with the Gestapo. ∂∫ The new association was called the Paulusbund (Asso-

ciation of Paul: Alliance of Non-Aryan Christians).By 1936, the Paulusbund, founded by Dr. Richard Wolff and subse-quently directed by Dr. Heinrich Spiero, had approximately eighty thou-sand members. The organization claimed to continue ‘‘early Christiantraditions,’’ combining a sense of joyous Gnostic revival with an ardent,idealistic love of all things German. ∂Ω At a 1936 Advent celebration, Er- win Goldmann, leader of the Stuttgart branch, described how the Paulus- bund saw itself:

We are people for whom the path to Christ is an act of holy experience,emerging from the deepest necessity. We, too, see our promise and hopein Him, the hero of divine light, of love, of self-mastery, and of self-sacrice. We are no Bolsheviks, but, in the spirit of our brothers who fellghting the enemy, are prepared at any time to risk our lives for Ger-many once again in the struggle against the murderous Red rabble. . . . The shields of honor of our families, whose roots are in the German soil,are undeled by the lth of the world’s parasites. We are aware of thesignicance of the given natural tendencies [ Uranlage] of each individ-ual and Volk, but we are also convinced that individuals and peoples . . .inspired by superior ideas and complete devotion to the fulllment of

great tasks, can regenerate.∑≠

The name Paulusbund was inspired by the example of the Apostle Paul, whose ‘‘readiness for self-sacrice must always be an especially heartfeltduty for us as well.’’ It was also important to be ‘‘willing to sacrice forfaith and homeland,’’ and Goldmann concluded: ‘‘In the new year, too,our German Christmas faith shall ever again let the two most important

signs for the direction of our life shine brightly before us: The heavenly sign—Christ on the Cross; the earthly sign—Mother Germania over theGerman Rhine. ‘Fate compels; loyalty decides!’ ’’ ∑∞




124

The Paulusbund existed for only six months. In 1937, with the consentof the Reich Interior Ministry and the Gestapo, Reich Culture Admin-istrator Hans Hinkel ordered all ‘‘full and three-quarter Jews’’ who had

been baptized as Christians to leave the organization. They were giventhe option of joining the Jewish Cultural Alliance. The Paulusbund wasrenamed the ‘‘Association of 1937,’’ and only baptized ‘‘half-breeds’’ werepermitted to belong to it. ∑≤ The Association of 1937 was directed by at-torney Dr. Friedrich-Karl Lesser; other non-Aryans remained under the jurisdiction of Spiero’s ofce. Neither group offered genuine refuge forthose persecuted by the Nazis. In a letter to Martin Niemöller, MargaMeusel expressed skepticism toward these groups: ‘‘If I may be allowed toexpress a judgment: one can’t send anyone to these places.’’ ∑≥

The status of the Society for the Promotion of Christianity among the Jews (Mission to the Jews of the Berlin Regional Church) was different. ∑∂

With a century-old missionary tradition, it was considered a special cen-ter for the Christian mission to the Jews. Nazi authorities found it so of-fensive that they tried to remove it completely from the sphere of churchactivities in 1936. The Berlin chief of police asked the group point-blank ‘‘whether and when the society will decide on its dissolution.’’ ∑∑ Thesociety responded that its committee had decided not to disband: ‘‘It seessupport for its tasks in Point 24 of the nsdap party program.’’ ∑∏

The Evangelical Chancellery tried to protect the society in a rather

dilatory fashion, informing the Berlin chief of police that ‘‘the ReichChurch Committee, which is appointed for the pacication and reorga-nization of church conditions, requests you to refrain temporarily fromintervention, since the question of the baptism of Jews will be regu-lated anew, in agreement with the state, in the reorganization of thechurch.’’ ∑π

The Provisional Church Administration defended the society moreemphatically, noting that the organization had existed since 1822, heldcorporation rights granted by the state, and was ‘‘involved in ecumenicalcooperation.’’ ∑∫ Shortly thereafter, the Provisional Church Administra-tion asked its regional church governments and Councils of Brethren tolet representatives of the society speak on the mission to the Jews atmeetings and pastors’ assemblies. ∑Ω The letter noted that questions deal-

ing with baptismal practices and the instruction of converts were lessimportant than ‘‘pointing out . . . the insoluble connections betweenProtestant Christianity and the people of the Old Testament revelation,




125

connections that have vanished completely from the minds of a largenumber of our people.’’ Such educational work was all the more neces-sary, the letter stated, since the Reich Church Committee wanted legally

to alter the practice of baptism. The Provisional Church Administration’s efforts to defend the group

proved unsuccessful. In 1939, the Berlin Evangelical Consistory stabbedit in the back by sending an extraordinary letter to the society:

Under the present circumstances, we intend an immediate reorderingof the care of Jews who have entered a relationship with the Evangelical

Church through Christian baptism.

We request your early reply to the following questions:

1. What, at the present time, is the size of your organization and thearea it covers?

2. Would you be in agreement with a change in the name of your or-

ganization, for example, to: ‘‘Society for the Pastoral Care of JewishChristians’’?

3. Would you be prepared, according to guidelines that would be issued by the Evangelical Consistory, to assume the care of Protestant Jews forthe area of Greater Berlin? How large is the number of these Protestant Jews to be estimated? ∏≠

The implication that non-Aryan Christians’ ‘‘relationship’’ to the Evan-gelical Church (which it clearly regarded as a nuisance) existed solely through baptism degraded baptism to a formal legal act, divesting it of its sacramental character. Strictly speaking, non-Aryan Christians nolonger had a right, according to the consistory, to be members of thechurch (even members ‘‘in the Body of Christ’’!) through baptism. They were merely an appendix in the Body of Christ, which could be removed without any harm to the church.

Thus, it was appropriate, ‘‘under the present circumstances,’’ to elimi-nate the non-Aryan Christians like appendixes, using the scalpel of bu-reaucratic decrees. This was evident in the letter’s second and thirdpoints. The society was to dispense with the baptism of Jews to ensure

that no more non-Aryan Christians could ‘‘enter into a relationship tothe Evangelical Church.’’ Under a new name, it was to limit itself to the‘‘pastoral care’’ of non-Aryan Christians.




126

On 20 February 1941, the Provisional Church Administration informedits afliated church governments and the regional and district Councilsof Brethren that the society had been dissolved and prohibited by a Ges-

tapo decree.∏∞

the fate of the non-aryan pastors

After 1936, the Confessing Church’s earlier failure to protest and act on behalf of those affected by the Aryan paragraph took its bitter revenge. The systematic nature of Nazi Jewish policies meant that ‘‘cleansing’’actions for the sake of a ‘‘Jew-free’’ Germany, once fullled in the civil

sector, would be implemented in the church. The Aryan paragraph, although nally ratied in 1934 by GermanChristian leaders, was not yet ofcial practice in most regional churchesat the beginning of 1936. Still, in its treatment of non-Aryan pastors—despite its goal of preserving peace within the churches—the ReichChurch Committee wanted to retain the state’s goodwill.

In May 1936, the Reich Church Committee sent an inquiry ‘‘to thehighest agencies of the Evangelical regional churches’’ about the number of pastors dened as non-Aryan under the civil service law. ∏≤ TheCouncil of Brethren of the Confessing Church in Berlin instructed itspastors not to reply. The Provisional Church Administration announced:‘‘We see no ecclesiastical reason for replying to an inquiry concerningthe racial membership of church professionals, whose ofces rest solely upon baptism and the commission from the congregation.’’ ∏≥

During this period, the Hannover regional church confronted the se-rious issue of what it intended to do about its non-Aryan pastors. Hann-over’s bishop, August Marahrens, faced the question reluctantly, hopingevidently that it would resolve itself. A 1933 verdict by a local court hadinvalidated the law regulating the legal status of ministers and churchcivil servants. ∏∂ This conrmed Marahrens’s view that ‘‘the Aryan para-graph for clergy in the regional church of Hannover’’ was ‘‘nished.’’ ∏∑

But it could not have escaped even Marahrens that, in the nal analy-sis, the fate of his non-Aryan colleagues depended not just on a legaldecision but on his own theological decision as well. Marahrens (whohad once spoken of his ‘‘gratitude’’ to ‘‘our Führer’’) tended toward neu-

trality in church matters. ∏∏ He sought primarily to please everybody and,as Karl Barth once observed, ‘‘always did business precisely with whoeverat the moment has the most to offer him in maintaining his historical




127

importance.’’ ∏π Five years later, the Swiss Protestant Press Service noted:‘‘When, from the Christian standpoint, things in Germany went from bad to worse, he (Marahrens) remained silent in face of race hatred and

pogroms, of wholesale falsehoods and expropriations, of the arrest with-out trial of thousands of men to be tortured and murdered in Concentra-tion Camps. But Bishop Marahrens continued to praise the Führer for hisconstructive work. . . . He hoped to be able to prevent the worst.’’ ∏∫ EvenEberhard Klügel, author of a reverent book about Marahrens, was at aloss for words about his bishop’s position on the Jewish question. ∏Ω

With respect to the Aryan paragraph, Marahrens vacillated betweensupporting the Marburg and Erlangen opinions. He gave the ‘‘historic-völkisch division of the Christian peoples’’ priority over the universality of the Gospel, thereby conceding any chance for his church to be inuen-tial on the matter. π≠

Marahrens found a sympathetic supporter in Paul Leo, a non-Aryan‘‘showpiece pastor’’ in the Hannover church. π∞ In June 1933, Marahrenscommissioned a Gutachten from Leo. Leo, who viewed the German Volks- kirche as a union of cultic community and Volkstum, believed that a quota‘‘corresponding to the numerical proportion of Jews . . . for the employ-ability of Jews in the service of the church’’ was justied. π≤ Klügel praisedLeo’s ‘‘objectivity’’ in acknowledging that Jewry had inicted ‘‘certaindamages to the Christian-formed culture’’ of the German people and

that the Jew ‘‘would have to recognize the actions of the authorities aslong as they did not enslave his conscience.’’ π≥

In his position in the Jewish question, Marahrens referred only tothese tentative sentences from Leo’s Gutachten. The bishop allowed Leoto wait in vain ‘‘for a public statement on the Jewish question,’’ which Leohad requested urgently. After 1934, when Leo was dismissed from hisposition as a prison and medical chaplain, the only position he was of-fered was that of associate pastor in an Osnabrück congregation. π∂ Oneother non-Aryan colleague in the Hannover church, Bruno Benfey, al-ready had been removed from ofce. Still, as late as November 1937, Leoappeared oblivious to the actual situation: ‘‘The church to the presentday has not allowed itself to make any kind of fundamental distinc-tion among the baptized between those baptized from Judaism and the

rest. . . . Like before, those baptized from Judaism have a full, uncurtailedright of membership in the Confessing Church.’’ π∑

In the summer of 1938, facing hostility from national and local ofces




128

of the Nazi party, Leo complied (‘‘with a heavy heart’’) with the request of his regional church and went into ‘‘temporary retirement.’’ π∏ There is noevidence that Marahrens intervened on Leo’s behalf. On 10 November

1938, Leo was taken to Buchenwald and released only after the intervention of other pastors and his church superintendent. In February 1939, he emigrated to Holland and eventually came to the United States, where he became professor of New Testament in Dubuque, Iowa. He diedin 1958.

Leo was only one of several non-Aryan pastors who lost their positions

in the Hannover church.ππ

The other prominent case was that of BrunoBenfey in Göttingen. π∫ Son of a Jewish-Christian family that had lived inGöttingen since 1809, Benfey became pastor of the St. Marien churchthere in 1927. He took an early interest in ecumenical work, joining the World Alliance and the International Fellowship of Reconciliation. Half- Jewish and with international connections, he soon became a target of the Nazis in Göttingen. In particular, Benfey came under attack in hisown parish from the other minister there and the German Christians onthe parish council.

The response of authorities on the regional church level was to seek asolution based on ‘‘pastoral pressure’’ that would remove Benfey fromthe parish. πΩ Disciplinary proceedings were begun against Benfey in No- vember 1936. When he led the worship service on 8 November 1936,demonstrators stood outside the church with signs warning parishio-ners to stay away, and a small group of protesters walked out of theservice when Benfey approached the altar. Following the service, Benfey,his wife, and supporters were followed home by demonstrators shoutinganti-Semitic slogans.

The parish members who supported him sent a letter to regionalchurch leaders:

To avoid any misunderstandings, we members of the St. Marien con-gregation emphasize that of course we stand wholeheartedly on thefoundation of the National Socialist state . . . and recognize the valid-ity of its laws—including the Aryan paragraph. But we oppose it whenthese laws passed within the realm of the state are forcibly applied in

the realm of the church, where they don’t belong. . . . We ask thatthe regional church government not abandon us in ghting this anti-Christian spirit.—Heil Hitler.




129

It was part of the inconsistencies of the age that the authors of thispetition could simultaneously give the ‘‘Hitler greeting’’ with ideologi-cal conviction and express Christian conviction in trying to protect their

Jewish-Christian neighbor.Benfey was arrested and taken into ‘‘protective custody.’’ The Hann-

over regional church issued a warrant against those who had disturbedthe service and sent a protest to the Reich Ministry for Church Affairs. Atthe same time, church leaders saw ‘‘no possibility for a new placement’’for Benfey. ∫≠ Like Leo, Benfey was arrested in November 1938 and takento Buchenwald. At the invitation of the ecumenical movement, he wasable to emigrate to Holland with his wife; he remained in Hollandthroughout the war. With the support of most parish members, he re-turned in 1946 to St. Marien in Göttingen, remaining there until hisdeath in 1962.

Throughout Germany, pastors discovered that they could expect only limited support from their church leadership. In Westphalia, PastorHans Ehrenberg (a former philosophy professor and author of the re-nowned ‘‘Seventy-Two Theses to the Jewish-Christian Question’’ in 1933) was the target of crude attacks in Der Stürmer that drove him to ask forearly retirement in 1937. ∫∞ Although the Westphalian Council of Breth-ren, Ehrenberg’s six colleagues in his parish in Bochum, and the parishitself stood behind Ehrenberg, his regional church (including West-

phalian church president Koch) did not. The announcement of Ehren- berg’s departure by his colleagues conveyed their own disappointmentin their church leadership: ‘‘The sense of this struggle was not to keep thepastor in his position, but to take seriously the sacrament of baptism andthe vocation to the ministry. When Pastor Ehrenberg leaves his ministry now, this is because the church was unable to stand up for him and hisdistrict to the extent that was necessary.’’ ∫≤

Ehrenberg’s apartment was destroyed in the November 1938 pogrom,and Ehrenberg was arrested and taken to Sachsenhausen. After several weeks he was released and emigrated to England. ∫≥ Albert Schmidt, oneof his colleagues in the Bochum parish, did not hesitate to publicize what had happened. He continued to pray publicly for Ehrenberg in theservices—an act for which Schmidt himself was imprisoned.



130

∞≥

Ecumenical Responses

‘‘From the beginning, the Confessing Church’s struggle has been carriedout with the intense sympathy of the Christian churches outside Ger-many,’’ Dietrich Bonhoeffer observed in 1935. ‘‘This has been noted withsuspicion and condemned in political and church circles.’’ ∞

For the German Evangelical Church, any kind of foreign connectionsreeked suspiciously of a defeatist conspiracy, and most church leadersrejected any kind of ‘‘foreign interference’’ in domestic German affairs.Church leaders and the Church Foreign Ofce differed strongly withthose in the Confessing Church on how the Jewish question should beaddressed in ecumenical assemblies. ≤ The 1934 ecumenical conferencein Fanø, Denmark, declared its solidarity with the Confessing Church,underscoring this by electing Bonhoeffer and the absent Confessingsynod president Karl Koch to the Ecumenical Council for Life and Work ‘‘as consultive and co-opted members.’’ ≥ Nonetheless, as time passed,Bishop Theodor Heckel, head of the Church Foreign Ofce, ∂ succeeded inenhancing his own reputation, neutralizing the Confessing Church, andhoodwinking foreign ecumenical leaders about the true state of affairsin Germany. ∑

In Fanø, Heckel argued that the Jewish question was not his responsi-

bility.∏

One year later, he assured the Executive Committee of the Ecu-menical Council for Practical Christianity in Chamby-sur-Montreaux π

that the Jewish question ‘‘was being dealt with much more openly inGermany than a year ago, and that plans that had been put in hand by the Reich Church were on the way to fulllment.’’ ∫

A few days earlier, the World Alliance for Promoting InternationalFriendship through the Churches also convened in Chamby. Ω At the pre-liminary session, Pastor Hermann Maas of Heidelberg gave remarks en-titled ‘‘The Question of the Christian Non-Aryans.’’ ∞≠ He deliberately con-ned himself to the situation of non-Aryan Christians—‘‘not because I . . .have not seen the distress (of the Jews). But that would lead us on forever,and cause us to overlook the problem of the Christian non-Aryans, whichhas been ignored far too long.’’ The number of those affected, he said,

ranged between two hundred fty thousand (‘‘far below reality’’) andtwo million (this was before the passage of the Nuremberg Laws). Thegure suggested by ‘‘the political Racial Ofce is approximately one and




131

a half million.’’ Of these, 85 to 88 percent were Protestant and only about12 percent Roman Catholic.

Maas believed the ecumenical movement faced three issues. The rst

was the educational problem. Barred from the universities, young peoplefaced ‘‘enormous retraining and upheaval.’’ Maas recommended estab-lishing boarding schools on the colonial school model, providing instruc-tion in modern languages and ‘‘preparatory training for agricultural work and settlement.’’ This required that churches in the ecumeni-cal movement establish ties with the educational ministries in theircountries.

Second was the issue of emigration. Maas pleaded for the creation of secure job opportunities for emigrants and the purchase or donation of land for their resettlement.

The third problem was specically ecclesiastical. The church, Maassaid, could not let itself be moved by political animosities; its mission was to care for those who had been injured or were in danger. The Gos-pel’s message must ‘‘protect against despair, and the faith in election asshown in the passage from Rom. 8:24–11’’ must ‘‘remain the point of departure and the goal of all work, all aid, and all willingness to acceptassistance.’’

Maas called for a committee that would seek the support of the Reichgovernment and establish contacts with foreign church and govern-

mental agencies, the Roman Catholic Church, and the political relief campaign. The committee could assist in setting up and coordinatingcounseling centers and also work ‘‘toward the acquisition of land andthe organization of farms’’ for the resettlement of refugees. Noting thatsubstantial aid for Jewish non-Aryans had been raised through collec-tions and donations, Maas asked: Was it ‘‘impossible for the Christianchurch . . . to stand up for its own members, the Christian non-Aryans?’’‘‘When God calls us, may our only reply be our weak-spirited ‘Impossi- ble’? We have a great God and a true Savior. So nothing is impossible.’’

Maas’s suggestion for a relief committee was not a new idea. In 1933,Siegmund-Schultze had set up a relief project in Switzerland for theracially and politically persecuted. He had successfully gained the inter-est of government agencies, including the Reich Interior Ministry and

the Foreign Ofce. At that point, the German branch of the World Al-liance for Promoting International Friendship through the Churcheshad also suggested the establishment of a general church relief agency




132

for German emigrants. Only the general secretary of the U.S. World Al-liance ofce expressed misgivings. This temporarily stalled plans for anecumenical committee on German refugee relief, and the rst commit-

tee meeting, planned for 1 July 1933, was canceled.∞∞

After the passage of the Nuremberg Laws, however, the question of aidto non-Aryan Christians became increasingly urgent. Compared withmany Jews, most Christian non-Aryans had no foreign contacts of any kind. In Germany, there were more than twice as many non-Aryan Chris-tians as there were religiously observant Jews.

A sense of helplessness developed in the various relief agencies asimmigration regulations in the nations bordering Germany becamemore restrictive. This led Siegmund-Schultze to request World Alliancehelp in expanding the newly established central ecumenical agency forGerman refugees, which had its temporary headquarters in Geneva.‘‘The responsible church agencies in the European countries and inthe United States of America support these relief agencies,’’ Siegmund-Schultze noted. ∞≤

The director of the Reich Church Committee, Dr. Wilhelm Zoellner, was invited to London for the constitutive meeting of the InternationalChurch Relief Commission for German Refugees. Skeptical about any international campaign that might patronize the German church, Zoell-ner expressed astonishment that he had been informed of these plans at

such a late date, whereas the representatives of the Confessing Churchhad been contacted much earlier. ∞≥ He would have to ‘‘review carefully’’the question of German Evangelical Church participation ‘‘in the com-mission’s work’’ ∞∂ and suggested that all further communications besent via the Church Foreign Ofce. ∞∑ Heckel and Zoellner were united intheir suspicion of foreign church intervention. ∞∏

Nonetheless, a German representative attended the constitutivemeeting of the Relief Commission on 31 January 1936. Together withSiegmund-Schultze (who was the temporary director), Hermann Maasparticipated in the London meeting ‘‘on behalf of the German Confes-sional Church and the German Council of the World Alliance.’’ ∞π At Bell’ssuggestion, Danish bishop Valdemar Ammundsen chaired the commis-sion. The meeting focused on two issues. The rst was the necessity and

possibility of aid, especially to non-Aryan Christians. Siegmund-Schultzereported on their situation, and Hermann Maas drew additional atten-tion to the plight of children, the lack of funds for new schools, and the




133

issues confronting emigrants. Second, the group discussed the appoint-ment of a new director, since Siegmund-Schultze wanted to step downafter 31 March 1936. ∞∫

The Ecumenical Council convened in Chamby from 21 to 25 August1936. It was the only ecumenical conference where Germany was repre-sented by delegations from the German Evangelical Church and the Con-fessing Church. ∞Ω A lively debate about the Jewish question arose. BishopBell, who had mediated for days among Zoellner, Dibelius, and Koch with some success, moved that the plenary session refrain from adoptinga resolution on the matter, since ‘‘it was not possible to adopt a resolu-tion adequate to the situation and with due justice both to the neces-sities of the case and to the rights of members of the Council specially concerned.’’ ≤≠ He suggested letting the Administrative Committee han-dle the question, particularly with respect to the matter of non-Aryanschoolchildren in Germany.

The caution and consideration with which the Germans were treatedin Chamby was due in part to the situation in Germany (precarious forthe Confessing Church and embarrassing for the Reich Church Commit-tee) following the indiscreet publication of the church’s memorandumto Hitler in June 1936. The German church was scrambling to undo thedamage, but even a statement read from the pulpits of German churcheson 23 August, which was mostly silent about the memorandum’s criti-

cism of anti-Semitism and the concentration camps, did little to improvethe church’s situation. ≤∞ In Chamby, Zoellner and Dibelius urged theassembly not to go beyond Bishop Bell’s ‘‘explanation, so well-consideredand evading the dangers in such a skillful manner and, yet, adhering tothat which is essential.’’ ≤≤ Bell had said: ‘‘The Ecumenical Council hasdirected its attention to the fact that the churches are most moved by thedistress of those who, in various parts of the world, suffer because of their faith, their nationality, or race. In deep sympathy with these suf-ferers, the Council calls upon the Administrative Committee to considerseriously what steps can be undertaken to relieve and to heal the presentdistress.’’ ≤≥

Bishop Heckel was isolated in Chamby. The delegates from the Confess-ing Church were in the majority, and the other ofcial German delegates

(Hanns Lilje, Prof. Martin Dibelius, and Erich Stange) felt an obligation totheir Confessing colleagues. Of the non-German ecumenists, Bishop Bell(who played a decisive role in Chamby) was least inclined to favor the




134

Church Foreign Ofce, and the French delegate refused even to sit at thesame table with Heckel. ≤∂

Although one of the topics discussed in Bonhoeffer’s presence was

‘‘his’’ theme—the treatment of the Jewish question—he did not speak during the ofcial negotiations. Had the composition of the Germandelegation and the attempted arrangements between the ConfessingChurch delegates and the Reich Church Committee led him to becomeresigned? Some weeks later, he wrote French ecumenical leader Henriodthat his silence in Chamby was ‘‘not entirely without reason.’’ ≤∑

The next signicant ecumenical meeting, the World Conference of Churches of the Ecumenical Council for Practical Christianity (Life and Work), convened 12–26 July 1937 in Oxford to deliberate on the themeof ‘‘church, community, and state.’’ ≤∏ In a message to the Christianchurches, the conference bluntly addressed the racial question, reveal-ing the German lack of participation; neither the Confessing Church northe German Evangelical Church was represented in Oxford. ≤π The OxfordConference formulated ‘‘certain principles that Christians everywhereshould seek to have incorporated in the sentiments and public policies of their nations and communities’’:

1. The recognition of the value of every human being as a person.

2. The right of every individual, of every race, color, or present status, tothe conditions essential for life as a person, to education, to vocationalopportunity, recreation, and social intercourse.

3. Full participation in fellowship and leadership for members of a lessadvanced people as they prove their ability.

4. Active cooperation and fellowship among leaders of different racialgroups.

5. Recognition by the community of its responsibility to less privilegedpersons of whatever race or group, not only for their assistance andprotection, but also for special educational and cultural opportunities.

6. The necessity of such economic and social change as shall open the

way to full opportunity for persons of all races.However, it is as members of the church of Christ that Christians bearthe heaviest guilt for the present situation. And here is their greatest




135

obligation and opportunity. . . . God calls the church to implacably oppose racial pride, racial hatreds and persecutions, and the exploita-tion of other races in all forms, and to utter its word unambiguously,

both within and outside its own borders. It is especially necessary at thistime that the church, throughout the world, bring every resource at itscommand against the sin of anti-Semitism.

In their private lives and in their churches, Christians should takethe lead in developing greater sympathy for those who are in needowing to unequal opportunity, those who are excluded by prevailingcommunity customs and sentiments, or those who suffer persecution,

anger, and contempt because of their race. . . . Christians must expect tosacrice popularity in loyalty to Christian insight and love. ≤∫

This appeal to world Christianity had no effect on the refugee con-ference in Evian-les-Bains (6–15 July 1938). Thirty-two states had sentrepresentatives to this international conference, which was intended todeal specically with the reception of persecuted Jews from Germany

and annexed Austria. Various emigrant groups and the Jewish commu-nities from Nazi-dominated territory were represented. The conferencefoundered on the majority’s refusal to agree to liberal immigrationterms. Various motives—political ignorance, a lack of information aboutthe true predicament of the Jews, lethargy, and disinterest—were respon-sible for the failure of the conference.

In the nal analysis, the attempts of individual ecumenists in the Con-fessing Church to aid the persecuted non-Aryans through their contacts with foreign churches failed because the ecumenical world sought toremain impartial toward the Confessing Church and the German Evan-gelical Church. This only led to increased rivalry between the two Ger-man groups. The Confessing Church suffered under its lack of recog-nition in the protocols of the ecumenical councils, and the GermanEvangelical Church felt patronized by the ecumenical world throughforeign interference in its affairs. Because the ecumenists did not wantto anger either faction, both groups felt slighted. ≤Ω

The damage to the Confessing Church was greater, however. The Ger-man Evangelical Church, particularly its Foreign Ofce, was more inter-

ested in seeing the Confessing Church disappear from foreign circlesthan it was in maintaining those contacts itself. The impediments to theConfessing Church increased as the situation gradually turned to the




136

advantage of the ofcial German church; ‘‘Heckel and his representa-tives could be sure of their passports and foreign exchange, whereas tripsto foreign countries for representatives of the Provisional Church Ad-

ministration became a more and more difcult problem.’’≥≠

Accordingly, ofcial church pressures on the Confessing Church in-creased. In 1938, the Church Foreign Ofce attempted to discipline ec-umenical veteran Max Diestel, a Berlin church superintendent and Con-fessing Church pastor, for his controversial speeches at an ecumenicalconference:

I request, by order of the Reich Minister of Church Affairs, that noti-cation be made through the competent council to SuperintendentDiestel, Berlin-Lichtenfelde . . . that the declaration that Superinten-dent Diestel made in the name of the German Delegation in Larvik onthe resolution of the international council of the World Alliance forPromoting Friendship through the Churches concerning non-Aryan ref-ugees from Germany has displeased the Reich Minister of Churchesmost strongly, and cannot in any manner be considered adequate.

Concurrently, I request that the person named above [Diestel] be advised that, before all journeys abroad, insofar as they relate to churchaffairs, he shall establish contact with the Church Foreign Ofce of theGerman Evangelical Church. ≥∞

The letter reected the Church Foreign Ofce’s resentment of Diestel’sindependence and its chilly relations with the German branch of the World Alliance. This resentment was matched by the Foreign Ofce’soutspoken declarations of loyalty toward the state. When Hitler ap-proved a subsidy of twenty thousand marks for German Protestant work in Palestine, Heckel expressed thanks to ‘‘my Führer’’ for the ‘‘magnani-mous contribution,’’ which, because of ‘‘the oppressive misery and thetasks with which the German parish in Jerusalem is confronted becauseof England’s brutal policy . . . (constitutes) wonderful support. But itmeans even more. In this contribution from your hand, we see a token of that profound generosity which is always extended to those who live inmisery and need, and is a sign of encouragement, in a German outpost’sstruggle for existence, to stand valiantly and bravely for the honor of the

Reich and its Führer.’’ ≥≤

The ‘‘magnanimous contribution’’ from the Reich chancellor’s ‘‘per-sonal funds’’ was a direct subsidy to those forces trying to impede the




137

immigration of Jews to Palestine. The Protestant parish in Jerusalem wasno longer just a center for the evangelization of Jews in the Holy Land; ithad become an outpost of greater Germany, which was united with Arab

Christians in the struggle against Judaism.≥≥

Heckel agreed with theReich government that German interests in Palestine were looked after by the Führer, and the ‘‘Christian’’ ones by his English colleague, the bishop of Winchester. ≥∂ The subsidy from the Führer’s personal funds was of no use to persecuted Jews or even to non-Aryan Christians. Ac-cording to Heckel, the ones who ‘‘live in misery and need’’ in Palestine

were not the Jewish refugees but rather Christians burdened by Jewishimmigration!From the perspective of those abroad, the question of home church

contributions and collections for those persecuted owing to racial origin became all the more urgent. Franz Hildebrandt, ≥∑ who had rescued him-self in 1937 by emigrating to London on short notice, posed this questionto Bishop Marahrens:

In the Sunday newsletter, which our local congregation ≥∏ has receivedfor some time now, I read . . . that, in all the congregations of the Protes-tant Lutheran regional church of Hannover, a collection for the allevia-tion of the distress of the Sudeten German brethren has been made.

May I take the liberty of following this point further with a question:during the last ve years, has the regional church of Hannover taken asimilar collection for the alleviation of the distress experienced by thenon-Aryan brethren in and outside Germany?

Hildebrandt noted the ‘‘unspeakable misery’’ that he encountered daily:

I easily could send you a number of requests for help (from withinGermany), the repetitive tenor of which is a simple: ‘‘Save us from com-

mitting suicide.’’ A small and poor congregation here on the outside stands helpless before such cries for help. The ecumenical world does what it can, butthat is a drop in the bucket. . . . ≥π What is really being done in thechurches at home for their baptized members who are suffering be-cause of their racial origin?

. . . May I at least ask whether the solidarity displayed for the SudetenGerman brethren in the church’s prayers . . . has ever been expressed—explicitly—toward the non-Aryan Christians? I can hardly believe thatthe spiritual leadership of an Evangelical Lutheran Church can justify




138

its silence about this suffering before the Lord and the confession of thechurch. How splendid it would be for all those affected and, not least of all, for the cause of our church at home and abroad if you, Bishop, would

dispel the doubt that oppresses us with a clear statement!Marahrens replied that unfortunately he could not express any writ-

ten opinion on the questions raised by Hildebrandt. With the pat phrasestypical of a shoulder-shrugging ofcial, he added, ‘‘I am thankful that you have so earnestly indicated the concern that moves you and us. Witha sincere wish for God’s care . . .’’ ≥∫ A few days later, the Reichskristall-

nacht broke over Germany; its hellish brightness cast a murderous lighton the last chapter of the fate of the Jews.



part three

The ‘‘Elimination’’ of the Jews∞Ω≥∫–∂∑



141

National Socialist policies had successfully expelled the Jews from Ger-man society. Only a signal was needed for the nal stage of the persecu-tion of the Jews. If this phase were to differ from the previous one thatused legal mechanisms to denigrate and isolate the Jews, it would benecessary to mount efforts on an entirely different scale. Hardly anyoneat the time could have foreseen the nal consequences; the Nazis wereplanning something different from anything that had been done before.Nazi propaganda now had to prepare the Germans for the unimaginable.

The German language itself was skillfully revised to destroy any re-maining scruples about genocide. In retrospect, some of the terminology helps explain how it was possible for a policy of such unprecedentedcruelty to succeed. The language of mathematics spoke of calculationsneeded for the ‘‘reckoning’’ with the Jews; bureaucratic organizationprovided for the ‘‘disposal’’ of the Jewish question; and the laws neces-sary for all this signied the ‘‘perfection’’ of government policies—a termthat created an ethical alibi for those involved.

Linguistically borrowing from the spheres of arithmetic, bureaucracy,and ethics, the process that led to the ‘‘nal solution’’ of the Jewishquestion after 1941 was begun. The term nal solution would ultimately

eclipse the darkest Jewish apocalyptic, and it took place under the pre-tense of legality. On 12 November 1938, Jochen Klepper wrote in hisdiary: ‘‘The morning paper. Dr. Goebbels: ‘Germany will respond toGrynszpan’s shots legally, but mercilessly.’ ’’ And, on 14 November: ‘‘Yes-terday a new speech by Goebbels: The Jewish question is being solved forgood.’’∞

the reichskristallnacht

Hitler wagered that the Western powers, although ‘‘poisoned by inter-national Judaism,’’ would scarcely be willing to wage war on behalf of Jews in Germany. ≤ He was encouraged by the September 1938 Munichagreement in which Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Daladier, eagerto preserve the peace, had offered yet another small nation to the Reichchancellor. The Evian conference in July 1938 had demonstrated the

international lack of interest in the fate of German Jews to Hitler’s great-est satisfaction. ≥

Thus, Hitler was free to intensify his Jewish policy without fearing



The ‘‘Elimination’’ of the Jews

142

serious foreign intervention. He still needed a certain number of Jews inGermany to use as hostages in political or economic deals; it was nocoincidence that the decree affecting passports appeared one week after

the Munich accords.∂

This decree halted the issue of new passports to Jews and declared those previously issued invalid; the passports became valid again only after they had been marked with a J , identifying theholder as a Jew.

On the other hand, it was important to get rid of the Jews from the east.Sixty thousand Jews with Polish citizenship now resided in Germany. On6 October 1938, Poland, in anticipation of the German deportation of Polish Jews, declared the passports of Poles living abroad invalid. The ap-propriate documents had to be led in Poland to obtain a special stamp before 29 October; whoever failed to do this became stateless overnight.Hitler’s ‘‘Jewish expert,’’ Reinhard Heydrich, used the night of 28 Octo- ber to move seventeen thousand Jews, due to become stateless in a few hours, across the Polish border. When the border was discovered to beclosed, these people, most jammed into trucks, were driven into theelds. A catastrophe of tremendous proportions was avoided only afterthe American Joint Distribution Committee found places in Polish citiesfor most of the survivors.

Among the victims of these rst mass deportations were the parents of seventeen-year-old Herschel Grynszpan, who learned of this during a

visit with his uncle in Paris. Grynszpan went to the German embassy on7 November, planning to murder ambassador Graf Welczek. As LegationCounselor Ernst vom Rath came to meet him, Grynszpan shot him on thestaircase of the embassy.

A gift had fallen into the laps of Hitler and his followers; the assassina-tion was a welcome pretext to initiate severe anti-Jewish measures. On9 November, Goebbels gave a virulently anti-Jewish speech at the f-teenth anniversary of the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923, referring to the 1936murder of Wilhelm Gustloff, leader of the Swiss National Socialist Party. ∑

The same evening, news of vom Rath’s death was circulated to all impor-tant party ofces—along with Goebbels’s order, approved by Hitler andsubsequently put into action by Heydrich: ‘‘Upon command of the GroupLeader . . . all Jewish synagogues within the brigade are to be blown up or

set on re immediately.’’ ∏

The party considered this ‘‘rehearsal’’ for the Final Solution a completesuccess.π On 11 November, Heydrich reported to Göring that 191 syna-



Reactions to the November Pogrom

143

gogues had been set on re and 76 additional synagogues completely demolished. Eight hundred fteen businesses had been destroyed and29 set on re, and 171 houses had been either burned down or plundered

and wrecked. (These gures, which Heydrich himself estimated as far toolow, were revised; later research, for example, listed 7,500 plundered businesses.) Half the nearly twenty thousand arrested Jews were taken toBuchenwald. By 11 November, thirty-six people were dead and thirty-sixseriously injured. ∫

Following the tradition of using pogroms against the Jews for personal

enrichment at the expense of the victims, Göring took the opportunity tosatisfy his passion for art collections and to revive his Four-Year Plan. Ω

Göring’s 12 November order for a ‘‘penance payment’’ imposed a pay-ment of one billion Reich marks on German Jews. In addition, the dam-age resulting to businesses and apartment houses was to be cleared away immediately by the Jews at their own expense, and any insurance claims

by Jews were to be conscated in favor of the Reich.∞≠

Art works, realestate, securities, and jewels as well as ‘‘all Jewish businesses’’ were ‘‘to be seized and sold to non-Jews, whereby the owners are to receive only the bookrate credit, at a xed rate of interest.’’ ∞∞

These brief descriptions can scarcely portray the extent of this orgy of organized bestiality; they serve here as an introduction to the reaction of the German Evangelical Church and its members.

∞∂


The Confessing Church was increasingly at risk. Its members had beenimmobilized by numerous arrests and bans on travel and speaking.Forced to improvise, the church had to rely on the techniques of under-ground organization and action. The previous period of church discus-sions and resolutions had led to sharp divisions within the ConfessingChurch about its position toward the Jews. Now the church had entered aperiod in which only very small groups or, more frequently, individuals were capable of offering help to the persecuted.

As political pressure grew stronger in the late summer of 1938 (twoand a half months before the so-called Reichskristallnacht), a new edi-tion of the Pastors’ Emergency League pledge appeared. Point 3 had not




144

been changed one iota: ‘‘In such a commitment, I bear witness to the factthat the implementation of the Aryan paragraph in the sphere of thechurch violates the confessional position.’’ ∞

In 1933, this sentence had been viewed by some as an easy burden and by others as an adiaphoron. Only a few had regarded it as the centralissue at stake. Now, in these more dangerous times, it became a thorn inthe esh of the church. Assistance to Jews was made more difcult by intensied anti-Jewish legislation, the Gestapo’s increasingly sophisti-cated spying on the churches, and the military conscription of pastors

that began in September 1939.≤

Belatedly mobilized, many Christiansnow discovered that their options for defending the Jews had becomemuch more limited.

In some cases, Protestant rectories were targets of destruction duringthe November 1938 pogrom. A few pastors fell victim to gangs of sa

members who, enraged that there were no Jews in their towns, ventedtheir energies against representatives of the church. Between 10 and13 November, two rectories in Nassau-Hesse, one in the Rhineland, andtwo in Bavaria were attacked. These were not assaults on pastors sus-pected of pro-Jewish attitudes but simply the consequences of anti-Semitic fervor that, in the absence of its intended victims, sought a new outlet. ≥ The pastors who were singled out were called racial epithetssuch as ‘‘Jew-dog,’’ in a transposition of anti-Jewish invective to people who had no relation to Jews at all. ∂ By their own accounts, these pastorsdid not know why this was happening to them. ∑ Bonhoeffer’s 1933 pre-diction that the church would eventually suffer the same treatment ithad allowed to befall the Jews had come true.

There were other pastors, however, who courageously broke the gen-eral silence maintained by both the German Evangelical Church and theProvisional Church Administration and dared to show public solidarity with the persecuted. On 16 November, exactly one week after the Kris-tallnacht, Christians throughout Germany gathered to worship on theannual Day of Repentance. The address given by Pastor Julius von Janof Oberlenningen near Kirchheim–Teck has become the most famoussermon delivered on that day. Von Jan preached on the lectionary text,

Jer. 22:29: ‘‘O land, land, land, hear the word of the Lord!’’ With theassassination in Paris and its aftermath in mind, von Jan cried out to hiscongregation:




145

. . . But who would have thought that this one crime in Paris could resultin so many crimes here in Germany? Here we have been repaid for the widespread break away from God and Christ, for this organized anti-

Christianity. Passions are unleashed; God’s commandments are de-spised; houses of worship that were holy for others have been burneddown with impunity; the property of strangers robbed or destroyed.Men who served our German people faithfully and performed theirduty conscientiously were thrown into concentration camps simply be-cause they belonged to another race.

This injustice may not be acknowledged from above—but the sound

common sense of the people feels it distinctly, even if no one dares tospeak about it. And we, as Christians, see how this injustice incrimi-nates our people before God and must bring new punishments uponGermany. . . . What a person sows, so he will reap! Indeed, it is a dreadfulseed of hatred that is now being sown. What a dreadful harvest willgrow from it, if God does not grant us and our people the grace forhonest repentance. ∏

Nine days later, a band of hired thugs drove up to the Oberlenningenrectory, assaulted von Jan, and took him to the Kirchheim jail. After fourmonths’ imprisonment, he was deported from Württemberg and given aposition in Bavaria as a parish administrator. A year later, at a judicialhearing in Stuttgart (similar to those held before the notorious Nazi

People’s Court), he was sentenced to sixteen months’ imprisonment. Af-ter ve months, von Jan was released and given three years’ probation.He then held ofce near Passau and returned to Oberlenningen afterserving as a soldier in September 1945. π

The Württemberg church leadership and von Jan’s neighboring col-leagues intervened considerately on his behalf and that of his family. Thechurch leadership, however, would not publicly condemn the pogroms. ∫

The regional Council of Brethren announced that it would issue a state-ment if the bishop would place his authority behind it; when this was notforthcoming, the council remained silent.

A few people planned to distribute copies of von Jan’s sermon, along with a recommended intercessory prayer, to Confessing Church pas-tors. The prayer characterized von Jan ‘‘as a faithful and conscientious

preacher and counselor’’ who bore ‘‘a clear, powerful witness, entirely justied by the Bible, in the Repentance Day sermon against the sin of our people in the outrages against the Jews.’’ Ω It is not known whether




146

the prayer was actually read in the congregations and what response itreceived.

Although the von Jan incident was the most prominent case, several

other Repentance Day sermons protested the events of 9 November. ∞≠ InDahlem, Helmut Gollwitzer’s sermon exemplied the political dimen-sion of preaching; he preached between the lines but clearly enough foreveryone to understand. ∞∞ Basing his sermon on Luke 3:3–14, Gollwitzerasked:

What do we expect of God if we come to Him now and sing and read the

Bible, pray, preach, confess our sins . . . ? He truly must loathe ourimpudence and temerity. . . .

Whoever can no longer confess his guilt before God cannot confess iteasily any longer before human beings. Here, then, begins the madness,the persecution complex, that must demonize the other in order toidolize itself. . . . Today, we are acquainted enough with the self-loathing

we feel where Evil is not just evil, but is repulsively disguised as mo-rality; where base instincts, hatred, and vindictiveness conduct them-selves as something great and good. . . .

All of us together are burdened by guilt. . . . We are all participants inthis, the one through cowardliness, the other through the indolencethat steers clear of everything, through the silent ignorance, the si-lence, the closing of the eyes, the inertia of the heart that becomesaware of anguish only when it can be seen clearly.

. . . Our own complicity is evident, as human beings who love theirown lives and themselves, and have just enough love left over for Godand their neighbor as can be dispensed without effort and bother. . . .

Open your mouth for the speechless (Prov. 31:8) and for the cause of all who are forsaken. . . . God wants to see deeds . . . precisely from those

who have escaped with the aid of Christ.Gollwitzer concluded, ‘‘Our neighbor now waits outside, destitute, un-protected, without honor; hungry, hunted, and harried by fears for hisnaked existence, he waits to see whether the Christian community hasreally celebrated a day of penitence today. Jesus Christ is waiting for this! Amen.’’∞≤

Gollwitzer carefully weighed his words in order to preserve his futureability to speak out in the totalitarian system, and the Gestapo took nomeasures against him. Assaults on rectories occurred almost exclusively




147

in smaller towns, which suggests that the sa and ss avoided such attacksin cities, where they would have created a considerable stir.

The number of pastors who preached or prayed on behalf of the Jews

on Repentance Day, 1938, is unclear. ∞≥ Even in the Confessing Church,most kept quiet about the Kristallnacht. ∞∂ The few exceptions, like Pastor von Jan, ‘‘triggered nothing short of a shock.’’ ∞∑ Out of caution, somedaring sermons were not even written down; others were locked up andhidden, coming to the light of day only years later (in the case of a ser-mon by New Testament scholar Günther Bornkamm). ∞∏ Bornkamm had

preached about ‘‘the fury of hate and the unrestrained savagery that have broken loose in our people in these days, and are causing the most pro-found destruction.’’ ∞π

And Bonhoeffer? Could not a clear statement have been expected fromhim? It was probably during this period that he made his famous remark,‘‘Only he who cries out for the Jews may also sing Gregorian chant.’’ ∞∫

Bonhoeffer was resigned about the Confessing Church’s failure to deal with the Jewish question and, in 1938, was particularly distressed by thecontroversy about the loyalty oath. (The Confessing Church was dividedover whether pastors could swear a loyalty oath to the Führer; mosteventually did, to Bonhoeffer’s disappointment.) ∞Ω All this had increasedhis sense of estrangement from the Confessing Church.

Still, it cannot be said whether he ‘‘sang Gregorian chant’’ during thisperiod. His 3 December 1938 sermon on confession and repentance, in-tended to prepare his students for the Eucharist, sounded more like thepietistic appeals of an evangelist preacher than a modern sermon onrepentance. ≤≠

In any case, Bonhoeffer did not cry out but only underlined Ps. 74:8 inthe Bible that he used for prayer and meditation: ‘‘They have burnedall the meeting places of God in the land.’’ In the margin, he wrote:‘‘11.9.1938’’; and, in a letter to his Finkenwalde colleagues, he indicatedthat his current thoughts were centered on such biblical passages. ≤∞

Some church leaders supported the pogrom. On 23 November 1938, Thu-ringia’s Bishop Martin Sasse distributed a compilation of the relevant

antisemitica extracted from Luther’s slanderous text ‘‘Von den Judenund ihre Lügen’’ (On the Jews and their lies). ≤≤ In the preface, the bishopexulted, ‘‘On 10 November 1938, Luther’s birthday, the synagogues in




148

Germany are burning,’’ and he recommended the works of the ‘‘greatestanti-Semite of his time,’’ who had warned ‘‘his people against the Jews.’’

In Württemberg, Bishop Wurm commented on the events of 9 Novem-

ber in a way that he ‘‘later bitterly regretted.’’ (After the war, he wrotethat his silence about the persecution of the Jews would haunt him forthe rest of his life.) ≤≥ Wurm’s ofcial response to von Jan’s sermon washardly a defense. ≤∂ Although the church could not neglect propheticpreaching, Wurm wrote the deaconates, it was ‘‘self-evident that theservant of the church, in such preaching, must avoid everything that

is tantamount to inadmissible criticism of actual political events.’’ Inan era when hostile parties could politically exploit even purely reli-gious comments, every evangelist had to take heed ‘‘whether his remarksand prayers really have a spiritual and not a demonstrative character, whether they truly have those present in mind, and not, perhaps, out-siders, whether they have as their goal a presentation of the genuineGospel . . . and not a critique of all kinds of incidents and circumstances.’’Pastors had to avoid loading a sermon ‘‘with political and church politi-cal remarks that certainly inspire the pastor but hardly the listeners.’’ ≤∑

In a remark unmistakably directed at von Jan, Wurm noted that ‘‘if,from the perspective of the state or the church, a pastor gives justiablecause for complaint, then the criminal prosecution authorities and thechurch supervisory boards are required to call the responsible person toaccount. The indignation expressed by the Christian community againstlynch justice and acts of terror, as described above, is completely jus-tied.’’ ≤∏ Wurm concluded that he had ‘‘noted what the EvangelicalChurch has to say about recent events in a letter to an appropriate au-thority of the Reich.’’

Wurm’s nal sentence referred to his letter to Reich Justice Minister

Franz Gürtner. ≤π It was not worded as a protest against the Novemberpogrom but offered ‘‘some thoughts on the present situation in Ger-many, based upon the distress of a Christian and German conscience . . .directed to an appointed custodian of law and the concept of law in ourFatherland’’: ≤∫

For the Evangelical Church and its clergy, a particularly difcult situa-

tion is created by these facts [ that is, the recent acts of terror ]. On the basisof many years’ experience, I may say that there is hardly any class thathas kept itself so free of the specically Jewish character, and that has




149

furnished so much evidence of its readiness to serve Volk and Father-land, as the Protestant pastorate. As much as anyone else who loves theFatherland, it is deeply grateful that Germany has a completely dif-

ferent status today than twenty years ago. It knows that this would nothave been possible without the Führer and National Socialism. But itcannot forget the words of Jesus: For what will a man be proted, if hegains the whole world, and forfeits his soul? . . . Sooner or later, trans-gressions against the commands of God must have their revenge. Be-cause we wish to spare our people from having to endure later the samehumiliations and sufferings to which others now are exposed, we lift up

our hands before our people to intercede, admonish, warn, even when we know that, because of this, we are called slaves of the Jews and arethreatened by measures similar to those that have been used againstthe Jews.≤Ω

The letter included the words that Wurm later ‘‘bitterly regretted’’: ‘‘Inno way do I dispute the right of the state to resist Judaism as a dangerous

element. Since my youth, I have held the judgment of men such as Hein-rich von Treitschke and Adolf Stoecker on the corruptive effect of Jewry in the religious, moral, literary, economic, and political spheres to becorrect, and, as director of the city mission in Stuttgart thirty years ago, Iled a public and not unsuccessful struggle against the Jewish intrusioninto the welfare system.’’ ≥≠

Any attempt to judge Wurm’s letter raises difcult questions. Is itpossible that Wurm meant these anti-Semitic statements only as a strate-gic benevolent gesture, to preserve the Christians and their church fromthe ames of terror? Or was he a sincere anti-Semite, for whom the out-rages against the Jews went too far but who still, in his heart, felt acertain afnity for the state’s policy toward the Jews?

The record supports the latter interpretation. Had Wurm’s heart been with the Jews, he would have supported Julius von Jan with all the au-thority of his bishop’s ofce and with the courageous determination thathe demonstrated several years later in his public protests against theeuthanasia measures and in his 1943 public condemnation of Germany’s‘‘ruthless war.’’ Instead, Wurm ofcially abandoned von Jan, assuring Justice Minister Gürtner that he had urged ‘‘the Protestant pastors of our

regional church . . . to avoid everything that, in such a volatile atmo-sphere, can be regarded as inammatory.’’ ≥∞

Remarks by another prominent churchman revealed anti-Jewish reser-




150

vations and Lutheran loyalty toward authority. After a journey throughthe United States at the time of the November pogrom, Dr. Hanns Lilje,general secretary of the Lutheran World Federation (and a member of

the Confessing Church), wrote his political impressions.≥≤

‘‘In Novemberand December,’’ he wrote, ‘‘the recent German events, above all the Jew-ish question, occupied the minds of the people completely.’’ Lilje at-tributed the protests in the United States to ‘‘the manipulation’’ of pub-lic opinion, ‘‘which obviously rested in the hands of Jewish groups.’’ Asked why the German churches had not protested against the Nazi

regime, Lilje replied ‘‘with the counter-question: Against what shouldthe church protest, perhaps against the halt in unemployment? On sucha matter, of course, the church would have grounds only for gratitudeand unanimous approval.’’ ≥≥

As Lilje’s remarks indicate, there was a wide spectrum of opinion within the Confessing Church. At a time when Martin Niemöller hadalready served one and a half years of his sentence as the personal pris-oner of the Führer, Lilje was kowtowing to the National Socialist regime. The Confessing Church was still torn by the controversies over the Sep-tember 1938 prayer liturgy and the loyalty oath. ≥∂

As a result, the Confessing Church failed to criticize publicly Lilje’sdeclarations of loyalty, and its ofcial organ, Junge Kirche, publishednot a word about the Kristallnacht. ≥∑ The German Christian newspaper

Deutsche Gemeinschaftsblatt , in contrast, didn’t hesitate to justify the actsof terror as consistent with the policies of the Führer. ≥∏

One month after the November pogrom, the Confessing Church gath-ered in Berlin-Steglitz for an Advent church conference. The conference was anything but peaceful. After exhausting meetings, the delegatesagreed on a statement about the events of November. ≥π They declared thechurch to be ‘‘stricken most grievously’’ by these events; the resolutionthat was passed, however, focused not on the persecuted Jews but onthose Christians suffering on their behalf: ‘‘Others, even in the face of theoffenses against the Jews, have preached the Ten Commandments of God with seriousness, and have been persecuted for this. . . . We must there-fore, in the name of Christ, maintain here that the church has to preach

repentance and grace to the whole Volk.’’≥∫

Still, the Confessing Church departed slightly from its previous habitof mentioning only non-Aryan Christians. Although an introductory




151

statement noted that ‘‘many among you are deeply dismayed by the fateof our fellow believers in the Christian faith among the Jews,’’ the state-ment cited biblical verses that witnessed to the universality of God’s love

and the necessity of assistance for all people: ‘‘God desires that all humanbeings be helped and that they come to the knowledge of the truth’’(1 Tim. 2:4).

Confessing Christians such as Berlin pastor Wilhelm Jannasch wereunsuccessful in moving the conference toward a more outspoken state-ment. Jannasch wanted the church to issue a statement condemning the

persecution of the Jews.≥Ω

But this did not happen. Two other protests against the November pogrom came from allies of

the Confessing Church in Switzerland. Wilhelm Vischer, who had helped write the Bethel Confession, wrote a bitterly sardonic revision of the TenCommandments according to the new values proclaimed by ‘‘the en-emies of the Jews.’’∂≠ And Karl Barth lectured on the issue that he had not

held to be ‘‘central’’ in 1934 at Barmen: ‘‘How is it possible that ourChristian ears do not ring, considering the signicance of this misery and wickedness? What would we be, what are we then, without Israel? Whoever rejects and persecutes the Jew, rejects and persecutes the one who died for the sins of the Jews and only thereby for our sins. Whoeveron principle is an enemy of the Jews declares himself on principle, even if he would otherwise be an angel of light, an enemy of Jesus Christ. Anti-Semitism is a sin against the Holy Spirit. For anti-Semitism means arejection of the grace of God.’’∂∞

From the silence ‘‘of even the best in the Confessing Church,’’ Barthinferred that the Confessing Church did not understand how late it was,even after the Kristallnacht:

Has the persecution in November of the Jews (and Jewish Christians) been understood by the Confessing Church as the sign that it obviously has been? . . . These events had led to such a pass that the baptism of Jews is forbidden by the church today. Practically, individual Christianshave done more for the persecuted Jews in congregations throughoutGermany (as well as a special, efcient organization created for thispurpose) ∂≤ than may be known in public and abroad. Of course, many of

the best in the Confessing Church still refuse to acknowledge that the Jewish question, and the political question as such, has become a ques-tion of faith today. ∂≥




152

The hour was indeed late. But had it not been later, even four yearsearlier, than Barth had wanted to believe?

emigration There were three waves of Jewish emigration from Germany, each indirect response to a new level of state persecution. Some Jews recognizedthe signs of the times early and saw emigration as the only response. In1931, the optician Richard Polnauer became the rst Jewish citizen of Stuttgart to leave the Swabian metropolis; the reading of Mein Kampf had warned him in time. ∂∂

The size of each stage of emigration can only be estimated. Hans Lammestimated the rst wave in 1933 as involving ‘‘tens of thousands of Ger-man Jews’’ who were responding to the Jewish voices warning of theimpending horrors. ∂∑ Soon after the events of April 1933, Rabbi Leo Baeck said, ‘‘The thousand-year history of German Judaism is at an end.’’ ∂∏ On16 October, the Stuttgart Jewish ‘‘Community Newspaper’’ published a

proclamation from the newly founded Reich Agency of the Jews in Ger-many, recommending emigration as a nal recourse. ∂π

The major wave of emigration, however, began in the fall of 1938. TheLaw on Passport and Identication Affairs was enacted on 5 October1938. Its provisions invalidated the passports of all Jews in the Reich andrequired Jews to indicate their racial afliation when applying for an

identication card on or before 31 December 1938.∂∫

Many understoodthis as an urgent signal to leave; the most serious alarm, of course, wasthe Kristallnacht. ∂Ω Studies suggest that more than one hundred thou-sand German Jews emigrated between the beginning of 1938 and thespring of 1939. ∑≠

The decision to emigrate did not guarantee a secure future. Even emi-grants who were successful in leaving Germany were dependent on theassistance of their host countries. There were many heartrending trage-dies. Bishop George Bell’s biography reveals his lonely efforts on behalf of the German-Jewish refugees in his own country, where the assistance of-fered to the rst inux of refugees was woefully inadequate. ∑∞ Through-out the world, only the Quakers and Jewish organizations proved to behelpful. Bell lamented his church’s utter disinterest in the refugee prob-

lem—a lack of interest that, as in Germany, was all the more conspicuous when contrasted with the commitment shown by some individual Chris-tians. He was dismayed by ‘‘the apparent apathy with which the fate of




153

the Jews and the non-Aryan Christians is being regarded by the people of the British Empire. . . . The non-Aryans can no longer be called ‘refugees,’for they have as yet no countries of refuge.’’ ∑≤

Shanghai was the only spot on the globe where the refugees did notconfront bureaucratic difculties and could feel secure if they had thenancial means. Only when the support of the mostly destitute Germanrefugees became problematic did the Japanese enact more stringent emi-gration requirements. And, after Hitler dismissed Reichsbank presidentSchacht in January 1939, the project to plan and nance long-term Jew-ish emigration, which Schacht had set up together with an internationalrelief commission, was abandoned. ∑≥

It is correct that emigration was ‘‘allowed’’ even after the war began;‘‘as many as thirteen thousand Jews from the Old Reich and others fromthe annexed territories’’ succeeded in eeing Germany after September1939.∑∂ But it is questionable whether the term emigration describes asituation in which the essential concern was escape and the very preservation of life. Throughout the period, the most important thing for ‘‘emi-grants’’ was to leave Germany, even when this required paying a largeransom. ∑∑ Even before the war, it was tremendously difcult to obtainan entry permit from foreign countries. The July 1938 refugee confer-ence in Evian-les-Bains made the international lack of interest in Jewishrefugees clear.

An entry in Jochen Klepper’s diary illustrated the desperate situationin which so many people determined to emigrate found themselves:‘‘The Meschkes have received a negative reply from Sweden. In every caseof people close to us, we now see the same: emigration is thwarted. Ilse[Meschke] writes desperately.’’ ∑∏ The failure of their efforts to emigratedrove many desperate people to suicide. ∑π

With the onset of the third phase of emigration, the time had come fornon-Aryan Protestant pastors to leave Germany as well. In 1936, it wasstill possible for pastors who had been ostracized by their congregationsand forsaken by their superiors to nd refuge in some remote spots. ∑∫ ButBonhoeffer’s friend Franz Hildebrandt, who had been assigned to helpMartin Niemöller in Berlin–Dahlem, had ‘‘to retreat head over heels’’

after Niemöller’s arrest on 1 July 1937. ∑Ω Because of its contacts withBonhoeffer and Julius Rieger, the German congregation in London took Hildebrandt in. As a result, the Church Foreign Ofce in Berlin repri-




154

manded the London parish and imposed nancial restraints on it—aspecial sign of the ‘‘interest’’ that Heckel’s ofce showed in the well- being of German pastors who were persecuted because of their ‘‘racial’’

origin.∏≠

On 16 June 1939, the Provisional Church Administration issued an‘‘order concerning the emigration of non-Aryan pastors or pastors re-lated to non-Aryans, auxiliary preachers, and theologians in training.’’ The order ‘‘emphatically’’ encouraged them to emigrate:

Brethren with one or two grandparents who are non-Aryan, or who are

related to non-Aryans, must continue to practice their church service inGermany. . . . Should difculties arise in their exercise of ofce, then it isthe business of the responsible denominational church government tointercede. . . . Should this assistance fail, the brethren are requested toturn to us. Each individual case will be examined carefully by us. . . .Should emigration appear necessary, we will issue the church’s permis-sion for departure. It is recommended that churches abroad accept intotheir ministry only those brethren who submit a certication that wedeem their emigration necessary. ∏∞

In England, Bishop Bell of Chichester succeeded in helping approx-imately thirty non-Aryan pastors nd professional employment there. ∏≤

Various sources give different numbers of those affected. ∏≥ The majority found church positions through the mediation of ecumenical leadersHenry-Louis Henriod, Willem Visser’t Hooft, and Bishop Bell.

∞∑

Relief Work

the grüber office

Despite Marga Meusel’s efforts, the First Provisional Church Adminis-tration of the Confessing Church had not taken a position supportingthose affected by the Aryan paragraph, along the lines of the originalEmergency League pledge. With the February 1936 dissolution of therst Provisional Church Administration and the establishment of thesecond Provisional Church Administration, the chances for such a stand

improved.Superintendent Martin Albertz, who replaced Bishop Marahrens as

chair of the Provisional Church Administration, soon founded the De-



Relief Work

155

partment for Christians of Jewish Descent. ∞ Albertz’s secretary, Char-lotte Friedenthal, was affected by the Aryan paragraph herself and be-came an enthusiastic coworker. In his efforts to establish and expand

foreign contacts, and to link them to proposed aid projects, Albertz re-ceived practical and personal support from Pastor Hermann Maas, whohad been active in relief work for non-Aryans for years. ≤ Maas was prob-ably responsible for Albertz’s rst contacts with George Bell and withProf. Adolf Keller in Geneva.≥

In the summer of 1938, Maas gave a lecture, ‘‘The Confessing Churchand the Jewish Question,’’ to leading gures of the Confessing Church inBerlin, arguing that the Jewish question was of central importance to theConfessing Church. ∂ In his summary, however, Maas succumbed to anti- Jewish jargon: ‘‘The church does not need to assure the state of the obvious, such as its agreement with the struggle against corruption; that is beneath its dignity [ sic ]. But it will ght all the more clearly, surely, andradically against all the cruelties, injustices, lies, and hardships thatarise from false motivation in the Jewish question. And it will do penancefor its omissions, its silence so far, and its false ‘Yes.’ ’’ ∑

In the discussion that followed, Maas proposed the establishment of acentral relief ofce. He was willing to direct the ofce if it were set up inHeidelberg, but the consensus was that a central ofce needed to be in amore central place. Berlin, where so many non-Aryan Christians had

gone anyway, was the obvious location. Pastor Heinrich Grüber was will-ing to assume the task. ∏

Grüber was uniquely qualied. The son of a Dutch mother, he hadstudied at the university in Utrecht, was uent in Dutch, and had goodcontacts with the Dutch community and embassy in Berlin. Even before1938, he was familiar with the specialized aspects of emigration to Hol-land. π Now he was to establish the relief measures that Albertz and Maashad demanded for years.

The ‘‘Grüber ofce’’ was not set up ‘‘thanks to Grüber’s initiative’’ but was explicitly commissioned by the second Provisional Church Admin-istration. ∫ It was initially tolerated by the Gestapo and other Reich au-thorities as an agency for the care of emigrants. Ω State authorities wereanxious not to furnish additional material for anti-German propaganda

overseas by stopping emigration on principle, particularly after the Kris-tallnacht. Only after the war began were such considerations no longernecessary.




156

The responsibilities of the Grüber ofce included advising people onemigration (this included an evaluation about the urgency of emigrationin each particular case, since the international community, even at this

stage, showed no readiness to rescue the countless innocents threatened with death) and helping place household employees abroad. In addition,it offered social assistance (particularly to the elderly, invalids, and dis-abled war veterans; this probably included the provision of clothing andmedicines); legal advice (the details about many anti-Jewish laws werenot made public, and Jews were barred from subscribing to or purchas-ing newspapers); educational support for Protestant children who couldnot attend public schools because of their racial heritage; and generalministry.

One of the rst coworkers in the Grüber ofce was Pastor Adolf Kurtzfrom the Apostles’ Church in Berlin; Kurtz ministered to the needs of non-Aryans in the greater Berlin area. ∞≠ Pastor Fritz von Bodelschwinghin Bethel looked after the welfare work, assisted by Pastor Paul Braune of Lobetal.∞∞ The costs of the Grüber ofce were calculated initially at eighthundred Reich marks per month; the Berlin City Synod and the General Association of Evangelical Congregations in Berlin were requested tocontribute three hundred Reich marks each. ∞≤

The organization of such a relief agency was long overdue, and theGrüber ofce’s responsibilities expanded rapidly. By May 1939, it had

more than twenty-one subsidiary ofces among nearly all the regionalchurches. ∞≥ Thuringia, the rst regional church proudly to announceitself completely Judenfrei, was not among them. Nor was the churchof Hannover—a fact that does not exactly lend credibility to Klügel’sapologetic claim that Bishop Marahrens ‘‘ always advocated that pastors beobliged to care for ‘non-Aryan’ members of the congregation just exactly asthey would for all others.’’∞∂

Cooperating with the Grüber ofce’s well-developed network of re-gional centers, Pastor Adolf Freudenberg (acting as the Grüber ofce’srepresentative abroad) tried to improve the chances for emigration—rstfrom his London ofce and later in Geneva. ∞∑ An advisory board, whichincluded Superintendent Albertz, Pastor Paul Braune, a representativefrom the Interior Ministry, and lawyer Dr. Heinz Arnold, offered spir-

itual, legal, and organizational support. ∞∏

The Berlin ofce and its regional subsidiaries maintained regular con-tacts with each other. Often on short notice, the Grüber ofce called



Relief Work

157

meetings of its representatives in the regional churches to make de-cisions and respond to new or impending laws. At one such meeting,guidelines were drawn up for a cooperative effort between Roman Cath-

olic and Protestant church relief agencies and the Reich Association of Jews in Germany. ∞π

The Grüber ofce’s cooperation with the Roman Catholic relief organi-zation (the Raphael Association, chaired by Bishop Berning) and the Re-ich Association of the Jews in Germany (led by Leo Baeck and MinisterialCouncillor Hirsch) got off to a good start. The Protestant and RomanCatholic relief organizations had already contacted the Reich Associa-tion of Jews in Germany in March 1939, although the Jewish association was not legally constituted until 4 July 1939 (according to the tenthstatute of the Reich Citizens’ Law). ∞∫ The state planned to transform ‘‘theReich Association of Jewish Relief Organizations of the Old Reich into anofcial Jewish bureaucracy, under the control of the commander of theSecurity Police and of the sd [Security Service],’’∞Ω thereby separatingChristian non-Aryans from church aid agencies, since the new organiza-tion would include all Jews, whatever their confession.

But the state’s calculations had not taken human emotions into ac-count, and its decree was not enforced everywhere or with the sameradicalness the state had intended. ‘‘The most ruthless were the ss ofcesin Nuremberg, Breslau, and Kassel, while the departments in Hamburg

and Bremen occasionally managed to enforce the measures ordered in amore humane manner.’’ ≤≠ Government councillor Ernst vom Rath, fa-ther of the murdered Paris embassy secretary, had been entrusted withthe leadership of the Jewish ofce at Berlin police headquarters. Withthis appointment, the Nazis hoped to have a true anti-Semite at thecontrols in Berlin. Vom Rath, however, was a committed Christian andknew Grüber from earlier years; he had no illusions whatsoever abouthis son’s murder and the National Socialists’ expedient manipulation of it. His skillful strategy to help the Grüber ofce could not remain hiddenfrom party functionaries for long. A younger government councillor,Hennig, whose enthusiasm for the National Socialists had led him to jointhe ss while he was still a student, was named assistant to vom Rath. Yeteven Hennig secretly thwarted the expectations of his superiors by judi-

ciously helping the Grüber ofce where possible. ≤∞

The Reich Association and the two central Christian relief organi-zations agreed that church relief agencies should continue to care for




158

Christian non-Aryans. This was the basis for Martin Albertz’s request in July 1939 that regional church governments and Councils of Brethren‘‘see to it, in conjunction with the Grüber ofce, that homes for the aged

and rehabilitation centers are created’’ and that ‘‘in the schools takenover and maintained by the Reich Association . . . Christian childrenreceive instruction in the Christian religion.’’ He also urged them tocreate Christian schools in the major cities that could also accommodatechildren from rural areas. All relevant questions were to be addressed tothe Grüber ofce or its regional ofces. ≤≤

The regional churches and their aid ofces maintained constant con-tact with the Grüber ofce. Beyond this, much depended on their owncreativity and initiative. In September 1938, at Grüber’s suggestion, theBavarian Regional Church Council set up a subsidiary ofce in Nurem- berg to help non-Aryans in Bavaria. ≤≥ Bavarian bishop Meiser, who nan-cially subsidized the relief ofces in Nuremberg and Munich, spoke early in 1939 with Laura Livingstone (Bishop Bell’s sister-in-law) and in mid-1940 with Grüber. ≤∂ The director of the Munich ofce, Pastor JohannesZwanzger, reported on his work in August 1945: ‘‘The circle of thosecared for grew into the hundreds over the years. Until the outbreak of theSecond World War, the emigration question naturally stood in the fore-ground. Of those under my care, forty-eight could emigrate before theoutbreak of the war; afterward, only seventeen were able to, the last in

September 1940. A small number, seen as a whole, but behind it standsan enormous amount of effort, paperwork, setbacks, and disappoint-ments. But it is sixty-ve rescued human lives.’’ ≤∑

Few documents about individual cases remain, and it is almost impos-sible to trace all the individual cases in which the Grüber ofce tried tohelp people. Despite the Gestapo’s limited tolerance for the ofce’s ac-tivities, Grüber attempted (even if he could not achieve) the impossible. After 1940, his ofce’s room to maneuver steadily decreased. The fate of Renate Klepper, the younger of Jochen Klepper’s two stepdaughters, is anexample. ≤∏ In 1940, Klepper noted the ‘‘distressing rumors about theevacuation of Jews. Grüber and Gollwitzer both very loyally look afterRenerle, but without any hope.’’ ≤π Two days later: ‘‘Hanni and Renerle with Pastor Grüber . . . who has offered his services so willingly, if without

hope.’’≤∫ Grüber tried to help Renate Klepper emigrate to Switzerland, but Klepper learned from a secretary of the Swiss Council of Brethrenthat ‘‘considering the general arrangements, there is nothing to be done



Relief Work

159

for Renerle, ‘since the case is not interesting enough’ to justify breakingthe rules . . . the petition has been as good as rejected by lower-levelofcials. After Easter, Pastor Grüber will travel to Switzerland and wants

to learn whether the action can be moved along ‘from above.’ ’’≤Ω

AfterGrüber’s efforts failed, Birger Forell and Klepper’s friend Kurt Meschke brought a last glimmer of hope to the Klepper house. ≥≠ In the end, how-ever, all attempts to help Renate Klepper emigrate failed; on 11 Decem- ber 1942, after she and her mother received their deportation orders tothe east, all three Kleppers committed suicide.

Until early 1940, Grüber’s work was virtually unhindered, albeit never without risk. Along with the ofce’s legal work, it had begun illegalactivities, the most dangerous of which was the forging of passports. After the rst mass deportations of Jews from Stettin and the rest of Pomerania to Poland in February 1940, Grüber attempted to intervene with higher government and party ofcials. This brought a blunt repri-mand from the Gestapo and led to closer police observation of the Grüberofce. Still, the ofce was able to send large shipments of medicines tothe Polish collection centers for Jews being deported. ≥∞

On 19 December 1940, Grüber was arrested and taken to the Sachsen-hausen concentration camp and later to Dachau. A colleague, WernerSylten, continued to run the ofce. ≥≤ Although Sylten had been in-structed by the state to dissolve the Grüber ofce, he informed the Evan-

gelical Central Council in Berlin that the Gestapo had ‘‘no objections tothe ofce’s being continued by the church, with the exception of techni-cal counseling in emigration matters, which the Reich Association of the Jews is to assume.’’≥≥

On 27 February 1941, Sylten was arrested and taken to Dachau. TheReichssicherheitshauptamt (Central Security Department) and the Ges-tapo headquarters in Berlin did not respond to the church’s inquiry about the reasons for Grüber’s arrest and its duration. The church’s investigations into Sylten’s arrest were thwarted as well, and negotiationsfor the organization of a new relief agency for Protestant non-Aryans were unsuccessful. ≥∂ On 26 September 1942, Sylten was killed in Da-chau. ≥∑ Only a few of the fty-ve workers in the Grüber ofce survivedthe end of the war. The numerous non-Aryans among them probably died

in the gas chambers; the others were killed in concentration camps fortheir illegal aid activities. Grüber himself was released after two and ahalf years in a concentration camp. ≥∏




160

After the Grüber ofce in Berlin was closed, persecuted non-AryanProtestants depended even more on private, nonorganized help. Individ-ual branches of the Grüber ofce, such as those in Heidelberg, Kassel,

and Breslau, were able to continue their work under the more difcultconditions. ≥π But, with the dissolution of the Berlin ofce, all relief work for the Jews had to be conducted secretly, at risk to the lives of allinvolved.

The church’s relief ofces had initially enjoyed the veneer of legality, if only because their help with Jewish emigration served the state’s owninterests. But despite its ecumenical contacts, the church encounteredconsiderable foreign reserve toward Jewish emigrants; the conference inEvian-les-Bains was eloquent testimony. The state’s expectations weredisappointed by the church’s meager success, and the solution of theemigration question was transferred to the bestial technicians of the Fi-nal Solution. The very nature of a totalitarian regime dictated that thelaw of tyranny would rule out voluntary emigration and replace it withforced deportation, which began in 1941. Emigration ‘‘only’’ signiedthe loss of homeland, separation from family, isolation from familiarintellectual and linguistic territory; deportation meant the infernalhounding of people into mass death. ≥∫

Only now did some Christians begin to wake up. In the early years of the Nazi regime, the Confessing Church had been unable to bring itself

to make a unanimous statement on behalf of the Jews. Now the chancefor public statements had passed. During the last four years of the reignof terror, the inaction of the church was replaced by direct, spontaneousdeeds—liberated, in a sense, from theological reection. The cellars andattics, closets and cabinets of pastors and lay Christians offered count-less places of asylum for the persecuted.

At considerable risk, some individuals secretly tried to help the vic-tims of Nazism. Dr. Franz Kaufmann, a lawyer dismissed in 1935 from hisgovernment job because of his racial origin, was protected from deporta-tion by a ‘‘privileged marriage’’ with a non-Jew; he was able to form oneof the most successful rescue groups. Until 1943, the ‘‘Kaufmann circle’’ was an extensive secret operation that hid Jews, helped them go under-ground, and aided their escape. Kaufmann himself was killed after the

group’s discovery by the Gestapo. ≥Ω

Not enough attention has been devoted to the fearless and imagina-tive activity of many women, particularly the women pastors in the Con-



Relief Work

161

fessing Church. Gertrud Staewen, Melanie Steinmetz, Helene Jacobs,Dr. Hilde Schaeder, Elsie Steck, Maria Gerhard, Charlotte Friedenthal,Marga Meusel, Klara Hunsche, and Käthe Staritz are bound inseparably

with the history of the rescue operations for the Jews.∂≠

In Württemberg, the Württemberg Society and the Confessing com-munity offered extraordinary help for those gone underground. ∂∞ Therectories of Hermann Diem, Theodor Dipper, Otto Mörike, Kurt Müller,and others became familiar stops for Jews with altered names and forgedpassports. Two of those rescued were Max Krakauer and his wife, who

were steered through sixty-one houses until the Americans arrived in1945.∂≤ The network among the parsonages developed to such an extentthat prompt warnings of imminent searches were possible.

It was not always easy to convince those seeking help of the extent to which they were at risk and to teach them the habits necessary for anunderground existence. Many were simply happy to have a temporary roof over their heads. In addition to a place to stay, they needed foodration cards and false passports. Not infrequently, pastors could per-suade their parishioners to surrender their ration cards. As one accountdescribed, ‘‘Naturally, members of the congregation helped, too. The whole congregation knew what was at stake and my husband once saidthat the gifts of frankincense, myrrh, and gold for Jesus were now foodration cards for Jews gone underground. The whole congregation rose upas one in protest when a Jewish woman doctor, who took care of theevacuation right up to the end, was supposedly barred from the worshipservice by a janitor.’’ ∂≥

Such unanimous displays of solidarity occurred only occasionally incongregations. Still, it must be assumed that there were many individualinstances of assistance; even today, they are often discovered through

coincidence. An item in an English newspaper, for example, led HugoLinck to the story of ve East Prussian farm women who were con-demned to lengthy imprisonment because they had taken in eight Jew-ish neighbor children whose parents had been deported. ∂∂ Leo Baeck later spoke of the anonymous instances of secret aid:

To help the Jews was, at times, the only way in which a German was ableto express his opposition to the Nazis. During the nal years, a countess visited me every Friday in my apartment, in order to bring me vegeta- bles, which were not available with Jewish food ration cards. Occasion-



Relief Work

163

settlers overseas.’’ ∑∞ From the beginning, the project suffered from dila-tory treatment. It foundered after the state required these schools to benonconfessional (a demand not enthusiastically supported by the Ger-

man Evangelical Church). In February 1936, the Moravian Church with-drew its offer of a home for the school. ∑≤

The gures in tables 1–5 offer some background for measuring thechurch’s response to the intersection of the educational Jewish questionand the Final Solution. The terminology used here (‘‘Mosaic,’’ ‘‘Israelite,’’and ‘‘Jewish’’) reects the different language that was used, even at state

levels, to describe Jewish religious or racial afliation. These 167 schools had a total of 23,670 students, of which 17,834

attended elementary schools and 5,836 attended higher schools. Thefollowing summary clearly shows the migration of Jewish studentsfrom non-Jewish schools to (for the most part) newly organized Jewishschools:∑≥

Jewish schools were attendedin 1933: by 9,524 studentsin 1937: by 18,462 students

Jewish middle schools were attendedin 1933: by 1,830 studentsin 1937: by 6,319 students.

It is no coincidence that 1937–38 was the focus of these statistics; afterthis date, the decrees designed to make the schools Judenfrei multiplied. The decree of the Reich education minister of 2 July 1937 provided for theestablishment of special schools or classes for Jewish children, with theapproval of school authorities. ∑∂ Jewish teachers (or ‘‘half-breeds,’’ wherenecessary) were to offer instruction in these schools. The ProvisionalChurch Administration informed church governments and the regionalCouncils of Brethren ‘‘that this decree already has provoked great con-sternation among Protestant parents of Jewish race.’’ ∑∑ The decree hadintroduced a new situation: ‘‘While there had been no obligation to at-tend the previously private Jewish schools, now all Jewish students would be required to attend these obviously Jewish schools.’’ ∑∏

In response, the Provisional Church Administration told the Reicheducation minister, ‘‘There are serious misgivings from a confessionalpoint of view if children, baptized as Christians and educated in the Evan-



164

Table 1: Public Elementary Schools in the Reich, 1931–32

29,023 Protestant15,259 Roman Catholic

97 Mosaic8,287 Schools with mixed student populations

295 Collective schools

52,961 Total

Source: From Staatliches Jahrbuch (Statistical yearbook), 1934. Copy from Klara Hunsche.

See also eza 611, Nachlaß Hunsche.

Table 2: Confessional Distribution of Children Attending Public Schools

4,560,362 Protestant2,702,105 Roman Catholic

28,640 Mosaic10,785 Other Christian denomination6,142 Other non-Christian denomination

168,616 No religious afliation

7,476,650a Totala In the Staatliches Jahrbuch, the total given is 7,590,073. This difference of 113,323possibly refers to children who attended private elementary schools.

Table 3: Distribution of Elementary Schools, 1938

Reich PrussiaNondenominational 17,150 1,541Protestant 24,261 22,443Roman Catholic 9,639 8,387Israelite 68 41

Total 51,118 32,412

Source: Data as of 25 May 1938, according to Deutsche Wissenschaft, Erziehung und Volks- bildung (Ofcial paper of the Reich and Prussian Ministry for Science, Education, andPeople’s Education), dated 20 April 1939. Copy from Klara Hunsche.



165

Table 4: ‘‘Racial’’ Afliation of Elementary Schoolchildren

Reich PrussiaGerman or kindred race 7,577,178 4,600,146 Jewish 10,069 6,737 Jewish-mixed blood 10,009 4,621Other alien race 2,181 1,517

Total 7,599,437 4,613,021

Table 5: Jewish Schools in the Reich, 1937

76 Public elementary schools72 Private elementary schools14 Higher schools

4 Schools with advanced curriculum1 Middle school

167 Total

Source: Data as of 1 March 1937, according to information sheet from the Reich Associa-tion of Jews in Germany, 1937, 60. See Hans Lamm, Über die innere und äussere Entwick- lung des deutschen Judentums im Dritten Reich (Munich, 1951), 185.

gelical Church, are educated in Jewish schools, which are frequently inuenced by a Zionist spirit. It [the Provisional Church Administration]has pointed out that the Jewish spiritual or religious attitude that pre- vails in these schools is incompatible with the Christian attitude.’’ ∑π TheProvisional Church Administration asked the church governments andregional Councils of Brethren ‘‘to attend especially to the needs of theseparishioners, and to summon and help congregations and pastors to biblical reection and evangelical action, in light of the present dif-culties. . . . A general overview of the number and nature of the cases inquestion would be desirable.’’ ∑∫

On 30 November 1937, the Provisional Church Administration sent a

letter to the Reich education minister explaining the decree’s directconsequences for the Evangelical Church. Signed by Martin Albertz, theletter noted the ‘‘great dismay and despair among congregations and




166

parents, because the assumption is that even children who were bap-tized as Christians and educated as Protestants are now to be instructedin Jewish schools.’’ The church’s duty was

to see to it that its baptized children are educated in a way that is inaccordance with the gift of Holy Baptism and the duties that grow fromit; it must ensure that nowhere is Christian faith suppressed, but awak-ened and stimulated. Whatever their race, parents are responsible be-fore God for the Christian education and instruction of their children.In our congregations, there are Christian families of Jewish race who

have always taken this obligation seriously and, despite all difcul-ties, feel themselves conscientiously bound to continue to take it seri-ously. . . . An education in Jewish schools, as suggested by the decree, would provoke intolerable discord in these Christian families; since theguiding spirit in these schools must necessarily have its roots in the Jewish or Jewish-Zionist religious attitude. Both, however, are incom-patible with the Christian faith.

The letter concluded with an appeal for clarity on ‘‘whether the regula-tions regarding the withdrawal of Jewish children from school and theirentrance into Jewish schools or collective classes shall also be applied to Jewish children of Protestant faith.’’ ∑Ω

A copy of the letter was sent to the Council of the Evangelical-LutheranChurch of Germany, asking whether the council would support the Pro- visional Church Administration ‘‘and has complained or intends to com-plain to the state.’’ ∏≠

After his letter remained unanswered, Albertz addressed the Reicheducation minister again, declaring that his inquiry from November hadacquired ‘‘heightened urgency’’: ‘‘In the meantime, a new version of the‘curriculum guidelines’ . . . has been made public. . . . ∏∞ These guidelinesclearly show that the instruction in all subjects offered in these schools issustained by the Jewish-Zionist religious attitude, which is incompatible with the Christian faith.’’ ∏≤

There is no record of a response from the Reich education minister. The Council of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Germany, however,did respond: ‘‘Precise inquiries have established that, up to the present

time, there have been no occurrences anywhere along the lines feared,and, second, that the matter concerns an extraordinarily small numberof children, many fewer than we had supposed. Under these circum-



Relief Work

167

stances, we believe that it is better to take steps only if somewhere a case becomes acute.’’ ∏≥

After November 1938, Jewish and non-Aryan Christian children were

no longer allowed to attend public schools.∏∂

Responding to the an-guished inquiries of concerned parents, representatives of the Provi-sional Church Administration, the Berlin Council of Brethren, and the Jewish community tried to clarify the legal situation with the state au-thorities. The Berlin Council of Brethren, through Klara Hunsche (whodirected its Department of Christian Education), issued a statement on

‘‘instruction of non-Aryan Protestant children’’ to Berlin Confessing pas-tors on 23 November 1938:

As a consequence of the events of recent weeks, all children who areconsidered Jews according to the Nuremberg Laws, even those who areProtestant according to their confession, are dismissed from the publicschools. . . .

Under these circumstances, the possibility of private instruction ex-ists. . . . Parents may organize themselves in school circles, and can apply to a licensed teacher to instruct the children in question. . . .

It is urgently recommended that the organization of private schoolcircles be undertaken immediately. Steps will be taken to put pressureon the appropriate agencies so that the possibility of private instructionfor Christian children is maintained in the future. . . . We request infor-

mation about which non-Aryan Protestant teachers in your congrega-tions might be suitable to give such instruction. ∏∑

By the beginning of 1939, some of these small ‘‘school circles’’ openedin Berlin. The largest church school was the so-called Oranienburg StreetFamily School, which celebrated its founding on Epiphany, January 6,‘‘under the lighted Christmas tree’’ in Pastor Kurtz’s rectory. ∏∏ PastorKurtz, who had a non-Aryan wife and worked with the Grüber ofce, hadgathered nearly one thousand Confessing Christians in his congregationat the Church of the Twelve Apostles; almost a quarter of his congrega-tion was non-Aryan.

Kurtz’s ecumenical connections led to a considerable turnover amongthe students in Oranienburg Street, since the number of students he

helped leave Germany made room for new arrivals. Almost one hundredchildren attended the school, which was divided into four classes andone advanced class in foreign languages. The children were taught in all




168

subjects, even in English, which was not offered in the public elementary schools at the time. A chaplain came for the religious instruction of thefew Roman Catholic children.

Initially, the school accommodated children of all ages; later, only six- to fourteen-year-olds were given permission to attend the Oranien- burg Street School. (At that point, older students could still attend one of the existing private Jewish schools where they could take the Abitur ,the entrance examination for university study.) Hildegard Kuttner, acoworker in the Grüber ofce from April 1940 until the spring of 1942,taught in one of these private schools for almost four years. The Oran-ienburg Street Family School was directed by Margarete Draeger, ∏π wholater went into hiding and was eventually discovered and deported to aconcentration camp. Also among the staff were Lily Wolff and FriedaFürstenheim, both later killed in the camps. Several other staff memberssurvived. ∏∫ Pastor Kurtz, who held conrmation classes and conducted worship services, could not be the ofcial school director since he wasan Aryan, but he represented the school in its negotiations with stateauthorities.

Initially, Grüber had nothing to do with this school; he became inter-ested in it only after the possibilities for emigration had disappeared with the onset of the war. The school’s contact with Grüber and his ofce was informal, so that the school continued to exist after the arrests of

Grüber and Sylten.∏Ω

It can no longer be determined exactly how many of the school’s teachers were ‘‘employees of the Grüber ofce.’’ π≠ Dr. ErwinReisner, who was employed in the Grüber ofce, oversaw the school’snancial accounts. A 1939 report by Klara Hunsche, however, did notindicate that the school was nancially dependent on the Grüber ofce. π∞

It is likely that Pastor Kurtz supported it with donations available tohim. π≤ In his own memoirs, Grüber also gave the impression that the con-nections between his ofce and the Oranienburg Street Family School were more informal than is often supposed. π≥

It is also likely that the Reich Association of Jews in Germany, which was ‘‘appointed as the responsible body for all school affairs’’ in July 1939, recognized its responsibility to help the school. π∂ The house onOranienburg Street belonged to the English mission to the Jews, and the

friendly cooperation of the Jewish rector made the school’s nal move toa building on August Street possible. Klara Hunsche noted: ‘‘We foundcapable and cooperative representatives from the Jewish school admin-



Relief Work

169

istration in the persons of Dr. Fürst, the director of the Berlin SchoolDepartment, Dr. Schäfer, and Rabbi Baeck.’’ π∑

The reports of Klara Hunsche and Hildegard Kuttner indicate that the

school was sustained primarily by the Confessing Church. As director of Christian Education for the Confessing Church and a staff member of theBerlin school board, Klara Hunsche (‘‘intelligent and energetic, with anever-ending kindness’’) π∏ was able to maintain contacts with the OldPrussian Union Church and the Provisional Church Administration.

As a result, those involved with the school never felt isolated. A Con-fessing Church theologian, Prof. Günther Dehn, often visited the school with his students from the Berlin Confessing Church seminary (theKirchliche Hochschule) for practice teaching. Confessing pastor Eitel-Friedrich von Rabenau, who directed the Ofce for Congregational De- velopment, helped keep the school going, as did other prominent Con-fessing pastors.

In February 1941, state ofcials ordered Klara Hunsche to leave theschool; she refused. During the war, Nazi authorities assigned Hunscheand Confessing Church women to special Wehrmacht duties. Such as-signments were designed to hinder the Confessing Church’s activities but often failed to do so: ‘‘I was removed neither from my ofce with theCouncil of Brethren nor from my work with this school, although my ‘employer’ was now the Wehrmacht. I continued to have the older chil-

dren in religious instruction . . . rst in my apartment and, after we werespied upon there, in a schoolgirl’s apartment that had the ‘Jewish star’afxed to it.’’ ππ

On 7 July 1942, the state ordered the general dissolution of all Jewishschools; this meant the abrupt end of the Family School. π∫ One of theteachers, Lily Wolff, courageously continued to teach the schoolchildren

on the grounds of the Jewish cemetery in Weissensee, until her owndeportation in October 1942.

charity for those who wore the yellow star

On 1 September 1941, the police ordered Jews to identify themselvespublicly through the mandatory wearing of the yellow star. πΩ The state’sdream of the complete annihilation of the Jews was approaching its cli-

max. A few days later, Katharina Staritz, a Confessing Church vicar inBreslau, wrote a statement protesting the new decree, using ofcial sta-tionery from the church’s city dean of Breslau. Born in 1903, Staritz was




170

the main Grüber ofce contact in Silesia and oversaw church aid for non- Aryan Protestants there. Her protest was accompanied by a cover lettersigned by Otto Meissner, head of the dean’s ofce:

Among the people affected by this decree are several members of ourcongregations, people . . . who have been loyal members of Protes-tant congregations for decades and who were baptized as infants, edu-cated and conrmed as Protestants, and, thus, have never had anythingto do with the Jewish religion. Many of them faithfully attend worshipservices.

Now these people . . . must appear [in church] with the Jewish badge,as must the non-Aryan children attending children’s services, since the Jewish star must be worn as of the sixth year of age. It is a congregation’sChristian duty not to exclude them from the worship service. . . . They have the same right to a home in the church as do the other membersof the congregation, and they are in particular need of God’s comfort-ing Word.

The danger exists that the congregations will be deceived by ele-ments that are not really Christian; that they will imperil Christianhonor through un-Christian behavior in the church. . . .

I ask you to consider whether church ofcials, ushers, etc., could not be instructed . . . to watch especially for these stigmatized members of the congregation, to show them to their places if necessary, etc. Per-haps, too, special places could be designated in every church, not as apoor sinner’s bench for non-Aryan Christians but rather to protect themfrom being ushered out by un-Christian elements. . . . It is necessary thatloyal parishioners . . . take their places on these pews beside and amongthe non-Aryan Christians. It can be considered whether, at least for thetime being, these stigmatized Christians could . . . be picked up by parishioners and brought to the worship service, since several already

have said to me that they did not know whether they could still dare toattend church. ∫≠

The German Christian leadership of the Silesian church, led by Jo-hannes Hosemann, was so outraged by Staritz’s letter that the ensuingcorrespondence dragged on for over half a year. ∫∞ The Evangelical Consis-tory of the Silesian church was surprisingly late in responding. ∫≤ One

month after Staritz’s letter had been published, it wrote: ‘‘This letter has been issued without any contact with us, and its content is not to be ap-proved of. We have undertaken the necessary steps in this affair, which



Relief Work

171

threatens to hamper severely the church’s position in Silesia . . . andasked the regional administrations to protect church agencies againstunjustied attacks.’’ ∫≥

The Provincial Council of Brethren of the Silesian Confessional Synoddefended Staritz, asking the consistory if ofcial ‘‘disapproval of VicarStaritz’s letter’’ was directed at ‘‘her biblically correct position . . . or is itintended to nd fault only with the form of this letter?’’ ∫∂ The councilalso criticized the consistory for distributing the letter attacking Staritzto clergy in the entire province, ‘‘without either Vicar Staritz or the assis-tant city dean being heard in the matter.’’ ∫∑

Consistorial president Dr. Hosemann did not reply directly to theCouncil of Brethren but wrote to Ernst Hornig, who had signed the coun-cil’s letter: ‘‘Before we answer the questions raised in your letter, we posea counter-question: Are you and the other clergy in whose name you have written willing from now on to place yourselves under our supervision?Only in the case of an afrmative answer to this question can we expectthe blessing of our regional church in responding to the unusual natureof your letter.’’ ∫∏ As Hosemann’s question indicates, Hornig and his Con-fessing colleagues in the Silesian church acknowledged only the author-ity of the Confessing Church leadership (the Provisional Church Admin-istration) in Berlin. The ensuing correspondence between the regionalConfessing Council of Brethren and the Silesian Consistory reected a

power struggle within the church. Hornig returned Hosemann’s letter,advising him to respond to the Provincial Council of Brethren. ∫π TheProvincial Council repeated its request that the Silesian Consistory re-spond to its protests. ∫∫ The consistory’s reply only cited its exchange of letters with Hornig and concluded: ‘‘The matter is closed for us. More-over, we assume that you have been informed of the proceedings.’’ ∫Ω

The matter was far from closed for Käte Staritz. Ω≠ The Gestapo cons-cated the remaining copies of her letter. ‘‘It was distributed to all theparty ofces, down to the local group leader, and in party meetings thetopic of conversation became the ‘broad’ who patronizes the Jews. Theconsistory suspended Käte while continuing to pay her salary, but she was expected to leave Breslau. Käte’s work (ministry to baptized Jews) liescompletely idle at the present time; until now, a replacement has not

been provided.’’ Ω∞

Expelled from Breslau, Staritz went to Marburg to be under the protec-tion of her doctoral mentor, Prof. Hans von Soden; there she ‘‘attended




172

lectures and found temporary employment preaching . . . and as a re-ligious teacher.’’ Ω≤ After the ss paper Das Schwarze Korps published anattack on her, she was arrested on 4 March 1942. Ω≥ She spent a month in

the police jail in Kassel, two months in the workhouse at Breitenau, andalmost a year in the women’s concentration camp in Ravensbrück.

As a nal indignity, the Breslau Consistory suspended her salary. Ω∂ On18 May 1943, she was released on probation but remained under sur- veillance and had to report twice weekly to the Gestapo until the fall of the Third Reich. Ω∑ After the war, she worked in the Hessian church untilher death on Good Friday, 3 April 1953. Ω∏

The reasons for her release from the concentration camp after ‘‘only’’a year can not be established. Ωπ It is likely that Wilhelm von Arnim-Lützlow’s intervention on her behalf helped; Arnim, an inuential member of the Old Prussian Union Council of Brethren, met with Hosemannon 30 October 1942 to appeal to the Berlin Consistory to obtain Staritz’srelease. Ω∫

The conversation between the two men revealed how politically deli-cate Staritz’s letter had become for the church (particularly because shehad written it under the city dean’s letterhead; in fact, Dean Meissneralso lost his job). When Arnim asked why the consistory had not been willing to protect Staritz and Meissner, Hosemann could only reply thathe was not willing to protect anyone acting in such an independent and

dangerous fashion. Arnim accused Hosemann of turning it into a politi-cal matter by allowing the Gestapo to become involved and requestingaction by regional political authorities.

Arnim emphasized that he had come from the Provincial Council of Brethren not just to help Staritz but ‘‘to call you to repentance, to callupon you to turn back and to confess your sin of omission.’’ Hosemanncountered that it was ‘‘futile to argue about the question of guilt. Thedifculty of the situation at the time made any other action impossible. Imust reject being made responsible for what has been made of the mat-ter. This has not been brought about by church authorities but rather by state authorities. . . . We would be happy if she [Staritz] would get out assoon as possible. What then is to be done with her, whether she would beemployed further, cannot be foreseen, in any case not in Silesia.’’

Hosemann promised that the consistory would contact the Reich Cen-tral Security Ofce about Staritz’s case but concluded, ‘‘It is utterly in-comprehensible to me with what right you come from Berlin and enter



Relief Work

173

into such negotiations with me. I nd it astonishing that a representa-tive from Berlin visits me in order to deliver a sermon on repentance.’’ Arnim responded: ‘‘I must bear the responsibility for that. In all modesty,

I must say that words do not sufce for me to say it with the necessary emphasis.’’

The case of Katharina Staritz was not an entirely isolated example. ΩΩ InBremen, one congregation’s lay leaders and its pastor, Dr. Greiffen-hagen, permitted three people wearing the star to participate in a wor-ship service in honor of the Reformation. In addition, they provided a

poor non-Aryan worker’s family with the means for its planned evacua-tion. After the Gestapo temporarily detained the parish assistant andeight parishioners, the congregation protested vehemently to the Reichminister for church affairs and to the Evangelical Church Chancellery. ∞≠≠

In Berlin, the Gossner Mission issued a statement supporting ‘‘Christian‘wearers of the star,’ ’’ calling on

the ofcial church [to] share the Confessing pastors’ attitude toward the wearers of the star. Responding on how the civil authorities imaginedthe Christian church should act toward the Christian wearers of thestar, Minister Kerrl’s deputy answered, ‘‘Whoever still belongs to thechurch probably knows what he is doing, and the civil authorities know that there are neither Jews nor Greeks in the Christian church, but only Christian brothers and sisters. Therefore, the authorities expect Chris-tian congregations today to make no distinction between those wear-ing the star and those without it, insofar as those wearing the star areChristians. The authorities consider it proper for Christians wearingthe star to attend worship services and Christian events.’’ ∞≠∞

Martin Albertz later recalled how impressive it was when Pastor Kurtz,‘‘on Maundy Thursday and Good Friday, 1942, dared to admit forty peo-ple marked with the Jewish star to the Holy Eucharist in his church,against the stated will of the Third Reich.’’ ∞≠≤ Dr. Ernst H. Steiner, a non- Aryan Christian who was later deported to Theresienstadt, gave a similarreport of a service held in the Protestant church in Berlin-Wilmersdorf. The presence ‘‘of quite a number of people decorated with this star’’caused a ‘‘not unjustied sensation’’ in the service, ‘‘but a large number

of faithful Christians who were present came up to us after the conclu-sion of the Holy Supper and offered us their hand in a brotherly and sis-terly way, thereby demonstrating their sympathy with us in our fate.’’ ∞≠≥




174

Considerable risks faced those wearing the star and those who ex-pressed solidarity with them. Gertrud Staewen, a Confessing Christian who worked with the Kaufmann circle to hide and rescue Jews, later

described her work:∞≠∂

Now what does it look like in a group that is willing to support actively those who are persecuted?

It must work illegally, with all the means available to a secret conspir-acy; the total terror of the so-called Third Reich necessitates this. No written note is allowed to exist; not even an address may be written

down; no telephone conversation about a meeting may be carried on;no conversation in a room without the telephone or radiator beingdraped. We never allowed ourselves, for example, to speak to a wearerof the Jewish star on the street. Not because something evil could hap-pen to us through spies, but more because every Jew observed speakingto Aryans was immediately lost, without mercy. For this reason, theGestapo always watched after the Confessing Church worship services,to see if wearers of the star went home immediately and unobtrusively,or if they stayed in the church and spoke with us. ∞≠∑

Not wearing the star or wearing it loosely attached was dangerous because of the possibility of denunciation and certain deportation. ∞≠∏

Still, people took this risk with varied success. Many people did risk it,including the children from the Oranienburg Street Family School who were required to wear the star; others paid with their lives. ∞≠π

The wearers of the star, of course, could expect no help from the Ger-man Christian church agencies. Records show that the attitude of theEvangelical Chancellery in Berlin was ambivalent at best. On 21 October1941, the Evangelical-Lutheran Regional Church Ofce of Saxony (inDresden) sent a brief letter to the chancellery: ‘‘After the legal introduc-tion of the Jewish star in the territory of the Reich, it has become anurgent necessity to attach the following sign to churches and churchmeeting rooms: ‘No Admittance for Jews.’ Your approval is requested.’’ ∞≠∫

Another letter followed, suggesting an even better formulation for thesign: ‘‘Admittance for Wearers of the Jewish Star Prohibited.’’ ∞≠Ω The writer suggested that this wording would prevent any mingling between

wearers of the star and the rest of the congregation, thereby avoidingany offense to pastors and parishioners as well as the danger that, if non-Aryan Christians were expelled from the church, other parishioners




178

Or is Jesus Christ’s baptismal command not in your New Testa-ment?—It is, however, in that New Testament that lies upon the altarsand pulpits of Mecklenburg’s Lutheran churches!—How do you want to

reconcile your law of 13 February 1939 with this?—Should there be nopreaching anymore in the Lutheran churches of our land on the letterto the Romans, the letters to the Corinthians, the Galatians, and Ephe-sians, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Gospels, all of which togetherstand in contradiction to your law?—Or, should the pastors of Mecklen- burg act differently than they preach?∞≠

Is the Gospel that is entrusted to the Church really the joyous mes-sage of the salvation that God in Jesus Christ wants to give to all sin-ners—or not ?— Has the Lord Christ declared His will that all human be-ings may be helped and come to the understanding of the truth— or not ?— Has He sent His disciples into all the world, to teach and to baptizeall peoples—or not ? Is this the joyous message, that God excludes no onefrom salvation in Jesus Christ and will also have no one excluded from it

through the action of human beings— or not ?. . . Perhaps you assumed, when you developed this law, that theLutheran pastors of Mecklenburg would not contradict you publicly,out of fear that this would be interpreted to their disadvantage as‘‘friendship with the Jews’’ or ‘‘sabotage of the Jewish legislation.’’ . . . We believe that we owe it to you to declare openly and publicly that wecannot accept and keep this your law, as long as you are not able to justify it before the Holy Scripture and the confession of our church.

This is what we ask of you, Bishop! . . . The holy Christian church itself asks how you wish to justify a law that assaults its innermost substance,the justication by faith alone! ∞∞

The letter evoked both solidarity and irritation (‘‘a few silent hand-shakes in private, a few bluntly indignant postcards’’). ∞≤ The only otherecho came from the high church councillor in Schwerin, who protestedthat such impertinent and insubordinate statements had been made toa bishop and sent to clergy throughout Mecklenburg. The councilloralso criticized the fact ‘‘that you take a position on the treatment of the Jewish question by the church that is unworthy of a German clergy-man.’’∞≥ With that, disciplinary procedures were initiated against the

two pastors. ∞∂

By the beginning of 1939, legislation affecting non-Aryan Christianshad been passed by the churches of Thuringia, Saxony, Mecklenburg,



The Godesberg Declaration

179

Anhalt, and Lübeck, thoroughly interfering with Church Minister Kerrl’srepeated attempts at church unication. But, although Kerrl may haveenvisioned the means toward this end somewhat differently, his task was

accomplished in early April 1939, when German Christian representa-tives, other Protestant pastors, and laypeople drafted the so-called Godes- berg Declaration. The document was initially intended as the foundationfor friendly cooperation among different church groups. The core of thedeclaration was its third point: ‘‘What is the relationship between Juda-ism and Christianity? Did Christianity develop from Judaism and thus

become its continuation and fulllment, or does Christianity stand inopposition to Judaism? To this question, we reply: The Christian faith isthe insurmountable religious antithesis of Judaism.’’ ∞∑

On 4 April 1939, immediately after the Godesberg meeting, the Ger-man Christian leaders of eleven regional churches issued a ‘‘Proclama-tion.’’ ∞∏ Explicitly based on the Godesberg Declaration, it was the rstfruit of Kerrl’s project to unify the churches. ∞π One of its principles liter-ally repeated the Godesberg document: ‘‘The Christian faith is the insur-mountable religious antithesis to Judaism.’’ The group proposed the ‘‘es-tablishment of an institute for the investigation and elimination of the Jewish inuence upon the ecclesiastical life of the German people.’’ ∞∫

One week later, the Confessing Church—through the Conference of Regional Councils of Brethren in the German Evangelical Church—re-sponded to the Godesberg Declaration and the proclamation of the Ger-man Christian leaders. ∞Ω The response was worse than ‘‘unfortunate’’: ≤≠

It has pleased God to make Israel the bearer and instrument of divinerevelation. This is not invalidated by the fact that the Jews themselveshave become untrue to their divine purpose. As the true Israel, theChurch is heir to the promise that was given to the people of Israel. . . . The Christian faith stands in insurmountable religious opposition to Judaism. This Judaism, however, exists not just among the Jews, but inall aspirations for a national church as well. It is nothing more thanthe attempt by natural man to fortify his religious and moral self- justications by combining them with a völkisch sense of mission and,in so doing, to reject Jesus as the Christ of God. ≤∞

Theologically, the statement made two points. First, it declared thechurch to be the heir of Israel, a process that dates back to the early period of the church and, as is recognized today, is one of the roots of




180

anti-Judaism. Second, by charging that the German Christians bore thereprehensible stigma of the Judaic legacy (‘‘in all aspirations for a na-tional church’’), it even deprived the Jews of their Judaism. In the truest

sense, the Jews had been ‘‘stripped’’ and the clothing divided up: thegood pieces to the Confessing Christians, the bad ones to the GermanChristians.

The tone of another Confessing statement (probably intended for con-gregations) that was issued the same day by the Conference of RegionalCouncils of Brethren was different:

The church governments named [that is, the eleven regional churchesled by German Christians] hinder people who have been redeemed by Christ from hearing the solace of the Word of God in a Christian con-gregation. They exclude people in need of salvation from the holy sacra-ments. They want to render ineffective what Christ has bought with his bitter suffering: For Christ created one holy body, the one Christianchurch, out of Jews and Gentiles. Once again they set up the fence thatChrist broke down, and thereby turn the Christian church into a phari-saical sect. . . .

We protest the transfer of political standards to church life. The men responsible for these laws have proved themselves enemies

of Christ’s cross. They may exclude no one from the Christian church. . . . We ask the pastors and congregations of the churches concerned not to

keep these laws, but to abandon Christian communion with all those who submit to this yoke.

We would rather suffer than make ourselves accomplices in the de-struction of the Body of Christ. ≤≤

In quiet solidarity with the persecuted, numerous individuals andgroups often assumed such suffering for the sake of Christ. An article in a

German Christian publication in Saxony attacked these ‘‘incorrigibles’’:In its letter of 1 March 1939 to the regional church council in Dessau,the Confessing Church in Anhalt documents clearly and unambigu-ously its friendship with and bondage to the Jews. . . . A chief districtpastor and sixteen active Anhalt clergymen still dare, together with sixretired Anhalt clergymen and four other Confessing Church pastors

removed from ofce pending legal action . . . to take a position in de-fense of the Jews.

2. This is the confessional front unmasked!




181

3. While intervening in this way for the Jews, they have the impu-dence to reproach all other clergyman in Anhalt with the worst things,namely, breaking the oath, breaking the vow of ordination. ≤≥

Knowledge of events in the German churches naturally reached theecumenical world during this period. After the proclamation from theeleven regional churches, the ecumenical council in Geneva saw itself obliged

to summon Christian churches in all countries to consider with allseriousness the following testimony of Christian truth:

. . . The Christian faith is the conrmation of obedience to JesusChrist, who is the Messiah of Israel. ‘‘Salvation comes from the Jews’’(John 4:22). The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the fulllment of the Jewishhope. The Christian church, therefore, is obligated to proclaim to the Jewish people the fulllment of the promises that have been given to it,and the Christian church rejoices at the preservation of community with those from the Jewish race who have accepted the Gospel. ≤∂

Despite this rather feeble statement, which reected the ecumenical body’s hesitation to offend the Church Foreign Ofce, Bishop Heckel senta cable to the central ecumenical ofce in Geneva on 6 May 1939, protest-ing this ‘‘intolerable interference in internal German affairs.’’ ≤∑

In May 1939, the Provisional Church Administration sent an unusually long analysis of the churches’ situation to all German Evangelical Churchpastors. There was only one sentence about the situation of the Jews (andnon-Aryan Christians): ‘‘The regional churches of Thuringia, Saxony,Mecklenburg, and Lübeck have subjected non-Aryan Christians to legalprovisions that destroy the unity of the Body of Christ.’’ ≤∏ On 21 May 1939,the Eighth Confessional Synod of the Evangelical Church of the Old Prus-sian Union was unable to agree on a statement on behalf of the Jews. ≤π

Those regional church leaders who were dubious about the GodesbergDeclaration, however, remained unconvinced. On 26 May, the advocatesof the Godesberg Declaration drafted a list of principles ‘‘that, in obviousaccord with the Godesberg Declaration, were intended to take the eccle-siastical aspects into consideration, but were intended above all to meet

with the approval of the political authorities.’’ ≤∫ Under the title ‘‘BasicPrinciples for a New Church Order in the German Evangelical Church Adequate to the Demands of the Present,’’ these principles were sent by




182

the Reich church minister ‘‘via the Church Chancellery to the regionalchurches for their acknowledgment.’’ ≤Ω The third principle stated: ‘‘Na-tional Socialist ideology struggles with all possible ruthlessness against

the political and spiritual inuence of the Jewish race on the life of our people. In obedience to the divine order of creation, the EvangelicalChurch afrms its responsibility to maintain the purity of our peopleand traditions. Beyond this, there is no sharper contrast in the sphere of faith than that between the message of Jesus Christ and the Jewish reli-gion of legalism and political hope in the Messiah.’’ ≥≠

On 31 May, the conference of church leaders sent the church ministera modication of its ‘‘Basic Principles,’’ which became known as theGodesberg ‘‘Variata.’’ The revision of point 3 stated:

In the sphere of faith, a sharp contrast exists between the message of Jesus Christ and His Apostles and the Jewish religion of legalism and po-litical hope in the Messiah, which even in the Old Testament is foughtemphatically.

In the sphere of the life of the Volk, a serious and responsible racialpolicy is necessary for preserving the purity of our people. ≥∞

Trying to retain his control over the ‘‘reordering of the church,’’ Minis-ter Kerrl insisted on his version at the church leaders’ conference thefollowing day. ≥≤ After a heated debate, Hannover’s Bishop August Marah-rens relented; led by Wurm and Meiser, the other bishops stood rm.Marahrens’s decision was both tragic and predictable. ≥≥ On 23 June Ma-rahrens attempted to defend his position, but his statement was con-tradicted by a statement on 3 July from the Hannover Brotherhood of Pastors that claimed the church as the divinely chosen heir of Israel. ≥∂

Marahrens had maneuvered himself into uncomfortable isolation. ≥∑ On30 June 1939, the Provisional Church Administration sent a letter toits regional Councils of Brethren and the governments of the regionalchurches. ≥∏ Bishops Wurm and Meiser also issued a letter on 1 August1939.≥π Both letters distanced themselves from Marahrens, whose ac-tions ‘‘are ecclesiastically intolerable and grievously endanger the unity of the entire German Evangelical Church.’’ ≥∫

By the last months of 1939, the Confessing Church carried a heavy

mortgage. It was by no means theologically or spiritually bankrupt. But ithad been weakened by growing pressures from outside and heighteneddiscord within its own ranks; publicly, the Confessing Church grew in-




183

creasingly paralyzed. On 10 June 1939, President Karl Koch resigned fromthe Westphalian Council of Brethren. As the theological differences in-creased, the possibilities for the convocation of new synods diminished.

The outside pressures on the Confessing Church were evident in thesoaring numbers of those arrested by the Gestapo or sent into exile: the8 August 1939 intercessory prayer list referred to 121 instances of in-terference in the performance of pastoral duties, 32 bans on residence,106 expulsions from congregations, and 44 speaking bans and other callsto order. ≥Ω

The efforts of German Christians to remove Jewish names and symbolsfrom church buildings were a peculiar variant in the ‘‘de-Judaization of ecclesiastical life’’ in 1939. The precedents for such demands had in-cluded ‘‘purifying the hymnal’’ in the summer of 1934, when a GermanChristian group in Dortmund proposed, ‘‘All hymns and liturgical pas-sages with names and expressions such as ‘God Sabaoth,’ ‘Hosanna,’‘Abraham’s seed,’ ‘Jehovah,’ ‘Jacob’s salvation,’ ‘Zion,’ etc., are no longersung in the worship service. The next goal is . . . the de-Judaization andpurication of our church hymns. Our driving force is our faith in Christ, who was no Jew.’’∂≠

Early in 1939, the Reich minister for church affairs requested the Ger-man Evangelical Church’s opinion on an article referring to the ‘‘pollu-tion of German churches by Jewish names.’’ ∂∞ A response prepared by

German Evangelical Church lawyer Heinz Brunotte stated that congrega-tions named after Immanuel, Jerusalem, Zion, Simon, and Tabor did not bear ‘‘Jewish’’ names: ‘‘None of the ve names appears, for instance, inthe list of Jewish names specied in the circular of 18 August 1938 fromthe Reich Interior Minister. ∂≤ The newspaper Deutsches Christentum (Ger-man Christendom) overlooks the fact that these are biblically Christiannames, not Jewish ones, not even Old Testament ones.’’ ∂≥ In the giving of names, he wrote, it was important to ask ‘‘what signicance they havehad for the Christian tradition. . . . It may be asserted without exaggera-tion that ‘Jewish names’ of Christian churches in Germany do not appearat all. Old Testament names, too, are likely to be very rare.’’ Brunotte wasnot aware of any church named for Moses, Abraham, David, ‘‘or the like.’’

Prima facie, Brunotte had avoided a difcult situation by cleverly re-

ferring to the interior minister’s order regarding Jewish rst names. Buthe paid a clear price; the separation of names from their Jewish and Old Testament origin surrendered the unity between the Old and New Testa-




184

ments. Brunotte sought to justify the retention of Hebrew inscriptionssuch as the term Yahweh but subsequently added, in the margin: ‘‘Never-theless, the Hebrew characters, which rarely appear in the churches,

could be removed without detriment.’’∂∂

Brunotte’s second draft, the ‘‘Ordinance on the Position of Evangeli-cal Jews in the Church,’’ exemplied the course followed by the Ger-man Evangelical Church Chancellery in the treatment of non-AryanChristians:

section 1

Jews (Section 5 of the First Decree to the Reich Citizens’ Law from 14November 1935, rgb l.I, p. 1333) cannot be members of a congregation belonging to a regional church of the German Evangelical Church.

section 2

Jews baptized as Protestants, insofar as they are subjects of the state inthe protective association of the German Reich (Section 1 of the Reich

Citizens’ Law from 15 September 1935, rgb l.I, p. 146), belong, in gueststatus, to the Protestant congregation in their place of residence.

section 3

Jews (sections 1 and 2) do not have the public ecclesiastical rights of congregation members. In particular, they cannot be appointed churchofcials or be called into a relationship analogous to that of an ofcial;

they have no active or passive ecclesiastical right to vote; they cannothold honorary ecclesiastical ofces; they cannot take active part in the work of church organizations and associations.

section 4

Jews baptized as Protestants (section 2) participate in the spiritual in-stitutions of the congregation at their place of residence, in particular

in the public worship service, as guests. The service rendered by thepastor, as well as the carrying out of ofcial acts of ministry, is grantedto them under the terms of the following provisions.

section 5

For ofcial ecclesiastical services performed for Jews baptized as Protes-tants, as well as for baptisms of children of Jewish parents baptized as

Protestants, church rooms and facilities can be used, with the provision,however, that ofcial functions should take place in private groups. Thehighest agencies of the regional church shall determine the details.




185

section 6

If a pastor refuses the granting of ofcial services to Jews baptized asProtestants, who stand in a guest relationship to his church congrega-

tion, then these, with the approval of the highest agencies of the re-gional church, can choose a pastor other than their responsible pastorfor the ofcial services.

section 7

Ofcial pastoral services in accord with Section 4 are to be registeredalphabetically in the parish registers of the congregation at the place of

residence.section 8

In each case, irrespective of existing regional church regulations, the baptism of an adult Jew requires previous authorization from the high-est agencies of the regional church. These can reserve the preparationfor baptism and the baptism itself for an agency to be entrusted by it

with these procedures.Baptisms performed without authorization do not establish a guestrelationship with the Evangelical Church (section 2).

Every Jew who has passed the fourteenth year of life is considered anadult. The regulation in Section 1 is also applied to Jewish children, both of whose parents were not baptized as Protestants before the ef-fective date of this ordinance.

section 9

A Jew baptized as a Protestant can exercise the functions of the Chris-tian ofce of godparent only for a Jewish candidate for baptism.

section 10

The conversion of a baptized Jew from another Christian church or sect,

or the change from nonreligious status into a guest relationship withthe Evangelical Church (section 2), can occur only after prior authoriza-tion through the highest agency of the regional church.

section 11

Church taxes will not be collected from Jews baptized as Protestants who stand in a guest relationship to a congregation (section 2).

section 12

This ordinance becomes effective on the day of its proclamation. Con-icting provisions in the regional churches are abrogated. ∂∑




186

Thirty years later, Brunotte tried to defend this document—one of themost prominent examples of a bureaucratic ‘‘solution’’ to emerge fromthe ofces of the German Evangelical Church. ∂∏

∞π

The Aryan Certicate for Theologians

German Christian church leaders had always been more interested thanthe state authorities in implementing a church Aryan paragraph. After1936, non-Aryans barred from studying theology were admitted to thechurch colleges established by the Confessing Church and could becomeministers in the Confessing Church after taking their examinations(which were given secretly by Confessing Church members). ∞

After the Godesberg Declaration, Dr. Friedrich Werner, the GermanChristian director of the two highest Protestant agencies (the Evangeli-cal Central Council and the German Evangelical Church Chancellery inBerlin), sought to change this situation permanently. On 12 May 1939,the Evangelical Central Council of the Old Prussian Union Church an-nounced that before a candidate could be accepted

for theological exams, ordination, permanent employment in a parish,or service in a regional church, every theological candidate must fur-nish proof of his Aryan descent and that of his future wife, should hemarry. To this end, the Central Council requires the questionnaire onracial descent . . . to be lled out and signed by the candidates in ques-tion, effective immediately. Where a marriage is planned, the clergy-man must submit to his Consistory the announcement of the marriage,together with particulars about the descent of his future wife . . . at leastthree weeks before the marriage. ≤

The Confessing Church now had to decide whether it would abide by the Pastors’ Emergency League pledge and the third thesis of the BarmenDeclaration. After the leader of Bremen’s Evangelical Church requiredthe Aryan certicate of all pastors under his jurisdiction (not just of future pastors, to whom the Central Council’s ordinance applied), Mar-tin Albertz intervened. ≥ On behalf of the Provisional Church Adminis-

tration and ‘‘in agreement with the Conference of the Regional Councilsof Brethren of Germany,’’ he called on church governments with ties tothe Confessing Church, as well as the regional Councils of Brethren,




187

‘‘to resist this suggestion (from Bremen) and not to comply with therequest’’ and to warn their pastors ‘‘not to submit the documents de-manded.’’ ∂ The letter ended with the words of the Pastors’ Emergency

League pledge.∑

The Old Prussian Union Church Council of Brethren issued a clearstatement soon after Werner’s announcement: ‘‘Whoever lls out thequestionnaire presented by the German Christian church bureau-cracy . . . helps translate the Godesberg Declaration of the German Chris-tians into reality, and thereby contributes to the removal from the minis-

try of colleagues who are not of full Aryan descent or whose wives arenot.’’∏

Once more united in common cause, the other regional Councils of Brethren issued similar statements. The regional Council of Brethren inSaxony announced that the Aryan paragraph and its consequences couldnot be permitted in the church, charging that the newly issued ques-tionnaires represented the application of secular civil service laws tothe ministry. π In the Mark Brandenburg region, the Confessing ChurchCouncil instructed its members not to return the questionnaire. ∫ Enclos-ing a copy of Martin Niemöller’s ‘‘Principles Regarding the Aryan Ques-tion in the Church,’’ the Council of Brethren summarized:

At that time, a false synod attempted to introduce the Aryan paragraph

into the church by means of church law. But this was thwarted by theunited witness of clergy who joined together in the Pastors’ Emergency League. . . . After six years of struggle, the church bureaucracy believesthat . . . consciences have become apathetic and that this ground might be ripe for the taking. It [the consistory] does not dare make the matterpublic in the church; it would much rather carry it through without visible unrest. For this reason, it does not order the introduction of the

Aryan paragraph in the church . . . but sends questionnaires to eachindividual pastor. Everyone must understand clearly that the churchauthorities’ action serves no statistical purpose. Whoever lls out andsends in the questionnaires . . . helps create a complete change in thenature of the ministry. . . . This apparently harmless request forces us tomake a serious decision before God. Ω

Noting that ‘‘the few purely non-Aryan pastors have long been out of ofce,’’ the Westphalian Council of Brethren asserted that the churchshould at least defend its ‘‘half-breed brethren.’’ There was no doubt that




188

the few non-Aryan colleagues were ‘‘orderly servants of the Word,’’ notedthe council, adding that the younger clergy in the Confessing Church were far more at risk because many of them were ‘‘illegal’’: ‘‘They are

exposed to the arbitrariness of church administrative agencies to a fargreater extent than we are. We ought to lead the way for them by settinga good example, thereby making their path all the more secure.’’ ∞≠

In the meantime, regional churches that approved Werner’s orderacted accordingly. In Hesse-Nassau, the church administration coldly dismissed Pastor Max Weber of Neckarsteinach ‘‘since you, as a half-

breed of second degree . . . are not of German or kindred blood andtherefore . . . cannot become or remain a clergyman.’’ ∞∞ In Brunswick,two ‘‘half-breed Aryan’’ pastors fell victim to the new provisions: PastorDr. Niemann in Grosstöckheim, who died in the course of the controversy, and Pastor Goetze from St. Pauli, whose nal transfer ‘‘into tem-porary retirement’’ followed, after stressful years of negotiation, on31 March 1941.∞≤

Pastor Karl Steinbauer of Bavaria displayed exceptional solidarity withthe victims of the Aryan certicate and those who opposed it. Steinbauerused a sermon on Matt. 2:13–23 to explain why he had refused to furnishan Aryan certicate in order to teach religion in the schools:

This is impossible for me as a Christian and an ordained preacher of the

Lord Christ. According to this racial law, the Lord Christ was not compe-tent or capable of proclaiming His own message, and was not permittedto enter any school; this holds for the Apostles as well. For they were Jews according to the esh, according to race. If the Lord Christ mustremain standing outside the school door with His message, and His Apostles with Him, then I will stand outside the door with them.

I know that only a few understand me, because only very few have

thought about this. But I see the demand for this certicate not as asolitary measure but . . . in its greater context, as a further step towardthe systematic isolation of the free proclamation of the Christian mes-sage. . . . If, for example, the Aryan certicate is required for activemilitary duty, I will present it as a matter of course, but not for thepurpose of securing the right to preach as an ordained preacher of Jesus

Christ.∞≥

Steinbauer was arrested and imprisoned in Neu Ulm for eight weeks before his transfer to a concentration camp on 28 March 1939.




189

The questionnaires arrived in parsonages throughout Germany. On behalf of the pastors under his charge, Westphalian church presidentKoch wrote a cautious letter to the German Christian–directed Evangeli-

cal Consistory in Münster (Westphalia), asking ‘‘that the submission of these questionnaires not be required at this time. The matter will lead toconsiderable unrest and extremely undesirable complications.’’ ∞∂

Many Westphalian pastors grasped the new situation; the insightsgained years before in Barmen helped them know what to do. On 7 No- vember 1939, referring to ‘‘our discussion of the Aryan question,’’ Ulrich

Dähne wrote Ludwig Steil that the issue had been resolved by the thirdthesis of the Barmen Theological Declaration ∞∑ —and at the earlier FreeReformed Synod in Barmen–Gemarke in January 1934, which declaredthat it was incompatible ‘‘with the unity and message of the churchto limit its membership and qualications for service to the church tomembers of a certain race.’’ ∞∏ He emphasized that the Pastors’ Emer-

gency League pledge’s rejection of the Aryan paragraph applied to the young generation of theologians; the new Pastors’ Emergency Leagueguidelines of 1 February 1938 conrmed this. ∞π

Hans Thimme, assistant to Westphalian church president Koch, triedto win his support for a declaration against the Aryan certicate, ask-ing for a ‘‘common declaration [that] makes the unity of the ConfessingChurch visible.’’ ∞∫ The result was a memorandum entitled ‘‘The AryanQuestion for the Young Generation of Theologians,’’ which the West-phalian Council of Brethren sent to the auxiliary preachers and vicars of the Confessing Church in Westphalia in Advent 1939. ∞Ω The Council of Brethren suggested that clergy compare the memorandum ‘‘with theguiding resolutions of the Confessing Church from 1934, especially withthe Barmen Theological Declaration, and to scrutinize it as a whole onthe basis of the Holy Scripture.’’ The most important passage was point 3:‘‘What matters is not the larger or smaller number of brethren affected by this. The authors of the provision in question aim . . . for the supremacy of the principles that they proclaimed authoritatively in Godesberg, andthey want to destroy the resistance founded upon Scripture and Con-fession. So the question confronts all of us whether we want to follow and

encourage these orders from this government, or whether, obedient tothe Lord of the church, we want to resist them.’’ ≤≠ Those who submittedto the consistory’s demand to ll out the questionnaires ‘‘would encour-




190

age false doctrine and, thereby, would become disloyal to the brother-hood of the Confessing Church and its church administration.’’ ≤∞

All these statements condemned the Aryan certicate, but their mo-

tives varied. Solidarity with the persecuted was not a high priority. Thepredominant argument against the Aryan certicate was the danger of state-church encroachment on the Confessing Church’s sovereignty; this was also the reason the Confessing Church never ofcially protested theNuremberg Laws. Misgivings or resistance developed only when statelaws gained ground in the church’s realm—when the Nuremberg Laws

appeared in an improved and expanded edition, as it were, in the Godes- berg Declaration. The state promised not to interfere with the churchand, in turn, demanded that the church not interfere with the stateeither. It was part of the state’s tactic to isolate the church and to clearthe way for the Final Solution.

For the Confessing Church, the Aryan certicate raised fewer concernsabout non-Aryan brethren than about possible infringements on ordi-nation. Asked about his ‘‘attitude toward the demand for the so-called Aryan certicate,’’ Westphalian president Koch replied:

This question is of particular importance because it was tied up withordination. But the Aryan certicate can never be a precondition forordination as such. . . . Ordination is the conferral of the right of procla-mation of the Word and of the administration of the sacraments in thecongregation through the congregation. . . . The minister for churchaffairs also recently stated . . . that affairs concerning worship and theconfessions are reserved for the spiritual leadership. Ordination, how-ever, is an affair that concerns the confessions and worship. . . .

As many of you know, my opinion about the question of brothersfrom the people of Israel entering the ministry differs from that of

many brethren. . . . I can only advise against making a confessionaldeclaration in these matters today. Obviously, our church has not yet been granted a clear view into the biblical witness here. ≤≤

Koch’s statement tacitly acknowledged that ‘‘the Spirit, based uponthe Word,’’ had not yet granted an answer to the church’s ‘‘Jewish ques-tion.’’ His timid attempt to maintain distance from the ‘‘brothers from

the people of Israel’’ revealed the virulently insidious anti-Judaism thatprevailed.

Pastor Adolf Schmidt, who with Ulrich Dähne was a trusted condant




191

of the illegal young Confessing pastors in Westphalia, invited Thimmeto discuss the situation. ≤≥ Schmidt and others had concluded that they could not remain silent ‘‘in the matter of the Aryan question. We con-

sider it imperative that the entire brotherhood comes to the conclusionthat everyone who in any way lls out and submits the Aryan question-naire has separated and excluded himself from the brotherhood.’’ ≤∂

Thimme assured Schmidt of his own opposition to the Aryan certicate.He added a qualication, however: ‘‘I do not consider it right to cause our brotherhood unrest and confusion at the present time with all kind of

resolutions and condemnations. . . . The important issue now is the sim-ple, true ministry to the parishes, and I and many others are so involvedin this that I will not let myself be diverted from my real ministry to apolemical level.’’ ≤∑

Thimme advised that further steps were ‘‘impracticable,’’ addingthat it was sufcient for the time being to see that no one signed the

questionnaire. The clearest statement at the time came from Heinrich Grüber:

I believe that in these times the Evangelical Church must have more im-portant things to do than offer the opportunity for the defamationof people who, according to the distinct will of the state authorities,should remain undisturbed in their work.

I can see nothing in the whole procedure other than an attempt tocurry favor with authorities who, in the nal analysis, reject the churchand would rather see its demise. . . . The ofcial church’s treatmentof pastors who are considered Jewish under the Nuremberg Laws hasdamaged the Evangelical Church more than is known in Germany, pre-cisely in the eyes of impartial church leaders well disposed toward Ger-many. . . . Christian churches must at all times remain the conscience of

the world, and they will refuse to stand by a church government thatallows its measures to be dictated by opportunism instead of by a con-science bound to God.

For the love of the affected brethren and responsibility toward theEvangelical Church of Germany, I cannot ll out the questionnaire, andI likewise tell all brethren who ask me to leave it undone. ≤∏

Grüber’s remarks marked a new emphasis that began to spread. Forthe rst time, the concept of ‘‘conscience’’ emerged and ‘‘love toward theaffected brethren’’ was expressed. The language of dogmatics, which had




192

sufciently belabored the concepts of Scripture, confession, ordination,and the ‘‘true church’’ since 1933, was replaced by the language of ethics. The Pastors’ Emergency League pledge acquired a new value.

In September 1940, after Confessing Church pastors throughout Ger-many had rejected the Aryan certicate, ≤π German Christian leadersonce more demanded a ‘‘certicate of descent’’ from candidates for thepastorate. President Koch responded:

A considerable number of questions have arisen because of the personalquestionnaire to be lled out by the auxiliary preachers. . . . The words

‘‘certicate of racial descent’’ have stirred up the entire discussion onceagain.

I regret very much that . . . eligibility is made contingent upon thefurnishing of the certicate of racial descent. . . . I object to this quitermly. . . .

Therefore, I request that the distribution of certicates of eligibility and the payment of children’s allowances not be made contingent uponthe ‘‘certicate of racial descent.’’ . . . Otherwise, I do not know how I amsupposed to reply to indignant questions! ≤∫

With that, the Westphalian president stood clearly behind his candi-dates for the ministry. It is the last document in the les on the Aryancerticate.

∞∫

The Final Solution and the End of the Church Struggle

With the beginning of the war, the Confessing Church’s situationchanged dramatically. Emboldened by its early military successes, theNazi state moved ruthlessly to eliminate what little opposition re-mained. The hardest blow against the Confessing Church was the closingof its illegal seminary (the Kirchliche Hochschule) in Berlin in the springof 1941 and the subsequent trial, in a Gestapo court, of twenty-threeConfessing leaders and teachers associated with the seminary. As a re-sult of the trial, Provisional Church Administration leader Martin Al- bertz was imprisoned for eighteen months. ∞

The growing number of arrests of Confessing Church pastors and

leaders impeded both open resistance and private help. Some pastors’ wives were told that their husbands would be released from custody if they would leave the ministry. The most signicant change, however,




193

was the military enlistment of pastors. Of the two thousand young pas-tors who had passed their theological examinations in the ConfessingChurch, fteen hundred were at the front by May 1941. ≤

The law requiring Jews to wear the star took effect on 19 September1941. In October 1941, the deportation trains began to roll toward theeast; Auschwitz had been opened on 23 September. ≥ The deportationscould hardly take place in perfect secrecy, and, in any case, ConfessingChurch pastors and laypeople with close contacts to resistance circles were well informed.

After deportations from Berlin began on 16 October 1941, various res-cue efforts were begun by political resistance groups. ∂ One was the dar-ing ‘‘Operation 7,’’ initially an effort on the part of Admiral WilhelmCanaris and Hans von Dohnanyi to save several Jewish friends. ∑ Con-fessing Christians such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Friedrich Perels, and Wil-helm Rott (who had assumed the imprisoned Martin Albertz’s respon-

sibilities) soon joined in. With the help of Pastor Alphons Koechlin,president of the Swiss Federation of Evangelical Churches, their intervention helped rescue Charlotte Friedenthal, a colleague in ProvisionalChurch Administration who also worked in the Grüber ofce. ∏

At the beginning of 1942, the nance department of the Lutheranchurch administration in Hannover ‘‘freed’’ baptized Jewish membersfrom the requirement to pay church taxes, ‘‘since Jews cannot be consid-ered members of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Hannover as a cor-poration under public law.’’ π

On 20 January 1942, the ‘‘Wannsee Conference’’ met in Berlin; it wasthe last stage in the preparations for the Final Solution of the Jewishquestion. The protocol of the conference tersely stated: ‘‘In the processof the practical implementation of the Final Solution, Europe will becombed through from west to east.’’ ∫

This was the historical context for the Church Chancellery’s short ve-sentence statement, sent to the highest ofcials in all the regionalchurches, announcing its intended course on the Jewish question.

the scriptum atrum of the evangelical church chancellery

On the morning of 14 December 1941, Reich Minister for Church AffairsHanns Kerrl died. In an obituary two days later, deputy director GüntherFürle of the Evangelical Church Chancellery honored Kerrl ‘‘in the con-




194

dence that God and His Christ will also grant fulllment in His time tothe life’s work to which the last years of his life were dedicated.’’ Ω On17 December, the church leaders of Saxony, Nassau-Hesse, Mecklenburg,

Schleswig-Holstein, Anhalt, Thuringia, and Lübeck announced theirchurches’ position on Protestant Jews. ‘‘The severest measures’’ were ‘‘to be taken against the Jews,’’ who were ‘‘to be expelled from German ter-ritories.’’ ‘‘Racially Jewish Christians have no place and no right in (thechurch)’’; the undersigned church leaders had ‘‘discontinued every kindof communion with Jewish Christians.’’ ∞≠

Evidently not wanting to remain on the sidelines, the German Evan-gelical Church Chancellery issued a decree two days before ChristmasEve, signed by Fürle:

The breakthrough of racial consciousness in our people, intensied by the experiences of the war and the corresponding measures taken by the political leadership, has brought about the elimination of Jews from

the community of us Germans. This is an incontestable fact, which theGerman Evangelical churches, which serve the one, eternal Gospel within the German people and live within the legal domain of this peo-ple as corporations under public law, cannot heedlessly ignore. There-fore, in agreement with the Spiritual Condential Council of the Ger-man Evangelical Church, we request the highest authorities to takesuitable measures so that baptized non-Aryans remain separate fromthe ecclesiastical life of the German congregations. The baptized non- Aryans will have to nd the ways and means to create their own facili-ties to serve their particular worship and pastoral needs. We will makeevery effort to help obtain permission for such facilities from the re-sponsible authorities. ∞∞

In the wake of the movement toward a ‘‘nal solution,’’ the chancellery statement amounted to a Judas kiss. The chancellery had publicly sanc-tioned the path taken at Wannsee.

Bishop Wurm of Württemberg was the rst leader to take a position onthe chancellery letter. ∞≤ Having read the chancellery’s wording carefully, Wurm formulated his answer just as carefully. The result was hardly aprotest letter. Wurm ‘‘gladly’’ acknowledged that the chancellery had

not adopted the German Christians’ arguments, but he believed that theconsequences of the chancellery letter complemented German Christiangoals. The chancellery (imitating German Christian reasoning, Wurm




195

noted) believed it could justify the exclusion of non-Aryans because of itsmission ‘‘to the German people,’’ in their service to the one, eternalGospel, but ‘‘it ought to have been said, on the basis of the Scripture and

the confession, that the churches rely upon the one, eternal Gospel intheir service to our people.’’

Wurm accused the chancellery of appealing not to the Gospel butto ‘‘the breakthrough of racial consciousness in our people, intensied by the experiences of the war and by corresponding measures taken by the political leadership.’’ This conclusion had nothing to do with theone, eternal Gospel. ‘‘From the Gospel’s perspective, there is no justica-tion for the exclusion of baptized non-Aryans.’’ Referring to the chan-cellery’s statement that the churches could not ‘‘heedlessly ignore’’ theelimination of the Jews from the community of the German people, Wurm replied: ‘‘The Christian may not ignore any unfortunate personheedlessly. No one will want to dispute the fact that non-Aryan Chris-tians are the unfortunates today. Are we allowed to magnify this mis-fortune even more by depriving them of participation in our worshipservices?’’∞≥

Why was Wurm so reserved in his letter to the chancellery? The rest of the letter offers the answer. Although relativized by the demands im-posed by the gospel of love, his earlier anti-Semitism emerged in his his-torical reminiscences. ‘‘Jewry’s alien inltration of German spiritual life

and of political life during the nineteenth century,’’ Wurm wrote, hadled to a ‘‘deistic belief in reason’’ that was hostile to the church. More-over, it proved ‘‘that genuine knowledge of the Bible protects against the Jewish nature, while the struggle against the Bible can lead to the situa-tion where one becomes, in the religious sense, the executor of Judaism, which is hostile to Christ.’’ Referring to Schlatter’s libelous text ‘‘Wirdder Jude über uns siegen?’’ (Will the Jew triumph over us?), Wurm statedhis obviously honest conviction: ‘‘No Evangelical church has denied thestate the right to implement racial legislation for the purpose of main-taining the purity of the German Volk. In days past, the leading men of the Evangelical church—I recall Adolf Stoecker and persons sharing his views—were the rst to note the dangers of alien Jewish inltration inthe economic, political, and cultural spheres, which threatens the Ger-

man people.’’ ∞∂

Nonetheless, he said, it would not have occurred to Stoecker to sanc-tion measures that contradicted the mission of the church and the signif-




196

icance of baptism for salvation. For this reason, Wurm and the regionalCentral Council in Stuttgart expressed ‘‘regret’’ that the chancellery’sletter had made things more difcult for ‘‘pastors and congregations

who, for reasons of conscience, cannot submit to orders from nationalchurch-oriented church administrations.’’ Wurm added ‘‘patriotic con-siderations’’ to his misgivings based on faith, questioning the desirabil-ity of exposing German Protestants abroad to church reprisals. He con-cluded with an urgent request that the chancellery withdraw its letter.

The Provisional Church Administration also took a stand on the chan-

cellery letter: Together with all Christians in Germany who stand on the ground of the Scripture and the Confession, we are compelled to declare that thisrequest from the Church Chancellery is incompatible with the con-fession of the church. . . .

By what right do we desire to exclude, for racial reasons, Christiannon-Aryans from our worship services? Do we want to be like the Phari-sees, who renounced communion with the ‘‘tax collectors and sinners’’in the worship service and, because of this, reaped Christ’s judgment? ∞∑

To be consistent, the Provisional Church Administration noted, thechancellery would have to ‘‘expel . . . all the Apostles and, not least of all, Jesus Christ Himself, the Lord of the church, because of their racial membership in the Jewish people. . . . In agreement with the letter from Bishop Wurm of 6 February 1942, we request the Church Chancellery to retractthe calamitous paper of 22 December 1941.’’

The Provisional Church Administration’s tone was blunter (‘‘calami-tous paper’’!) than Wurm’s; still, it agreed with him that no Protestantchurch in Germany contested the state’s right to pass racial laws. TheProvisional Church Administration consciously refrained from criticiz-ing the state’s ‘‘certain measures against the Jews,’’ and it expressedappreciation for Luther’s ‘‘legitimate wrath against the Jews, who de-fame the Christian church and undermine the morals of the Christianpeople.’’ Nonetheless, of course, baptized non-Aryans were ‘‘to be treatedas our brethren in Christ.’’

In March 1942, the governing council of the Confessing Church in the

Rhineland informed its pastors and congregations of the Fürle decreeand its implementation in Hannover. ∞∏ Its wording was reserved. Al-though similar measures had not yet been passed in the churches of the




197

Old Prussian Union, it noted, such measures were to be expected andshould be ‘‘anticipated in time’’ for the churches to respond to them:‘‘We enclose, as an example, a well-grounded rejection of the decree,

which the Provisional Church Administration of the German EvangelicalChurch and the Conference of the Regional Councils of Brethren havesigned.’’∞π

On 20 May 1942, the Spiritual Condential Council responded to Wurm’s letter with a ‘‘personal and strictly condential’’ reply. It at-tempted theologically to justify and bureaucratically to conceal the

weaknesses that Wurm had uncovered in the chancellery directive.∞∫

Thecouncil insisted that the chancellery letter had been only a recom-mendation, that no state pressure had been applied, and that there had been no attempt to solicit the goodwill of the state. Finally, ‘‘expelling’’or ‘‘eliminating’’ non-Aryan Christians was not the issue; they were‘‘merely’’ asked to keep their distance from church life. Because of the

war, extraordinary conditions prevailed. Just as an imprisoned English-man could not possibly participate in a worship service in a Germancongregation (he would, of course, ‘‘not be able to be of one mind with usin prayer’’!), so too must participation in the worship service be denied tothe wearers of the Jewish star: ‘‘Without question, Jewry is an enemy people for us Germans. Even for those Jews living in Germany, it can beassumed with certainty that they do not fervently desire a victory forGerman arms. How are we supposed to be able to unite in prayer forFührer, army, and Volk with those who, instead of the victory for which

we ask, yearn for defeat?’’ ∞Ω

To an unprecedented extent, the letter showed how an institution,still relatively secure in the lee of the political winds, was protectingitself by surrendering its weakest members to certain death. Because of this, Wurm was asked ‘‘to refrain from any dissemination or forwarding[that is, of this letter].’’

On 10 June 1942, Fürle himself wrote Bishop Wurm. ≤≠ Once more, heexplained the necessity of the chancellery decree, which various regionalchurches had welcomed in the meantime. Fürle’s primary concern was‘‘the future of the German Evangelical Church’’; the end (safeguarding

the church’s future) justied the means (excluding non-Aryan membersfrom the church).

After the war, Heinz Brunotte concluded that it would have been bet-




198

ter for the Church Chancellery and the Spiritual Condential Council ‘‘if they had kept quiet in December 1941, and let things take their course,rather than (with good intentions) fostering the suspicion that they, too,

had wanted to participate in the German Christian expulsion of the Prot-estant non-Aryans.’’ ≤∞

bishop wurm’s letters to the state

From the ranks of the church resistance, the most fearless, insistent, andpassionate protests against the state came from Bishop Theophil Wurmof Württemberg—although only after 1943.

Why was he so late in nding the words to oppose the injusticesagainst the Jews and non-Aryans? Was it because the Christian voice inhim was able to overcome the anti-Semitic one only after the bestiality of deportation and murder became visible to all—that is, once the state’sdespotic hatred of the Jews and its plan for their total annihilation hadmade personal anti-Semitism seem absurd? Might the reason be that,even after 1943, it was harder for Wurm to heed the Christian voicein himself than the anti-Semitic one? These questions arise becausehis anti-Jewish prejudices continued to surface in language that paral-leled Adolf Stoecker’s hateful tirades. Because of this, Wurm was neverable to ght anti-Semitism itself; he always attacked only its most recentmanifestation.

This theological impetus was evident in sermons from the 1930s. ≤≤ In a1934 sermon, Wurm tried to relieve the congregation of the irritation of Jesus’ Jewish lineage. He emphasized ‘‘the basic attitude that permitted Jesus, despite his Jewish descent, to walk ‘the straight path in everything,never with passion, always with dignity.’ ’’ ≤≥ After differentiating Jesus’exemplary attitude from everything that he rejected as ‘‘typically Jew-

ish,’’ Wurm asked rhetorically: ‘‘Should this be an attitude that might bealien to German feeling . . . ?’’≤∂ In a sermon on Luke 9:51–56, he chastisedthe ‘‘Jewish commercial spirit.’’ ≤∑ One month later, he mentioned thathis regional church had been puried of all Jews. ≤∏

As a result of such sentiments, Wurm was often pulled in differentdirections. Although he was an anti-Semitic Christian, he wrote a letter

on behalf of a sixty-six-year-old individual threatened with deportationfrom Baden in November 1940. ≤π Because he was a Christian anti-Semite, Wurm refused to agree to Pastor Hermann Diem’s request that Württem-




199

berg pastors unanimously read a statement condemning the persecu-tion of the Jews on 14 December 1941. ≤∫

On 21 October 1941, the Conference of Church Leaders discussed the

situation of non-Aryan Christians in light of the planned deportations. According to Wurm’s notes, the group decided that ‘‘any kind of inter- views (that is, with state representatives) will be in vain. This point wasalso mentioned in discussions with the Catholic bishops (which took place one day later). They intended to call on Ministerial Director Kritz-inger the next day . . . and asked me to join them. I explained that I had no

mandate in this respect but that I would recommend enlisting the aid of the Confessing Church in Berlin. This was accepted.’’ ≤Ω

Within a month, however, Wurm wrote propaganda minister Josef Goebbels: ‘‘Who can take pleasure in the so-called planned economicmeasures for the removal of the mentally ill, in the pillaging of churchproperty, in all the measures against church and pastorates that havefollowed, one after the other, since the beginning of the war, in the harshmeasures against non-Aryans?’’ ≥≠

In December 1941, Wurm wrote a memorandum to Hitler from thechurch leaders’ conference. He delivered it personally to the Reich Chan-cellery in Berlin: ‘‘Whoever now opens and deepens internal differencesacts irresponsibly and in a way detrimental to the Volk. Much has oc-curred that could only be of use to enemy propaganda; among this, wecount the measures for the removal of the mentally ill and the increasingharshness in the treatment of non-Aryans, even those who confess theChristian faith.’’ ≥∞

Shortly before the German defeat at Stalingrad, Wurm sent a letter toan Interior Ministry ofcial that illustrated the inner conict between Wurm’s Christian insight that he had to stand against the persecutors

of the Jews and his admission, as a latent anti-Semite, that he could only vouch for the Jews with difculty, in light of their supposedly self-imposed guilt. Like most anti-Semites, Wurm supported ‘‘only’’ the exclusion of the Jews, not their extermination; hence, his protest against theextermination of the Jews should not be overestimated:

In circles not conned to confessional Christians, one is depressed by how the struggle against other races and peoples is being conducted.People returning from vacation are reporting the systematic murder of Jews and Poles in the occupied territories. Even those who years ago




200

considered Jewry’s dominance in the most diverse areas of public life to be severely detrimental, at a time when almost the entire press wasphilosemitic, cannot accept that one people is justied in exterminat-

ing another people with measures that affect every individual, regard-less of personal culpability. ≥≤

Wurm recognized that such actions contradicted ‘‘the clear divinecommandment and, thereby, the concept of law and legality, which areindispensable to a civilized people.’’ Despite his knowledge of the exter-mination camps, it did not occur to him that the plant he had so care-

fully helped cultivate in the wake of his teacher Stoecker had come to full bloom. ≥≥

Early in 1943, Confessing Church circles learned of a proposed law that would forcibly dissolve mixed marriages (where one partner was non- Aryan and the other Aryan). A version of this law had already been triedout in Berlin. ≥∂ In response, the Roman Catholic bishop of Berlin, Baron

Preysing, secretly sent Berlin Confessing Church pastor Wilhelm Jan-nasch to Cardinal Bertram in Breslau. Jannasch was to mediate a com-mon plan of action for both churches in case the obligatory divorce of racially mixed marriages became law.

The reading of a strongly worded protest from Roman Catholic andConfessing Church pulpits throughout Germany was planned. ≥∑ It is notclear what came of this, since it is not mentioned in the published docu-ments or contemporary accounts, but a draft of the statement does exist.Noting that ‘‘all of us . . . must confess that out of timidity, human fear,and a lack of wisdom and love we have remained silent in a matter on which we as Protestant Christians should have spoken long ago,’’ thestatement continued,

No solution can exist and be a blessing to our own people which iscontrary to the revealed word and will of God.German legislation has led to such consequences. . . . If its original

aim was to limit the inuence of Jewry . . . today all this has become astruggle of physical annihilation against Jewry in Germany. . . .

The Jew in Germany today is like the Jew in the parable of our Lord who fell among murderers on the way from Jerusalem to Jericho, and

for whom one of another race, the traveling Samaritan, became thehelper and savior!

We deny that it corresponds to the love of neighbor demanded by




201

Christ . . . if we—in deance of the Eighth Commandment—bear false witness against the Jews in our midst in a manner that can be explainedonly through the blindness of hate, and, of course, cannot be excused. ≥∏

Although the combined effect of the Roman Catholic and Confessingchurch efforts is uncertain, the Interior Ministry law on mixed mar-riages did not take effect. On 12 March 1943, Bishop Wurm wrote to theminister for church affairs, expressing satisfaction ‘‘that Jews living inmixed marriages and the children resulting from these marriages expe-rience, of late, more friendly treatment in Berlin.’’ ≥π Wurm asked the

minister to extend this lenience to the entire Reich, requesting morelatitude in allowing the baptism of Jews and ‘‘half-breeds’’ and the ex-emption of non-Aryan Christians from having to wear the star. ≥∫

Two days later, Wurm wrote the Reich interior minister of his joy atthe improved treatment of Berlin Jews:

Should this be the case, and should this be the start of a change in the

policy toward the Jews, no one would welcome it more than the Chris-tian church of our people; not from any predisposition for Jewry, whoseimmense inuence on cultural, economic, and political life was recog-nized as fatal by Christians alone, at a time when almost the entirepress was philosemitic, but rather from the conviction that it is con-trary to God’s commandments if human beings, without the verdict of acivil or military court, are deprived of their homes, their professions,their possessions, lives and marriages are torn apart. . . . The Christianchurches have exercised great restraint in rejecting such things, so asnot to offer fodder for enemy propaganda. They are all the more grate-ful if the Reich agencies themselves recognize the uselessness, indeedthe danger, of the methods practiced until now in the struggle against Jewry, and draw the consequences. ≥Ω

In early June 1943, the Conference of Church Leaders also dealt withthe actions against the Jews. ∂≠ During the meeting, Bishop Marahrens be-latedly asked for approval of a petition he had sent to the Interior Minis-try in the name of the conference. It is difcult to determine whether the wording of Marahrens’s petition reected political abstinence or igno-rance on the part of the church: ‘‘In taking our position, we are conscious

of the fact that we are not to criticize political decisions taken by thestate leadership. . . . As a völkisch-political question, the racial questionmust be solved by the responsible political leadership. It alone has the




203

Addressing the letter to all members of the Reich government, Wurmleft out every anti-Jewish proviso. At a time when it had become moredifcult and dangerous to criticize the Nazi regime, Wurm’s outspoken-

ness showed that his earlier tributes to the state efforts to solve the Jewish question had not been based on mere strategy or a lack of cour-age. It was simply that he had not yet completely dispensed with anti-Semitic statements.

Wurm’s letter found a wide hearing, even abroad (it was broadcast inNorway, among other places), perhaps because his words were a genuine

appeal, in the name of all Christians, on behalf of their persecuted brethren. ∂∏ As Wurm concluded: ‘‘By stating this in the name of count-less Protestant Christians, we do not covet anything for ourselves. Ger-man Evangelical Christianity shares in bearing all sacrices. It desires noprivileges and no preferential treatment. It does not aspire to power andcovets no dominion. But nothing and no one in the world should prevent

us from being Christians and from standing up as Christians for what isright before God.’’ ∂π

Wurm’s language grew stronger in subsequent letters. In a wartimeletter to Stuttgart pastors (dated 9 August 1943), he emphasized the guiltthat the German people bore because of its battle against other races andpeoples: ‘‘Can we be surprised if we, too, now get a taste of this?! And if wehave not approved this, yet we often have kept silent where we shouldhave spoken!’’∂∫

The same day, Wurm wrote in protest to Bishop Marahrens. The Hann-over bishop had called on Germans ‘‘to ask God to give our hearts aruthless determination’’ in ghting the war, ‘‘devoid of all sentimen-tality.’’ ∂Ω Wurm expressed ‘‘deep dismay’’ at Marahrens’s letter. Wurmcould ‘‘discern no word of the church’’ in it and wrote Marahrens that theawful present wartime situation was an expiatory judgment:

There is an widespread feeling among our people that many sins thatthe German people have either committed or left unchallenged mustnow be atoned for, that Christianity must suffer as well, because it hasnot called injustice by its name more openly and more unanimously.Should the church now be the one to suppress such thoughts in favor of an unrestrained passion for war? . . .

Church conduct that is nothing more than complete agreement withthe slogans of political propaganda is perverse and reprehensible in




204

every respect, and makes the church despicable in the eyes of friendand foe.

I nd it painful to write to you like this, but I cannot let an attitude,

as it is expressed in this letter, remain uncontradicted. The SpiritualCondential Council loses all trust placed in it if it does not let itself beguided at this moment by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, instead of making room for various strategic considerations. ∑≠

Wurm now began to recognize that the Kristallnacht had only beenthe prelude for the destruction of all church life and that the church was

paying for its silence at the time: ‘‘Have we not seen the houses of Godthat belong to the others go up in ames, and must we not now see thatour own churches are being burned down?’’ ∑∞

On 20 December 1943, Wurm spoke on behalf of his Jewish fellow citizens for the last time, in a letter to the chief of the Reich Chancellery,Reich Minister Hans-Heinrich Lammers. After listing the manifold injustices against ‘‘half-breeds,’’ he warned against ‘‘further pursuing theprocess of separating these persons from the entirety of the people’’: ‘‘Imust declare, not from any kind of philosemitic tendencies, but simply out of religious and ethical feeling, that we Christians perceive this pol-icy of extermination conducted against Jewry to be a grievous injusticeand an ominous one for the German people.’’ ∑≤

In the terror that wartime had brought on civilians, Wurm saw divine‘‘retribution for that which has been done to the Jews’’: ‘‘The burning of the houses and churches, the splintering and crashing in the nights of bombings, the ight out of destroyed houses with a few belongings, thehelpless search for a place of refuge reminds the population in the mostdistressing way of what the Jews had to endure on earlier occasions.’’ ∑≥

Wurm’s letter provoked a warning from Lammers: a handwritten let-ter sent to the bishop by registered mail from Lammers’s quarters on thefront. ∑∂ In unmistakable language, Lammers called the bishop of Würt-temberg to reason, warning Wurm particularly about his letter on behalf of the Jews.∑∑ Although the Reich government had treated Wurm withextreme forbearance in the past years, Lammers noted that it could not,‘‘in the long run, tolerate statements like those in the aforementioned

letters’’: ‘‘I hereby warn you emphatically, and request that in the future you scrupulously stay within the boundaries established by your profes-sion and abstain from statements on general political matters. I urgently




205

advise you further to show the greatest restraint in your personal andprofessional conduct. I ask you to refrain from replying to this letter.’’ ∑∏

Wurm’s existence was now so seriously threatened that he kept silent.

One of his colleagues, church counsel Sautter, sent Lammers a letternoting the bishop’s services to the church and the state and requestingunderstanding for Wurm’s attempts to prevent an ‘‘excess’’ of injusticeand suffering. According to Sautter, Wurm had been at the point of requesting Lammers’s approval for a statement ‘‘intended to appeal toChristendom at home and abroad. . . . Because of your letter, such a step will naturally not be taken.’’ ∑π It is possible that this letter helped save Wurm’s life.

Toward the end of the war, Wurm again pressed for less abusive mea-sures against ‘‘half-breeds,’’ writing to Reich Governor Wilhelm Murr.Referring to individual cases in Württemberg, Wurm appealed to Murr’sconscience: ‘‘Can such harshness really be justied? . . . I do not know . . . whether there is any possibility of your taking any action here. But,

should you be empowered to do this, as the highest authority in ourregion, then I ask you to take steps. That would be a good deed.’’ ∑∫

It was Wurm’s nal impassioned attempt to intervene with the au-thorities—at a late hour.

the final confessional synods

The last three confessional synods considered the status of non-AryanChristians without addressing the general plight of the Jews. In Sep-tember 1942, the Confessional Synod of the Old Prussian Church Prov-ince of Brandenburg and Grenzmark met in Berlin-Lichterfelde. ∑Ω It wasfollowed by the fourth Silesian Confessional Synod (28–29 August 1943)and the nal Confessional Synod of the Old Prussian Union (16–17 Octo- ber 1943); both convened in Breslau. ∏≠

At the Brandenburg provincial synod, the treatment of non-AryanChristians was the rst topic on the agenda. The synod arrived at thefollowing resolution:

The exclusion of non-Aryan Christians from the community of thechurch violates the nature of the sacrament of holy baptism, contravenes the statements of Holy Scripture in Rom. 11 about Israel accord-ing to the esh, violates the community and unity of all Christians witnessed to by the Apostle Paul in Gal. 3:28, and infringes against thethird article of the Confession of Faith.




206

The division of the Evangelical Church into a true invisible churchand a visible corporation under public law contradicts the biblical doc-trine of the Holy Church.

As a corporation under public law, the Evangelical Church may notconsider itself bound to measures that contradict its nature as a Chris-tian church.

The exclusion of non-Aryan Christians from the community of thechurch contravenes Holy Scripture and the Confession and is therefore void under church law. We admonish pastors and congregations, for thesake of Christ, to maintain ecclesiastical communion with them [non-

Aryan Christians]. ∏∞

These words did not introduce new aspects to the discussion aboutnon-Aryan Christians that had begun in 1933; the point now was action,not discussion. This brief statement can be judged only in the context of a time when most voices on behalf of non-Aryan Christians had fallensilent. The authors of this appeal made it clear that the issue was the ex-clusion not just of individual non-Aryans but of all Christian non-Aryans. The members of the Brandenburg Synod saw that the ‘‘special regula-tions’’ sought by the state (and, in the meantime, by the EvangelicalChurch) were a Danaean gift that would one day wreak bitter revenge. ∏≤

The fourth and nal general confessional synod, which met in Breslauon 28–29 August 1943, referred to the Barmen Declaration’s rst three

theses in its resolution on the Old Testament and the people of Israel:It is . . . contrary to this confession if the church, in compliance with theracial faith of our time, believes that the continuity between the Oldand New Testaments can be abandoned, either completely or in part. . . .

Wherever the church succumbs to the temptation to be ashamed of the fact that God’s revelation was rst made to Israel, it denies the Lord

Jesus Christ.∏≥

The Breslau Synod was somewhat less outspoken. It did not mention Jews, non-Aryans, or even the people of Israel, but only ‘‘Israel.’’ TheBreslau meeting emphasized that the unity of the Old and New Testa-ments, and of the old and new Israel, showed that both religious commu-nities were affected by the current crisis. The battle against Israel meant

the old as well as the new Israel; both were under attack. The recognitionthat fate had brought Christians and Jews together was expressed in thesynod’s protest against the Nazi disregard for the Ten Commandments:




207

Wherever the church no longer dares to proclaim the Ten Command-ments in the face of the sins of its era, its preaching of the forgiveness of sin loses authority and credibility as well.

Wherever the church preaches God’s commandments only so far as itis certain of the approval of the earthly powers of its era, God’s claimupon the whole of our life is denied and God’s consolation in the for-giveness of all of our sins is withheld. ∏∂

The twelfth and last Confessional Synod of the Old Prussian Union (16–17 October 1943) adopted the Breslau Synod’s statement and wrote aninterpretation of the Fifth Commandment ∏∑ as well as a statement tothe congregations for Repentance Day. ∏∏ Clearly referring to the cruelty against Jews and non-Aryan Christians, point 8 stated:

The concept of killing also includes the indirect kind of murder whichtakes from the neighbor the room necessary for life so that he no longercan live, or which fails to save him from his deadly predicament. . . . Theone who destroys nascent life also kills. The concept of killing includesspiritual injury to the neighbor through words and ridicule, and every kind of defamation of the neighbor and disparagement of his person. Tothe concept of killing belongs the expropriation of food and clothing,the forcing of the neighbor from his social position, malicious joy, ha-tred, and thirst for revenge. God, however, wills that we esteem the lifeof our neighbor. For the sake of God’s will, this [life] is worth very much,even if it may be worth very little in the eyes of human beings. ∏π

This recalled the link between the commandment to love one’s neighbor and the commandment not to kill and acknowledged that fratricideis the ultimate violation of the commandment to love one’s neighbor.Points 17, 18, and 19 of the synod declaration stated:

His (the Christian’s) neighbor is always the one who is helpless and who

especially needs him, and this irrespective of race, Volk, and religion.For the life of all human beings belongs to God alone. The life of thepeople of Israel is holy to Him. Israel, certainly, has rejected the Christ of God, but it is not we human beings or even we Christians who are calledupon to punish Israel’s disbelief.

We owe our non-Aryan fellow Christians the witness of spiritual com-munion and brotherly love. To exclude them from the congregationcontravenes the third article of the Confession of Faith, the correctunderstanding of the sacrament of holy baptism, Gal. 3:28, and that which Rom. 9–11 teaches about Israel according to the esh. . . .




210

and perversion of His holy commandments. We often have kept silent, we have proclaimed the unconditional validity of God’s holy command-ments too little, too timidly, or not at all. . . . Therefore, we want to ask

God for forgiveness for all our complicity, and we do not want to ceaseeagerly hearing God’s holy commandments, obeying them, teachingthem joyously to our youth, and bearing public witness to them. π∑

After the war, the synod’s words would be echoed in the various con-fessions of guilt.

the freiburg circle memorandum

After the Kristallnacht, Constantin von Dietze, a Freiburg University pro-fessor of political economy and nance, founded the opposition groupthat subsequently became known as the Freiburg Circle. He was joined by two fellow economists, Walter Eucken and Adolf Lampe, and histo-rian Gerhard Ritter. As early as the end of 1938, the group had composeda memorandum, ‘‘Church and World.’’ π∏

Ritter later wrote that the group continued to meet until the end of the war. ‘‘Joined by Roman Catholic theologians such as Professor Wen-delin Rauch, later archbishop, [we] dealt with the Christian perspec-tive toward National Socialism and questions concerning the politicalorder in society.’’ ππ At the request of ecumenical leaders in Switzerland,Dietrich Bonhoeffer asked the group to draft a comprehensive memoran-dum ‘‘intended to serve German church leaders as the foundation for the world conference of churches after Hitler’s fall.’’ π∫

Gerhard Ritter drafted the main text of the memorandum. Appendix 4(on economic and social order) was drafted by the three national econo-mists, and appendix 5 (on the Jewish question) by von Dietze. Ritterand von Dietze were joined by two jurists, Erik Wolf (Freiburg) andFranz Böhm (Jena), who contributed the draft of appendix 1 (on the legalsystem).

The decisive meeting about the entire text took place secretly in No- vember 1942 at von Dietze’s home. Berlin Superintendent Otto Dibelius,the manufacturer Dr. Walter Bauer, πΩ Dr. Karl Goerdeler (former mayorof Leipzig and a member of the German resistance by that time), andPastor Helmut Thielicke (Stuttgart), on behalf of Bishop Wurm, also at-

tended. ∫≠ The group edited and expanded the various parts of the docu-ment; appendixes on church policy (written by Dibelius) and education were added.




211

The most signicant part of the memorandum for our discussion hereis appendix 5 (on the Jewish question). ∫∞ Much of it revealed the ten-sion between Christian precepts and racial thinking that permeated all

church discussions about the Aryan paragraph. Stressing the centrality of love of neighbor in the Christian message, for example, the Freiburgdocument noted that it was nonetheless

not incompatible with the community of faith if barriers remain between members of various races in daily life, as is the case in allChristian churches in the world. The task of Christian proclamation,

however, is to proclaim without ceasing that these differences are of secondary signicance; communion in Christ is of primary importance.

According to the teaching of Holy Scripture, the Christian is obligedto consider his neighbor all those who do not belong to the Christiancongregation, and to meet them in the spirit of love. . . . This obligationholds true with regard to people of other races. For the love of one’s ownVolk, however, the Christian must keep his eyes open to whether closecontact or even a mixing with other races might have damaging effectson body and soul. Still . . . he must always be mindful of the fact that theraces and peoples are created by God with their various natural tenden-cies and that they all . . . stand before God in the same way—namely, assinners—and yet, at the same time, are called into His grace. And if Godpunishes one people in his wrath, he does not thereby in any way give

other peoples the right to feel superior. Still less does he permit any people to persecute, to oppress, or even to exterminate another. For Godalone is judge of the nations.

It is the task of Christianity to bring all peoples to the Gospel. Thisduty also exists with respect to the Jewish people, whose decisive guilt isthat it resists the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, up to the present day. To accept Jews into the Christian community for other reasons, without

Christian faith having been awakened in their hearts, is a sin against thechurch. ∫≤

This passage evoked the traditional Christian preconceptions againstthe Jews. Two other passages of this appendix, however, broke new ground. The second part focused on the history of the Jewish community in European history and traced the development of anti-Semitism. It

acknowledged German complicity in prejudice against the Jews andtheir persecution, noting, ‘‘The National Socialists have attained a mas-sive following in Germany not least of all through the exploitation and




212

further provocation of anti-Semitic sentiments.’’ ∫≥ It condemned theNuremberg Laws and the Kristallnacht and noted:

During the war, the persecution of the Jews in the Reich, as well as inthe occupied territories, has taken on even greater proportions and farmore dreadful forms since 1939. These persecutions have unmistakably been at the will of the central authorities. They led not only to innumer-able forced evacuations, during which many Jews died; hundreds of thousands of human beings have been killed systematically merely be-cause of their Jewish ancestry. Whatever number of Jews has still re-

mained alive in Germany and in the occupied territories has been subjected to increasingly miserable living conditions, and, frequently, tointentional humiliations and torments. The full extent of such infa-mous deeds is hardly imaginable; in any case, it cannot be portrayedfully in objective facts or gures, since no agency has openly assumedresponsibility for them. ∫∂

The third part, on the possible political order of a post-Nazi Germany,recommended full reparation and restitution to the Jewish victims of Nazism, ‘‘so far as this is in any way humanly possible.’’ It also called for‘‘severe punishment for the crimes committed against the Jews’’:

Our people has an obligation to itself and in its responsibility beforeGod to call to account those individuals who have sullied its name with

blood and lth. Without restoration of law and justice, it can neitherachieve a benecial domestic order nor a fruitful life together withother peoples.

Reparation is impossible everywhere where human lives were de-stroyed or human health is broken. Even the sufferings caused by ban-ishment from home, family, position, and profession, and the inneragonies of those who have survived persecution and oppression, cannot be made good again. All the more must a just and appropriate indem-nication be granted in all cases of the loss of capital. ∫∑

Still, the group seemed to view the suffering of the Jews as part of thegeneral suffering among Germans during the war:

All sectors of the German people, after all, have sustained signicant

losses in their earlier standard of living as a consequence of NationalSocialist policy, the war, and its consequences. The injured Jews cannot be excluded from the general impoverishment that the war has im-




213

posed upon us. Their claims to indemnication should not be reducedout of stinginess or meanness; rather, for their own sake, in order not toendanger or to poison their future life together with us from the start, it

is necessary to award them no special economic advantages, and not toexempt them from the general conditions of the life of our people. ∫∏

None of these measures, the Freiburg memorandum stressed, ‘‘solvesthe Jewish question’’: ‘‘The existence of a numerically signicant body of Jews within a people simply constitutes a problem that must lead torecurrent difculties, if it is not subjected to a fundamental and large-

scale arrangement.’’ ∫π

And it was here that the Freiburg group, despite its recognition of theimmeasurable suffering Nazism had wrought among the Jews, was hin-dered by the prejudices of its own members:

There is unanimity that the Jews have a claim to the free practice of their religion, to an educational system suitable to their nature, to eco-nomic activity that enables a material existence commensurate withtheir efforts. But there is also unanimity about the fact that every statemust have the right to close its borders to returning Jewish emigrants if it considers this necessary for the sake of the entire Volk. Moreover,three possibilities for conditions in Germany are deemed worthy of discussion:

(a) The state, after revoking the Nuremberg Laws, renounces all specialregulations for the Jews, since the number of surviving Jews and thosereturning to Germany will not be so large that they still can be consid-ered a danger for the German Volkstum. The government’s task will be toensure that the reestablishment of the emigrated Jews in their old pro-fessions occurs with the necessary tact, so that anti-Semitic feelings are

not reawakened.(b) An international agreement on the rights and duties of the Jews iscreated which limits itself to general principles such as have just beenindicated (freedom of religion, freedom of education, economic free-dom). These principles would be binding for all states.

(c) The establishment of a detailed, international statute for the Jews which, perhaps, could have the following content:

1. In all the states where they are domiciled, the Jews have the statusof foreigners. They may not be treated worse than other foreigners. . . .




214

2. The representation of the entire body of Jews is formed by a su-preme council that, if possible, has its headquarters in a neutral coun-try and can be represented in any other country through authorized

representatives.3. All who belong to the Jewish confession, as well as those who belonged to this confession earlier but have not joined another reli-gious afliation, are considered Jews. If Jews convert to Christianity,then they remain members of the body of Jews, as long as they have not been naturalized by the state in their homeland.

4. Jews who apply for naturalization with well-founded reasons are to

be naturalized. . . . Naturalized Jews may not be subjected to any specialregulation. ∫∫

This contribution to the solution of the Jewish question could not pos-sibly have found the approval of the memorandum’s initiator, DietrichBonhoeffer, who never saw the nal edited version of the Freiburg docu-ment. ∫Ω Although Bonhoeffer initially viewed the Jewish question as a

problem of conversion, it never occurred to him to consider Judaism aracial phenomenon. Ω≠ Because it addressed Judaism as a racial phenom-enon, the Freiburg memorandum supported not only Christian anti- Judaism (‘‘the decisive guilt [ of Judaism] is that it resists up until the pres-ent day the revelation of God in Jesus Christ’’) but racial prejudice. It ishardly surprising that its ideas were not used in the postwar discussions

on the racial question in the World Council of Churches, as originally intended. More likely, they fell under the verdict of the 1948 World Coun-cil of Churches assembly in Amsterdam: ‘‘Often we have . . . confused theGospel with our own economic or national or racial interests.’’ Ω∞

It should be recalled that the Freiburg memorandum, in contrast toother documents, was intended not for publication but as a secret basisfor discussions after the collapse of Nazism. The members of the Freiburggroup did not have to heed the life-threatening tyranny of a totalitarianstate and, thus, did not need to write their memorandum strategically (as the Provisional Church Administration did in its 1936 memorandumto Hitler, for example). Forty years later, Helmut Thielicke, the youngestmember of the Freiburg Circle, expressed dismay at its ‘‘one-sidedness,’’ which he attributed to von Dietze. Its incorporation of Nazi racial ideol-

ogy, Thielicke observed, showed ‘‘a degree of dependence on the times which makes the inclusion of this appendix in the memorandum pain-fully embarrassing to me today.’’ Ω≤




216

guilt and promise with Judaism. It may no longer attempt to save itself from the attack directed against Israel. Rather, it must witness to thefact that, with Israel, the struggle is directed against it and its Lord Jesus

Christ Himself. Thus, the witness that the parable of the Good Samaritan requires of the church is not in any way suspended by the ‘‘Jewish question.’’ Thephenomenon of the Jews, in whom the prophetic prediction that ‘‘I willmake them . . . to be a curse, a terror, a hissing, and a reproach among allthe nations where I have driven them’’ (Jer. 29:18) is fullled. . . . Thechurch must interpret this phenomenon. . . . It [the church] thereby witnesses to those who govern that they can only be freed from thedemonism of their political ‘‘gospel’’ through faith in Jesus. . . .

The witness of the church against the persecution of the Jews inGermany is thus endowed with particular signicance, as an exampleof the Church’s necessary witness against every infringement of the TenCommandments by the state authority. Ω∑ It must warn the state in the

name of God—that is,not with political arguments . . . against oppressing‘‘the foreigner, the orphan, or the widow’’ (Jer. 7:6), and remind it of itsresponsibility for a justice within an orderly and public legal proce-dure, on the basis of humane laws. . . .

This witness must occur publicly. . . . What the German church hasdone up to now in this matter cannot be counted as such a witness,since it neither occurred publicly nor did justice to the duty of thepreacher in this matter.

. . . In addition to sympathy for the persecuted, we are motivated by our fear that the preaching ofce of our church might desire to secureits existence through silence, at the price of losing its authority andcredibility. And with this, all would be lost—with the church, our people would be lost as well. Ω∏

Two members of the group, Emil Höchstädter and Wilhelm Hengsten- berg, delivered the document to Meiser around Easter 1943. They lefttheir two-hour interview with Meiser depressed:

Meiser . . . listened to the two gentlemen for a long while; they read thememorandum to him. Then he said he could not proceed directly. Heregretted, of course, the terrible things that had occurred in Poland and

in the concentration camps. But if he would do something ofcially,then he would only be arrested and the Jews would not be helped. Onthe contrary, the persecution then would become even more intense. In




218

We live in an age no less fanatically pervaded by delusions and demonsthan the Middle Ages. Instead of the madness of witch hunts, the madness against the Jews celebrates its orgies in our supposedly ‘‘enlight-

ened’’ age. The madness against the Jews, which raged terribly duringthe Middle Ages, has entered its acute stage today. Here, the church, thecongregation of Jesus Christ, must confess. If it does not do so, it hasfailed, just as it did at the time of the persecutions of the witches. The blood of millions of butchered Jews, of men, women and children, criesto heaven today. The church is not permitted to keep silent. It is notpermitted to say that the regulation of the Jewish question is an affair of

the state. . . . Nor is the church permitted to say that the just punishmentfor the sins of the Jews has come to pass in the present time. . . . TheChristian cannot have an indifferent attitude on this question. There isno moderate Christian anti-Semitism. . . .

The objection that, without a ‘‘healthy’’ anti-Semitism, there would be the terrible danger of the Judaizing of the life of the Volk, is basedupon a faithless and purely secular view of things which ought to besomething that Christians have overcome. . . .

The church must live from love. . . . Woe to it if it does not do this! Woeto it if it becomes implicated in worldly outbursts of hate through keeping silent or though all sorts of dubious excuses! Woe to it if it adopts the words and slogans from the spheres of hate for itself. . . . Love knows nocompromise; love knows no bounds. It comes from the truth of faith! ∞≠∏

It was one of the nal Christian statements about ‘‘Christians and Jews.’’ Strictly speaking, of course, this theme did not yet exist assuch; only fteen years later did people begin discussing ‘‘Christians and Jews.’’ During the Third Reich, one spoke of ‘‘Christians and non-Aryans.’’ The Jews were characterized in negative terms: they were considered to be that which they were not, in a ‘‘racial’’ sense. The religious afliationof the one term was exchanged for the so-called racial afliation of theother.

After 1942, fearless individual initiatives like Höchstädter’s contrastedstrongly to the church’s generally bland statements. The statement to thecongregations by the Confessing Church of Old Prussia, marking thetenth anniversary of the Barmen Synod (dated Pentecost 1944), was a step

backward. ∞≠π Although ‘‘the goal that stood before the soul of the BarmenSynod could not be attained completely up to the present day,’’ the Prus-sian church still praised God for everything ‘‘that has been granted to our




219

church in connection with that Synod of Barmen. Because exhaustionand faintheartedness all too often have paralyzed the joyful confession toour Lord Jesus Christ,’’ Christians now had to ‘‘approach God in sincere

repentance.’’ Even after the war, such vague statements would character-ize the church’s ‘‘confessions of guilt’’ for years to come.



part four

The Legacy of the Church Struggle∞Ω∂∑–∑≠



223

The Kirchenkampf had ended; a new church was emerging from the ruinsand ashes left by the total collapse of the Nazi dictatorship. This exam-ination of the postwar era focuses primarily on those who spoke out before 1945: both those whose words were heeded and those whose state-ments were ignored. As with every inheritance, there were ghts aboutthe legacy of the church struggle. The early postwar period was marked by the claims of different groups to church leadership. In their attemptto come to terms with the past, church leaders searched for new theologi-cal understandings, and the German Evangelical Church produced sev-eral important confessions of guilt.

∞Ω

Confessions of Guilt

On Ascension Day 1945, two days after the Nazi surrender on 8 May,Bishop Wurm concluded a sermon with ‘‘a word to our people . . . inthe name of our Württemberg Protestant Church and as the spokesmanof the entire Confessing Church in Germany.’’ Wurm directed his com-ments primarily to the state, which had not listened to the churches’

warnings: ‘‘How much distress and suffering could have been avoided if those who had held leadership in Germany had used their power consci-entiously, justly, prudently. From the side of the two Christian churches,there was no shortage of attempts to remind the rulers of their respon-sibility to God and to human beings. But these admonitions either werenot noted or were rejected as interference in state affairs.’’ ∞

In his weekly letter of 15 August 1945, Bishop Marahrens shared the burdens on his conscience with the congregations of the regional churchof Hannover: ‘‘It weighs particularly heavily upon me—I have already said this several times—that the church did not nd the redemptive word in the rst storm that broke over the Jews of Germany. Howeverdivided from the Jews we may be in our beliefs and although a number of them may have brought severe harm upon our people, they ought not to

have been attacked in an inhuman fashion.’’ ≤

Marahrens’s words were an ambivalent expression of regret, at best;his anti-Semitism did not allow for more. Still, he raised tentative ques-



The Legacy of the Church Struggle

224

tions about the roots of the guilt that rested like a stumbling block ‘‘uponour path’’: ‘‘Were we struck dumb by our initial astonishment at theominous impending conict, or did we not see the true facts clearly

enough? In any case, it becomes evident that guilt lies upon our path andthat we cannot perform our work without living our lives on the basis of forgiveness.’’≥

With each month, the unimaginable scope of the murderous deedsdone to the Jews became clearer. In August 1945, church leaders calledtheir rst conference, with the goal of regathering their members into

a unied Evangelical Church in Germany. The Reich Council of Breth-ren met in Frankfurt from 21 to 24 August and drafted a ‘‘Word to thePastors’’:

Moral standards do not sufce to measure the magnitude of the guiltthat our people has brought upon itself. Newer and newer deeds of in-humanity become known. Many people still cannot believe that all of this is supposed to be true. In this abyss of our guilt, the body and soulof our people are mortally threatened.

We confess our guilt and submit ourselves to the burden of its con-sequences. ∂

This statement was not ratied by the Church Conference of Treysathat met a few days later (27–30 August 1945). The rst nationwide Ger-man Protestant meeting after the war, the Treysa conference was at-tended by representatives of most regional churches, the Committee forChurch Unity (founded by Bishop Wurm during the war), and the Con-fessing Church Reich Council of Brethren. Martin Niemöller was probably involved in drafting the Council of Brethren’s statement, as his subse-quent contribution to the Treysa meeting suggests. Speaking for theReich Council of Brethren, he argued:

I must strike a note here that undoubtedly has been neglected in all that we have heard up to now. Certainly, we stand before a state of chaos and,in many cases, we are already in the middle of it. But we must ask whathas brought us to this. Our distress is not due to the fact that we havelost the war. . . . Nor is our situation today primarily the fault of ourpeople and of the Nazis; how could they have followed a path that they

did not know; they simply believed, after all, that they were on the rightpath!—No, the real guilt rests with the church, for it alone knew thatthe path being taken would lead to ruin, and it did not warn our people;




225

it did not expose the injustice that occurred, or did so only when it wastoo late.

And here the Confessing Church bears a particularly large measure

of guilt, for it saw most clearly what was developing; it even spoke aboutit, and then became tired and feared men more than the living God. Andso the catastrophe has broken over us all and drawn us, with everyoneelse, into its turbulence. But we, the church, must beat our breast andconfess: my guilt, my guilt, my enormous guilt!—This is what we mustsay today to our people and to Christendom, that we do not stand beforethem and approach them as the pious and just; on the contrary, we are

guilty, and want to try in the future to recognize our duty correctly andto carry it out faithfully. . . .

What is at issue is not just that we, as a church, have done this or that wrongly in the past . . . but that, through disobedience, we fundamen-tally neglected the ofce with which we were charged and with thathave become guilty. ∑

Such a contribution remained an isolated high point in the generaldiscussion at the time. There was seldom any explicit mention of theinjustices and of the guilt toward the Jews. The church needed time toacknowledge exactly what had happened. What else could explain theinability of those present in Treysa to agree on a confession of guilt thatacknowledged the persecution of the Jews? But the majority was not

ready for such a step. The ‘‘Word to the Congregations’’ issued by the Treysa meeting contained no insights that would have led to a confes-sion of guilt such as Niemöller demanded. Instead, the document gavethe impression that the ‘‘intact’’ churches and their representatives hadnegotiated to achieve a statement acceptable to all and offensive to noone, a statement that did not go too far and avoided self-recrimination:

Amidst the failures of the church and the people, God granted men and women of all confessions, classes, and parties the power to rise upagainst injustice and arbitrariness, to suffer and to die. Where thechurch took its responsibility seriously, it summoned human beingsto observe the commandments of God, addressed breaches of law and wickedness, the guilt in the concentration camps, the mistreatmentand murder of Jews and the sick, and sought to prevent the seduction of the young. But it was driven back into the realm of the church, as into aprison. Our people were separated from the church. The public was nolonger allowed to hear its word; no one heard what it proclaimed. And




227

We know that we, with our people, have followed a false path that hasimplicated us, as a church, in the fate of the entire world. We ask thatGod might forgive us this guilt and, by forgiving, might let this guilt

become a new motor for the entire world. He can forgive all guilt that isconfessed to Him, and He forgives it in such a way that this forgivenguilt becomes a source of new power. . . .

We will bear this guilt for a long time to come. Nor do we want tominimize it, but help us so that the blessing is not lost because Chris-tians throughout the world perhaps believe: your confession of guiltcannot be taken very seriously. The men who are in the leadership of the

church desire that under no circumstances should the blessing of aconfession and the blessing of forgiveness be lost to our people and tothe community of nations. ∞≥

Bishop George Bell of Chichester tried to compensate for the failure tomention the people of Israel. ∞∂ Bell did not hesitate to mention the spe-cic sufferings caused by the war and raised the issue before the con-

sciences of all present, not just the Germans: ‘‘No human being can closehis mind to the enormous amount of cruelty that was done to the Jews,the displaced persons, and the political persons, the well-nigh millionsof slaves.’’∞∑

The Stuttgart Confession of Guilt echoed a confession of guilt pub-lished in the English monthly St. Martin’s Review in May 1933. Near the

conclusion of its appeal ‘‘to the Christians in Germany’’ to resist the anti- Jewish course of their country, the statement noted: ‘‘Fault in this mattercan be found in all of us. We must repent of the blindness and indolencethat we have shown in the peace of Versailles and afterward. How littlehave we encouraged that other Germany that wanted to shape its policy according to new principles. How negligent we were! How negligent weare at all times.’’ ∞∏

Two Protestant statements of support for the Stuttgart Confession of Guilt specically mentioned the persecution of the Jews. The Ecclesias-tical-Theological Society of Württemberg (founded by Pastor HermannDiem during the Third Reich) took an unparalleled position with itsconfession of 9 April 1946: ‘‘We succumbed despondently and idly as themembers of the people of Israel among us were dishonored, robbed,

tormented, and killed. We allowed the exclusion of our fellow Christians who originated from Israel . . . from the ofces of the church, even per-mitting the church to deny the baptism of Jews. We did not contest the




228

prohibition of the mission to the Jews. . . . We encouraged racial ar-rogance indirectly by issuing innumerable certicates of Aryan descent,and thus impaired our service to the Word of the Gospel.’’ ∞π

And, in July 1946, the rst Westphalian Provincial Synod after the warstated: ‘‘We did not raise our voice loudly enough against the extermina-tion of the Jews and other ostracized people.’’ ∞∫

Other statements, however, displayed no awareness of the Kirchen- kampf ’s implications for a new theological attitude toward the people of Israel. The Oldenburg Church Council sent a letter to its clergy ‘‘becauseof the obligation of the congregations toward the Jews.’’ The letter char-acterized the people of Israel, because of their ‘‘rejection of its Messiahsent by God for all nations,’’ as ‘‘an example of the divine judgment’’ thatlent legitimation and urgency to the Christian ‘‘mission to Israel.’’ Theonly mention of the Christian church’s guilt was the denial of ‘‘the signif-icance of baptism’’ by those Christians who had not accepted baptized Jews as fully Christian. The letter repeated the anti-Judaic attitudes thathad been so typical of the church (and so fatal for the Jews) during the1930s: ‘‘In the relationship to the Jews living in our midst, the twofoldfact has become relevant to us, that baptism and the Christian faithinvalidate the differences in origin and völkisch character . . . but also thatthe community we possess as members of the congregation of JesusChrist does not erase the signicance of these differences for public and

cultural life.’’∞Ω

Only in 1948 did the Reich Council of Brethren of the EvangelicalChurch of Germany make an explicit statement on the Jewish question(at the Darmstadt Synod on 8 April; this statement should not be con-fused with the better-known Darmstadt Declaration). Here the Councilof Brethren announced that it could not ‘‘keep silent any longer in thismatter that is a burden upon our heart.’’ ≤≠ Yet, like their Oldenburgcolleagues, they resumed a centuries-old theological pattern of thinking.‘‘By crucifying the Messiah, Israel rejected its election and intended pur-pose,’’ the Darmstadt statement declared. The election of Israel had beentransferred to the church, and, therefore, the Christian church waitedfor ‘‘the straying children of Israel to assume once again the place re-served for them by God.’’ ≤∞ Christ’s death and resurrection were the only

hope after Golgotha; because the Jews had rejected this, ‘‘God’s judg-ment . . . follows Israel up to the present day [as] a sign of His forbear-ance.’’≤≤ ‘‘That God does not let Himself be mocked is the mute sermon of




229

the Jewish fate, for us a warning and for the Jews an admonition as to whether they ought not turn to the One in whom alone they, too, havetheir salvation.’’

The words of the Darmstadt statement suggested that the guilt andremorse felt in Stuttgart had disappeared or been transformed into meresadness: ‘‘We are saddened by what happened in the past and by the factthat we have spoken no collective word about it.’’ But, though a con-fession of guilt can grow from the perception of undone deeds, only sad-ness ensues from the perception of unspoken words. In fact, the Darm-

stadt statement, ‘‘which was so innitely long awaited, leaves behind apainful disappointment.’’ ≤≥

The nal confession of guilt in this early postwar period was the state-ment drafted ‘‘overnight’’ by the General Synod of the EvangelicalChurch of Germany in Berlin-Weissensee (23–27 April 1950). The synodalagenda was the issue of postwar peace. Martin Niemöller and others sud-denly spoke up, however, announcing that a statement on the Jewishquestion could not be avoided, particularly since Jewish cemeteries were being desecrated during the early postwar period. The resulting state-ment differed from the Darmstadt document; it adopted neither the mis-sionary claim nor (despite Lilje’s efforts) a theology of rejection. ≤∂ Still,there was a striking lack of commitment, which Prof. Walter Künneth, who attended the synod, appraised as ‘‘wise restraint and caution’’: ≤∑

For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. (Rom. 11:32.)

We believe in the Lord and Savior who, as a man, is descended fromthe people of Israel.

We profess the church that is joined together into one body madefrom Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians, and whose peace is Jesus

Christ. We believe that God’s promise regarding Israel, his chosen people,

has remained in effect even after the crucixion of Jesus Christ. We state the fact that, through neglect and silence before the God of

compassion, we have become guilty of complicity in the crime that has been committed by persons from among our people against the Jews.

We warn all Christians against desiring to set God’s judgment uponus Germans over against that which we have done to the Jews; for, in judgment, God’s grace seeks the one who is repentant.

We ask all Christians to abjure every kind of anti-Semitism and to




230

resist it with all earnestness where it makes itself felt, and to meet Jewsand Jewish Christians in a spirit of fellowship. ≤∏

Guilt was still formulated only as ‘‘complicity.’’ The Weissensee state-ment spoke of ‘‘persons from among our people’’ rather than of Chris-tians who had become guilty.

There was not yet enough insight into the roots of anti-Semitism toallow more than a mention of its symptoms. The church had not yetacknowledged the idea that the original roots of anti-Semitism weretheological, not psychological or social.

≤≠

The Confessing Church’s Record under Nazism

The complex history of the Kirchenkampf clearly illustrates the difculty of speaking about ‘‘the’’ Confessing Church. It was decidedly hetero-

geneous. Its diversity provided great opportunities, since there was anabundance of creative thinkers who were prepared to resist; but it alsoincluded church leaders and laypeople who had no intention of oppos-ing the Nazi state. Throughout the Third Reich, the German EvangelicalChurch struggled to avoid a schism.

One source of this lack of unity was the different theological traditionsin the various regional churches. In 1931, the Congregational Newspaper for the Israelite Congregations of Württemberg made an interesting com-ment on the dangers of the Evangelical Church’s lack of unity. Asked where the strongest resistance to National Socialism and anti-Semitism would develop, the editors announced they expected nothing from thepolitical parties. They entertained certain hopes about Catholicism, which at that point appeared to have taken an early stand against Na-tional Socialism. On the other hand, not much could be expected fromProtestantism, since its division into individual regional churches didnot allow much hope for a unied ‘‘front.’’ ∞

The Württemberg paper’s insight had been proved correct. Now, be-fore the Protestant Church could shape its postwar future, it had to ex-amine its record and motives under National Socialism.

Confessing pastor Wilhelm Jannasch reected on the circumstancesthat had led to his church’s silence: ‘‘In the rst place, from the very beginning, nowhere near all the leading men, even within the German




231

Confessing Church, saw through the nature of the new state and theintentions of the new rulers, but frequently allowed themselves to be blinded by their rhetoric.’’ ≤ ‘‘For reasons of loyalty,’’ even the critics had

been willing to wait before they declared themselves for the one side orthe other. Finally, the church had been so preoccupied with the issues of the Kirchenkampf that ‘‘little time and energy remained to observe andfollow the general developments critically.’’ ≥

As early as 1936, Karl Barth had assessed the situation: ‘‘I think of thepersecution of the Jews, I think of all the terrible things that are meant by the words ‘concentration camp.’ . . . This silence can be understoodfrom the fact that in early 1933, when these evils were most agrantly evident, the people who represent and sustain the cause of the Confess-ing Church today were deluded by the ideology of National Socialism. In1933, whoever did not believe in Hitler’s mission was ostracized, even inthe ranks of the Confessing Church.’’ ∂ The church—to borrow an imageused by Karl Thieme—resembled a ‘‘caravan gone astray in the desert’’:‘‘One sought an oasis, an intellectual-spiritual space where one couldlive amidst the new circumstances.’’ ∑ From the beginning to the end,great fortitude was required of those who avoided deferring to the ty-rant. ‘‘The regime had calculated correctly when it concentrated uponforcing people to participate publicly; most people do not tolerate sayingno in their hearts to that which they confess and do with their mouths

and hands for very long.’’∏

The truth of Thieme’s observation was substantiated by the early state-ments that later haunted the church. In April 1933, several church lead-ers had announced: ‘‘A powerful national movement has seized and ex-alted our German Volk. . . . To this turning point in history, we speak agrateful Yes. God has granted this to us.’’ π

One day later, at a meeting of the Württemberg Pastors’ Association,Bishop Wurm had declared: ‘‘Our gratitude for a rescue from seriousdanger and our joy at the fact that the new state attacks problems regard-ing the health of the Volk . . . reconciles even our concern about whetherthe Gleichschaltung is occurring too rapidly.’’ ∫

But such support for the Nazi state had come not only from thechurch’s political ‘‘middle’’ but from the Confessing Church as well. On

15 October 1933, after Germany withdrew from the League of Nations,the Pastors’ Emergency League sent a telegram to Hitler: ‘‘We greet ourFührer in this decisive hour for Volk and Fatherland. We give thanks for




232

the manly deed and the clear word that preserves Germany’s honor. Inthe name of more than 2,500 Protestant pastors who are not members of the Faith Movement of German Christians, we solemnly pledge true alle-

giance and prayerful commemoration.’’Ω

Thus, the early period of the Kirchenkampf had been marked by intel-lectual confusion and mixed loyalties. Even the debate about the Aryanparagraph, which triggered the church struggle, was ‘‘a weak point inthe church of Christ,’’ in Martin Niemöller’s words. ∞≠ Even more tragic was the fact that the Aryan paragraph (as well as the loyalty oath to theFührer in 1938) had not been imposed on the church by state authorities but proposed by a group within the church, the German Christians.

In retrospect, it became clear that the Confessing Church had concen-trated too much on the confessional question. Almost without excep-tion, the theological opinions on the Aryan paragraph and the Jewishquestion epitomized a hopelessly bankrupt and insulated academic the-ology. It was a shocking picture of the theological and political situationin the church of that era: while Christians discussed Rom. 9–11 for ve years, seeking clarity on whether and how Christians were ‘‘allowed’’ tohelp Jews and non-Aryan Christians, the timetables for the deportationtrains were being prepared in Nazi headquarters. When a few individ-uals demanded that barricades be erected against the hatred, Karl Barthencouraged his followers ‘‘to let go with everything we’ve got’’ on theo-

logical principle.∞∞

As a result, many Confessing Church members were insufciently pre-pared, even after the Kristallnacht. Writing years later about the Novem- ber pogrom, Hugo Linck, a Confessing pastor from Königsberg, noted:‘‘What could the church do in this situation? Proclaim the Gospel. Itplaces all peoples under God’s judgment and brings the good news to all;it summons every human being before the omnipotent God and prom-ises to all the grace that forgives sins.’’ ∞≤ Decades after the end of the war,such sentences resembled empty husks.

In their postwar reections, veterans of the church struggled to ac-knowledge how their fears under Nazism had affected them. As the Kirchenkampf progressed, even more radical Confessing Christians hesi-tated to speak or act publicly. In 1958, one pastor admitted openly that

‘‘we Christians kept our mouths shut out of fear and cowardice,’’ andPastor Julius von Jan, who had paid for his Repentance Day sermon afterthe Kristallnacht with mistreatment and imprisonment, recalled, ‘‘We




233

all were afraid to touch this sensitive spot of the regime.’’ ∞≥ Some re-called the terrorist ‘‘poetry’’ of the Nazi era:

After the Olympics are done we’ll make mincemeat of the Confessing Church,then we’ll throw out the Jewsthen the Confessing Church will be through. ∞∂

In 1935 Pastor Hans Asmussen had warned against the anxiety that ledChristians to compromise all too easily:

One shouts ‘‘Confession,’’ but plays the role of tactician. . . . One callshimself ‘‘Brother,’’ but denies the mutuality of risk. One shouts ‘‘her-esy’’ against Ludwig Müller when this proves to be useful as propa-ganda, but says nothing if it is not opportune. I cannot go along withthis. . . . I don’t consider such a game to be right. . . .

What ought to be done? ‘‘Speak the Word, whether timely or inoppor-tune!’’ God has bound us to serve Him so that we should only witness to

His Word, which tolerates no compromise. ∞∑

But compromise and caution were widespread; this drove some to feelthat their church had deserted them. On 17 February 1940, Jochen Klep-per mentioned the Confessing Church in his diary:

A long seven-page letter from General Superintendent Dibelius, with

some very useful criticisms of my hymns along with much that divides[us] on the subject of the Confessing Church. They [Confessing Chris-tians] are, of course, anything but the ‘‘quiet ones in the land,’’ anything but the ‘‘genuine Christian congregation.’’ They really do not know what inescapable suffering . . . is. They have lost sight of the people andthe congregation. They erect walls, and amidst all the contentious con-fessing, the proclamation of the message of love is silent. This church

will never teach me to sing. ∞∏

The Stuttgart Confession of Guilt had focused on what had been leftundone, perhaps recognizing that sins of omission weigh more heavily than sins of commission. Yet there had also been occasions when toomuch had been said. These are also part of the overall picture of theConfessing Church and help explain why the church was silent on other

points. This was especially true during the war, when most Christians(even those otherwise critical of the Nazi regime) put loyalty to the Fa-therland above all else. An examination of sermons and prayers from the




234

war period reveals astonishing statements, such as Hanns Lilje’s 1941description of the ‘‘war as a spiritual achievement.’’ ∞π Years later, Liljecommented, ‘‘After Stalingrad, at the very latest, the wagon was rolling

toward the abyss, and most knew this, too. Those who didn’t know it canhardly plead ignorance or something similar as an excuse. It has to besupposed that they refused to believe it and didn’t want to know aboutit.’’∞∫ Perhaps Lilje, too, saw the true objectives of the war and his warlordclearly only after 1943.

Even the Confessing Church’s publication Junge Kirche occasionally emphasized its patriotism. After the failed assassination of Hitler on 8November 1939 in Munich, the paper gave thanks for the ‘‘extraordinary preservation of the Führer.’’ ∞Ω And, in 1940, every issue contained war-time ‘‘prayers of the church’’: ≤≠ ‘‘Bless and preserve with a strong arm ourFührer against all the dangers surrounding him, and give him, amidstthe onslaught of our enemies, good counsel and vigorous action at theproper time.’’ ‘‘Commend our Führer to your grace.’’ ≤∞ ‘‘Have thanks forall the successes of our weapons that you already have granted us.’’ ≤≤

After the Germans prevented the English landing in Norway, Junge Kirchenoted: ‘‘We gratefully cast our eyes upon the Führer and his Wehrmacht, who once again have averted danger at the proper moment.’’ ≤≥ These voices were also a part of the disharmonious chorus that had begun asthe Confessing Church and attempted to stand rm in a totalitarian

system.≤∂

Contemporary judgments might be more sympathetic were it not for thefact that, during the postwar years, the witnesses and their successorsattempted to rewrite their own history. Using apologetics and even con-cealing or withholding documentary material, they hoped to preserve atleast some of the idealized picture of the Confessing Church.

This was true of the so-called intact churches as well, which were so willing to compromise while skirting the edges of apparent noncom-promise. ≤∑ Karl Kupisch exposed their attempts to give a false pictureduring the postwar denazication proceedings. ≤∏ Particularly in theLutheran churches of Hannover, Württemberg, and Bavaria, the very leaders who had kept themselves politically ‘‘intact’’ during the Third

Reich later emphasized their ‘‘bitter struggle’’ and resistance. ≤π

Not surprisingly, those who had been German Christians also reinter-preted their records. ≤∫ The self-portrait offered by Dr. Christian Kinder,




235

former leader of the Reich Movement of German Christians (and, after1945, president of the Lutheran Church in Schleswig-Holstein), was a blatant attempt at self-justication. ≤Ω Kinder deliberately failed to men-

tion that he had signed the fatal letter of 17 December 1941 (which barred non-Aryan Christians from their churches) issued by the sevenregional churches that supported a national church. Instead, he rebukedthe churches of Lübeck and Mecklenburg for their solidarity with thestate and party—without acknowledging that he had signed a letter call-ing for the abolition of ‘‘every kind of community with Jewish Chris-tians’’ because he, too, was determined ‘‘to tolerate no inuence what-soever of the Jewish spirit on German religious and church life.’’ ≥≠

Kinder prefaced the third edition of his book by protesting the chargesagainst him concerning his ‘‘party membership or even because of possible decisions that are supposed to have been made out of submission tothe nsdap .’’≥∞ Still, he acknowledged that some church laws had beenpassed ‘‘under the inuence of the difcult situation created by the cir-cumstances of that time, to avoid otherwise inevitable conicts with thestate, the party, and at least 90 percent of the congregational members.’’≥≤ Kinder concluded that German Christian church policy had suc-ceeded in ‘‘the preservation of our regional church in its own histori-cally developed distinctive right and [in] achieving peaceful conditionsamidst the frictions of the church struggle, which Schleswig-Holstein

alone experienced among the regions of Germany at that time. And allthis without violations of law and personal affronts!’’ ≥≥

Even those who had been in the midst of the Kirchenkampf succumbedto the temptation to retouch their memories. Wilhelm Niemöller falsi-ed the past, perhaps in good faith, when he wrote that the church of Christ (that is, the Confessing Church) had ‘‘taken a rm position’’ on the Aryan paragraph. ≥∂ Nor did Heinrich Grüber’s retrospective view corre-spond to the situation described by the documents: ‘‘The ConfessingChurch had comprehended the distress and misery of these people [ that is, the non-Aryans] from the very beginning. Again and again, the synodsof the Confessing Church, and its pastors as well, took a position regard-ing the defamation of the Jews. What was lacking, however, was practicalassistance.’’ ≥∑

In no way, however, had the problems been recognized by ‘‘the’’ Con-fessing Church ‘‘from the very beginning.’’ Time and again, the syn-ods avoided addressing the situation of the Jews. For the ‘‘confessing’’




236

church, confession for its own sake was more important than solidarity with others who were persecuted. The question is why people like Grü- ber later reinterpreted their own disappointment. After Martin Albertz

and Marga Meusel delivered the rst blueprints for aid to the Jews atSteglitz, Grüber personally witnessed how many of his confessional col-leagues viewed these Jews as a burden and threat to the ConfessingChurch—and were all too happy to delegate the responsibility for non- Aryans to the Grüber ofce and its branches throughout the Reich.

The documents available establish that the Confessing Church re-garded the Jewish question as annoying and burdensome and treated itdilatorily. The church’s protracted handling of the Jewish question en-couraged the state’s persecution of the Jews. The Confessing Church’sdogmatic solutions to the Jewish question in 1939 and 1940 fostered theEvangelical Chancellery’s rigorous solution in 1941—and, ultimately,the Nazi state’s Final Solution.



237

notes

Abbreviations agk Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Kirchenkampfes

ekd Evangelische Kirche Deutschlands (until 1945, DeutscheEvangelische Kirche [dek ])

eza Evangelisches Zentralarchiv, Berlin

lkan-kku Landeskirchliches Archiv Nürnberg, Kirchenkampf

Unterlagen, Nuremberglkan-lkr Landeskirchliches Archiv Nürnberg, Landeskirchenrat,Nuremberg

lkavw Archiv der Evangelischen Kirche Westfalens, Bielefeld

wl The Wiener Library, London

introduction

1. Hans-Jochen Gamm, Judentumskunde: Eine Einführung (Munich, 1964),89.

2. Karl-Dietrich Bracher, Die Deutsche Diktatur: Entstehung, Struktur, Folgendes Nationalsozialismus (Cologne, 1969), 15.

3. Bracher, Die Deutsche Diktatur , 43ff.4. Bracher, Die Deutsche Diktatur , 44.5. Adolf Stoecker, Christlich-Sozial (Berlin, 1885), 168.6. Wilhelm Maurer, Kirche und Synagogue: Motive und Formen der Auseinan-

dersetzung der Kirche mit dem Judentum im Laufe der Geschichte (Stuttgart,1953), 63.

7. Adolf Stoecker, Reden und Aufsätze, ed. Reinhold Seeberg (Leipzig, 1913),149. See also Eberhard Bethge, ‘‘Adolf Stoecker und der kirchliche Anti-

semitismus,’’ in Am gegeben Ort: Aufsätze und Reden (Munich, 1979),202ff.

8. Stoecker, Reden und Aufsätze.9. Bracher, Die Deutsche Diktatur , 16.

10. Including Kaiser Wilhelm I. Letter, 16 January 1880, wl .11. Maurer, Kirche und Synagogue, 126.12. Maria Zelzer, Weg und Schicksal der Stuttgarter Juden: Sonderband der Ver-

öffentlichungen des Archivs der Stadt Stuttgart (Stuttgart, 1964), 100.13. Gamm, Judentumskunde, 92.14. See articles 4–6 of the nsdap party platform of February 1920, reprinted



Notes to Pages 3–6

238

in Wilhelm Niemöller, Wort und Tat im Kirchenkampf: Beiträge zur neuesten Kirchengeschichte (Munich, 1969), 271ff.

15. See Günther van Norden, Kirche in der Krise: Die Stellung der evangelischen

Kirche zum nationalsozialistischen Staat im Jahre 1933 (Düsseldorf, 1963),22ff. See also Doris Bergen, Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movement in the Third Reich (Chapel Hill, 1996).

16. Golo Mann, ‘‘Der Antisemitismus: Wurzeln, Wirkung, und Überwin-dung,’’ in Von Gestern zum Morgen, vol. 3 (Munich, 1960), 27ff.

17. Günther Dehn, Die alte Zeit—die vorigen Jahre: Lebenserinnerungen (Mu-nich, 1962), 211.

18. Dehn, Die alte Zeit , 294.19. The series was published by Pastor Gerhard Jasper, director of the school

of missions in Berlin.20. E. Schaeffer, ‘‘Die Judenfrage und wir,’’ Studienhefte zur Judenfrage 1

(Dresden, 1925), 2.21. H. Kircher, ‘‘Die völkische Bewegung und die Stellung des geistlichen

Amts zu ihr,’’ Studienhefte zur Judenfrage 1 (Dresden, 1925), 7.22. Klaus Scholder, The Churches and the Third Reich, vol. 1: Preliminary His-

tory and the Time of Illusions, 1918–1934 (Philadelphia, 1988), 116.23. Eduard Lamparter, Evangelische Kirche und Judentum: Ein Beitrag zu christ-

lichem Verständnis von Judentum und Antisemitismus (Stuttgart, 1928),57. See also Heinz Kremers, ed., Die Juden und Martin Luther—Martin Luther und die Juden: Geschichte, Wirkungsgeschichte, Herausforderung

(Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1985).24. Lamparter, Evangelische Kirche, 58.25. Lamparter, Evangelische Kirche, 60.26. Ino Arndt, Die Judenfrage im Lichte der evangelischen Sonntagsblätter von

1918–1933 (Dissertation, Tübingen, 1960).27. Arndt, Die Judenfrage, 219ff.28. Arndt, Die Judenfrage, 211.

29. Arndt, Die Judenfrage, 53.30. Arndt, Die Judenfrage, 214.31. Otto von Harling, ‘‘Antisemitisches in der christlichen Presse,’’ in Saat

auf Hoffnung, Zeitschrift für die Mission der Kirche an Israel (Leipzig, 1920),125.

32. Kurt Dietrich Schmidt, ed., Die Bekenntnisse und grundsätzlichen Äusser- ungen zur Kirchenfrage, 1933–1935 (Göttingen, 1934–36), vol. 1: Bekennt- nisse, 1933, 18–19.

33. Arndt, Die Judenfrage, 219.34. Arndt, Die Judenfrage, 219.




239

35. Arndt, Die Judenfrage, 220.36. Arndt, Die Judenfrage, 10, 220.37. Arndt, Die Judenfrage, 221.38. Adolf Köberle, ‘‘Die Judenfrage im Lichte der Christusfrage,’’

Christlicher Volksdienst , Ausgabe für Hessen, Hessen-Nassau und Waldeck 9 (1933), 39(30 September), lkavw .

39. Köberle, ‘‘Die Judenfrage.’’40. See Scholder, Churches and the Third Reich, 1:124ff.; and Robert P. Erick-

sen, Theologians under Hitler: Gerhard Kittel, Paul Althaus, and Emanuel Hirsch (New Haven, 1985).

41. Dated 2 May 1933; reprinted in Der Ruf (November 1933), 335. (Copy given to the author by Eberhard Bethge.)

the defamation of the jews

1. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1933), 136.2. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1933), 17.

1. church responses to early anti- jewish measures1. ‘‘Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Staat,’’ in Walter Hofer, Der

Nationalsozialismus: Dokumente, 1933–1945 (Frankfurt am Main, 1957),47. See also Scholder, Churches and the Third Reich, 1:254ff.

2. Hofer, Der Nationalsozialismus.3. Klepper, Unter dem Schatten deiner Flügel: Aus den Tagebüchern der Jahre

1932–1942, ed. Hildegard Klepper (Stuttgart, 1955), 45, 47.

4. One was a telegram from the Berlin Evangelical Consistory to the Reich Agency of German Jews in Berlin, dated 1 April 1933: ‘‘Following developments with greatest vigilance and hoping that boycott measuresnd their conclusion with this day.’’ eza , C 3/207.

5. Norden, Kirche in der Krise, 59. This account appears on p. 39 in theGerman edition.

6. Norden, Kirche in der Krise, 60.7. For Menn’s response, see Norden, Kirche in der Krise, 177–79.8. In Nachspiel (Berlin, 1928), 67, wl .9. ‘‘Condential’’ letter from the general superintendent of the Kurmark;

quoted in The Strange Case of Bishop Dibelius, 66, wl . This quotation ap-pears on p. 42 in the German edition.

10. Strange Case of Bishop Dibelius, 71.11. ‘‘Evangelischer Appell an Amerika.’’12. ‘‘Friede und Freude,’’ ofcial paper of the Evangelische Verein der Kaiser-

Wilhelm-Gedächtnis-Kirche, in a special edition of Evangelisches Blatt ,9 April 1933.




240

13. ‘‘Friede und Freude.’’14. Strange Case of Bishop Dibelius, 5.15. Strange Case of Bishop Dibelius, 7.

16. Letter to the author, 23 January 1965.17. In Norden, Kirche in der Krise, 177.18. Norden, Kirche in der Krise, 177.19. Scholder, Churches and the Third Reich, 1:267ff.20. Scholder, Churches and the Third Reich, 1:268.21. See Bruno Blau, Das Ausnahmerecht für die Juden in Deutschland, 1933–

1945, 2d ed. (Düsseldorf, 1954).

22. Walter Künneth, ‘‘Das Judenproblem und die Kirche,’’ in Die Nation vor Gott: Zur Botschaft der Kirche im Dritten Reich, 4th ed., ed. Walter Künnethand Helmut Schreiner (Berlin, 1934), 147ff.

23. Gamm, Judentumskunde, 93.24. Jüdische Rundschau, 26 May 1933, in Hans Lamm, Über die innere und

äussere Entwicklung des deutschen Judentums im Dritten Reich (Munich,1951), 184.

2. early church statements

1. ‘‘An das Gewissen der Evangelischen Kirche,’’ ekd Chancellery, Han-nover (C 2231/33, I 1361/33).

2. Reprinted in its entirety in Victoria Barnett, For the Soul of the People: Protestant Protest under Hitler (New York, 1992), 32.

3. See Sasse’s critique in ‘‘Kirchliche Zeitlage,’’ in Kirchliches Jahrbuch für die Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, 1932, ed. Hermann Sasse (Güters-loh, 1933), 2–4.

4. ‘‘An das Gewissen der Evangelischen Kirche,’’ eza 1/c 2/231–33, I1361/33.



7. Joachim Gauger, ed., Gotthard-Briefe (Elberfeld, undated), 77, 79; andSchmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1933), 145–46.

8. 5.1, ‘‘Juden I,’’lkavw .9. Many leading theologians supported the Young Reformation Move-

ment, whose members (including former submarine commander Mar-

tin Niemöller) came from the post–World War I theological generation.See Gauger, Gotthard-Brief , 77–79.

10. Gauger, Gotthard-Brief , 79.




241

11. W. Vischer, ‘‘Zur Judenfrage: Eine kurze biblische Erörterung der Ju-denfrage im Anschluss an die Leitsätze eines Vortrages über die Bedeut-ung des Alten Testaments,’’ Pastoraltheologie 29 (1933): 185–90. See also

Vischer, ‘‘Gott und Volk in der Bibel,’’ Evangelische Theologie 1 (1934): 24–48.12. Vischer, ‘‘Zur Judenfrage.’’13. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnis (1933), 163.14. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnis (1933), 35.15. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnis (1933), 65.16. ‘‘Das Erste,’’ Rhein-Mainischen Volkszeitung , 24 June 1933.

17. ‘‘Das Erste.’’18. ‘‘72 Leitsätze zur judenchristlichen Frage,’’ Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse

(1933), 66–73.19. ‘‘Bekenntnis westfälischer Pfarrer,’’ Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1933), 73–

77. See also Günter Brakelmann, ‘‘Die Bochumer Bekenntnisse des Jahres 1933,’’ in Das Unrechtsregime: Internationale Forschung über den Na- tionalsozialismus, ed. Ursula Büttner, vol. 1: Ideologie/Herrschaftssystem/ Wirkung in Europa (Hamburg, 1986), 291ff.; and Marikje Smid, Deutscher

Protestantismus und Judentum, 1932/1933, in Heidelberger Untersuchungenzu Widerstand, Judenverfolgung und Kirchenkampf im Dritten Reich, Bd. 2,ed. H. E. Tödt and E. A. Scharffenorth (Munich, 1990), 382ff.

20. Renate Maria Heydenreich, ‘‘Erklärungen aus der Evangelischen KircheDeutschlands und der Ökumene in der jüdischen Frage, 1932–1961:

Text und Kommentar, Überblick und Einleitung,’’ in Der ungekündigte Bund: Neue Begegnung von Juden und christlicher Gemeinde, ed. DietrichGoldschmidt and Hans-Joachim Kraus (Stuttgart, 1962), 198.

21. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1933), 66–73.

3. dietr ich bonhoeffer

1. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schriften, ed. Eberhard Bethge (Munich,

1958–59), 1:37. All citations from the Bethge biography refer to pagenumbers in the second English edition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000).

2. Two other prominent Confessing pastors, Helmut Gollwitzer and Hans- Joachim Iwand, were also sensitive to the plight of the Jews; Gollwitzer’sancée amd Iwand’s wife were ‘‘non-Aryan.’’ See Jürgen Seim, ‘‘Israelund die Juden im Leben und Werk Hans Joachim Iwands,’’ in Kremers, Die Juden und Martin Luther , 249ff.

3. Jacobi was pastor of the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche in Berlin anda leading voice within the Young Reformation Movement; with MartinNiemöller, he subsequently founded the Pastor’s Emergency League




242

in late 1933. See Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schriften, 2:44 n.1, 631; andBethge, ‘‘Dietrich Bonhoeffer und die Juden,’’ in Kremers, Die Juden und

Martin Luther , 221–27.

4. Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schriften, 2:51.5. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 273.6. Scholder describes ‘‘The Church and the Jewish Question’’ as ‘‘one of

the most illuminating and most signicant works produced duringthese years—politically as well as theologically’’ ( Churches and the Third Reich, 1:275).

7. Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schriften, 2:48.

8. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 276.9. ‘‘Die Kirche vor der Judenfrage,’’ Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schriften, 2:50.

See Jochen-Christoph Kaiser and Martin Greschat, eds., Der Holocaust und die Protestanten: Analysen einer Verstrickung (Frankfurt am Main,1988), 105.

10. Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schriften, 2:54–55; cf. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer ,415–16.

11. Notes taken by Pastor Wilhelm Jannasch, eza , File 264c, former archivesof the Kirchliche Hochschule, Berlin.

12. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 302. See also Bonhoeffer, GesammelteSchriften, 2:80–89; and Bethge, ‘‘Dietrich Bonhoeffer und die Juden,’’ inKremers, Die Juden und Martin Luther , 227–29.

13. Carsten Nicolaisen, Die Auseinandersetzungen um das Alte Testament im

Kirchenkampf 1933–1945 (Dissertation, Hamburg, 1966), 150ff.14. Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schriften, 2:80–89.15. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 303.16. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1933), 105ff.17. This is the rst mention of ‘‘brotherhood with the Jewish Christians.’’18. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 303–4.19. See Jørgen Glenthøj, ‘‘Dietrich Bonhoeffers Kampf gegen den Arierpara-

graphen,’’ Kirche in der Zeit 20 (1965): 491.20. Bonhoeffer to Karl Barth, 24 October 1933, in Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte

Schriften, 2:131.21. Bonhoeffer to Barth, 24 October 1933, in Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schrif-

ten, 2:132.22. Bonhoeffer to Barth, 24 October 1933, in Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schrif-

ten, 2:132.23. Wilhelm Niemöller, Kampf und Zeugnis der Bekennende Kirche (Bielefeld,

1948), 454. A more critical consensus has emerged since then.24. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 304–5.




244

19. Niemöller, Texte zur Geschichte des Pfarrernotbundes, 4.20. ‘‘Ergebnisse der Beratung in Essen am 11.9.1933,’’ Niemöller, Texte zur

Geschichte des Pfarrernotbundes, 20–22.

21. W. Niemöller, Die Evangelische Kirche im Dritten Reich: Handbuch des Kir- chenkampfes (Bielefeld, 1956), 378,eza , 50/828 and 50 z 20.22. Archiv der Bayerischen Landeskirche, lkan-kku Nr. 9/2.23. Reformed Church president Otto Koopmann to Westphalian Confessing

pastor Karl Lücking, 21 September 1933, lkavw .24. Koopmann to Lücking, 21 September 1933.25. Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schriften, 2:68.

26. Letter, ‘‘Bad Oeynhausen, 19 September 1933,’’ lkavw . The letter is un-signed; another document identies the author as President Koch (letterfrom Professor Rudolf Hermann, Greifswald, 23 September 1933).

27. No. 5, section 1 of the ‘‘Third Decree on the Implementation of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service from 6 May 1933,’’ Reichsgesetzblatt 1:245.

28. No. 5, section 1 of the ‘‘Third Decree on the Implementation of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service from 6 May 1933.’’

29. Letter, 23 September 1933, lkavw .30. For Koch’s background, see Wilhelm Niemöller, Karl Koch: Präses der

Bekenntnissynoden (Bethel, 1956).31. Cf. the more detailed description in the German edition, 69–73.32. See Niemöller, ‘‘Nach fünfundzwanzig Jahren,’’ Evangelische Theologie 18

(1958): 390.33. See Bethge’s comment on Knak, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 308.34. He added: ‘‘We conduct a mission to the Jews in order to win some of

the Jewish people for Christ, not in order to save the Jewish people as apeople.’’

35. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1933), 178.36. Here a note cites Acts 10:34–35 and Gal. 3:28.

37. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1933), 178.38. The Marburg professors conceded the state’s racial restrictions ‘‘out of

considerations of national politics’’ but strictly refused to acknowledgetheir relevance ‘‘in the realm of the church.’’

39. Here a note cites 1 Cor. 12:13.40. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1933), 178.41. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1933), 178.42. See Heydenreich, ‘‘Erklärungen aus der Evangelischen Kirche Deutsch-

lands,’’ in Goldschmidt and Kraus, Der ungekündigte Bund, 203.43. Werner Elert, ‘‘Jakob Böhmes Deutsches Christentum,’’ in Biblische Zeit-




245

und Streitfragen zur Aufklärung der Gebildeten, ed. F. Kropatschek (IX Se-rie, Berlin, 1914), 185ff.

44. Althaus, ‘‘Kirche und Volkstum,’’ in Evangelium und Leben: Gesammelte

Aufsätze (Gütersloh, 1927).45. Althaus, ‘‘Kirche und Volkstum,’’ 130ff.46. ‘‘Incomplete agreement on the practical demands,’’ the theological faculty

at Erlangen voted to support the opinion.47. The contrast between deutsch (German) and fremd (alien, or foreign) is a

leitmotiv throughout the Erlangen opinion.48. The opinion (in point 8) leaves decisions about the ‘‘ future admission of

men of Jewish origin’’ up to the church.49. The twenty-two signers are listed on p. 78 in the German edition.50. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1933), 190.51. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1933), 186–89.52. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1933), 186–89.53. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1933), 186–89.54. The Nazi regime even sent an observer to Wittenberg. Bethge, Dietrich

Bonhoeffer , 248.55. See Scholder, Churches and the Third Reich, 1:483–92.56. Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schriften, 1:75.57. Staewen, an early socialist and friend of Karl Barth’s, later joined the

Kaufmann circle, which helped Jews in Berlin.58. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 319.

59. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 319. See also Niemöller, Kampf und Zeugnis,64.60. Gauger, Gotthard-Briefe, 103.61. Lücking to Bodelschwingh, 23 October 1933, lkavw ; see also Eberhard

Klügel, Die lutherische Landeskirche Hannovers und ihr Bischof, 1933–1945(Berlin, 1964), 84.

62. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 320.

63. See Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 325.64. Bonhoeffer to Barth, 24 October 1933, in Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schrif-

ten, 2:132.65. See Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 323.

5. the pastors’ e mergency league

1. See Scholder, Churches and the Third Reich, 1:483ff.2. ‘‘Verpichtung der Gemeindeglieder,’’ newsletter no. 2 of the Pastors’

Emergency League, in Niemöller, Texte zur Geschichte, 31.3. ‘‘Verpichtung der Gemeindeglieder,’’ 32.




246

4. Niemöller, Der Pfarrernotbund: Geschichte einer kämpfenden Bruderschaft (Hamburg, 1973), 35.

5. Gauger, Gotthard-Briefe, 112.

6. Niemöller, Kampf und Zeugnis, 75.7. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1933), 80.8. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1933), 92.9. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1933), 171–72.

10. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1933), 173–74.11. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1933), 78.12. ‘‘Acht Artikel evangelischer Lehre,’’ in Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1933),

80–89. See also Die Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland und die Judenfrage,114.

13. Günter Gaus, Zur Person: Porträts in Frage und Antwort (Munich, 1965),114.

14. ‘‘Erklärung,’’ Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schriften, 2:70–71.15. Jürgen Schmidt, Martin Niemöller im Kirchenkampf (Hamburg, 1971), 96.16. Niemöller, Der Pfarrernotbund, 36; and Schmidt, Martin Niemöller , 93,

120.17. See also Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 306.18. ‘‘Sätze zur Arierfrage in der Kirche,’’ Junge Kirche 1 (1933): 269, 271.19. ‘‘Sätze zur Arierfrage in der Kirche,’’ 269, 271.20. ‘‘Das Bekenntnis der Väter und die Bekennende Gemeinde,’’ in Schmidt,

Die Bekenntnisse (1933), 105ff.

6. ecumenical developments

1. Armin Boyens, Kirchenkampf und Ökumene, 1933–1939: Darstellung und Dokumentation (Munich, 1969), 38–86.

2. eza , Best. 51 (formerly Ökumenisches Archiv, Akte H, Siegmund-Schultze).

3. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 267–68.

4. Niemöller, Die Evangelische Kirche im Dritten Reich, 376.5. eza , C I, Bd. I/II.6. eza , C I.7. W. Niemöller, Die Evangelische Kirche im Dritten Reich, 376–77.8. See Schreiber’s letter to Adolf Keller, 7 April 1933, eza , C I, Bd. I/II.9. Schreiber to Keller.

10. Schreiber to Keller.

11. eza , C I.12. eza , C I, Bd. I/II.13. eza , C I, Bd. I/II.




247

14. eza , C I, Bd. I/II.15. See Eino Murtorinne, Erzbishof Eidem zum Deutschen Kirchenkampf, 1933–

1945 (Schriften der Finnischen Gesellschaft für Missiologie und Öku-

menik, Bd. 15), Helsinki, 1968.16. Murtorinne, Erzbishof Eidem zum Deutschen Kirchenkampf , 21.17. Murtorinne, Erzbishof Eidem zum Deutschen Kirchenkampf , 21,87.18. On the activities of Birger Forell, named pastor of the Swedish Viktoria

Congregation in Berlin in 1929, see Harald von Koenigswald, Birger Forell: Leben und Werk in den Jahren 1933–1958 (Witten, 1962).

19. See Boyens, Kirchenkampf und Ökumene, 1933–1939, 295–99.

20. ‘‘Anlage 2: Die Kirche und die Judenfrage in Deutschland’’ and ‘‘Anlage3: Die evangelische Kirche und ihre Judenchristen,’’ in eza , C I, Bd. I/II.

21. ‘‘Das Judenproblem und die Kirche,’’ in Künneth and Schreiner, Die Na- tion vor Gott , 115–37.

22. See H. J. Barkenings, ‘‘Der Wahrheit verpichtet? Notwendige Anmer-kungen zu Walter Künneths Lebenserinnerungen,’’ in Allgemeine jü- dische Wochenzeitung 34, no. 38 (21 September 1979): 37, 39.

23. Barkenings, ‘‘Der Wahrheit verpichtet?’’ 37, 39.24. ‘‘Die evangelische Kirche und ihre Judenchristen,’’ Anlage 3, eza , C I.25. Pechmann left the church one year later, at the age of seventy-ve.

Gauger, Gotthard-Briefe, 74, 76, 178. See also Niemöller, ‘‘Ein Kirchenaus-tritt und vier Briefe,’’ Junge Kirche 10 (1949): 487ff.

26. The following quotations are from the protocol of the meeting, eza , C I.

27. Boyens, Kirchenkampf und Ökumene, 1933–1939, 299–308.28. Memorandum, ‘‘Die Evangelische Kirche und ihre Judenchristen,’’ An-lage 3, eza , C I, 5.

29. See Hofer, Der Nationalsozialismus, 284.30. ‘‘Anordnung der Parteileitung der nsdap vom 28. März 1933,’’ in Hofer,

Der Nationalsozialismus, 283.31. ‘‘Anordnung der Parteileitung der nsdap .’’

32. eza , ‘‘Die Evangelische Kirche und ihre Juden,’’ C I.33. Archives of the ekd -Kanzlei Hannover, D. 1/29, call number K. A. III, 306.34. Murtorinne, Erzbischof Eidem, 25.35. eza , 5/1.36. See John Conway, ‘‘Between Pacism and Patriotism—A Protestant Di-

lemma: The Case of Friedrich Siegmund-Schultze,’’ in Germans against Nazism: Nonconformity, Opposition, and Resistance in the Third Reich, ed.Francis R. Nicosia and Lawrence D. Stokes (Oxford: Berg, 1990), 87–115.

37. Andreas Lindt, George Bell/Alfons Koechlin: Briefwechsel, 1933–1954 (Zu-rich, 1969), 36.




248

38. Siegmund-Schultze, ‘‘Internationales Hilfskomitee für deutsche (evan-gelische, katholische und mosaische) Auswanderer jüdischer Abstam-mung,’’ 1933, in eza , Akte H (Siegmund-Schultze).

39. Armin Boyens, Kirchenkampf und Ökumene, 1939–1945: Darstellung und Dokumentation unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Quellen des Ökumen- ischen Rates der Kirchen (Munich, 1973), 48.

40. Siegmund-Schultze, ‘‘Internationales Hilfskomittee.’’41. Siegmund-Schultze, ‘‘Internationales Hilfskomittee,’’ 7.42. See Boyens, Kirchenkampf und Ökumene, 1939–1945, and Bethge, Dietrich

Bonhoeffer . See also Klemens von Klemperer, German Resistance against

Hitler: The Search for Allies Abroad, 1938–1945 (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1942); Willem A. Visser’t Hooft, Memoirs (Philadelphia: Westminster,1973); and Haim Genizi, American Apathy: The Plight of Christian Refugees from Nazism (Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1983).

43. eza , 51. See also Boyens, Kirchenkampf und Ökumene, 1933–1939, 76–84.44. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 312.45. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 435–36.46. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 312.47. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 312.48. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 313.49. See the Times report in eza , C I Bd. III/IV. See also Bell’s letters from

Müller, 23 October 1933, in Gauger, Gotthard-Briefe, 106.50. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 313.

51. On the Novi Sad and Soa meetings, see Boyens, Kirchenkampf und Öku- mene, 1933–1939, 59ff., 66ff., 311–12.52. In March 1933, Richter had helped Berlin Consistory vice-president

Burghart draft a telegram to foreign churches, warning against the‘‘Jews throughout the world’’ and the ‘‘Social Democrats’’ who werespreading anti-German propaganda. eza , Akte C 1, 1 and 2. Bethge, Die- trich Bonhoeffer , 190–93, gives a good overview of the German ecume-

nists from Berlin.53. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 449. Cf. Glenthøj, ‘‘Dietrich Bonhoeffers

Kampf,’’ 442–43, and Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schriften, 2:73.54. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 315.55. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 315.56. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 315.57. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 316–17.58. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 316–17. Junge Kirche was the publication of

the Confessing Church. It did not mention the Soa resolution.59. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 317. The Spiritual Ministry (Geistlichen




250

18. Licht und Leben, 12 March 1933, 173.19. Licht und Leben, 9 April 1933, 234.20. Licht und Leben, 18 June 1933, 392–93.

21. With the exception of an anthroposophical publication, Die Christenge- meinschaft . Stoll, Zeitschriftenpresse, 211.22. Stoll, Zeitschriftenpresse, 219.23. There was a prompt ofcial response to the Breslau paper’s action. The

regional president banned Evangelischer Ruf immediately, until furthernotice, ‘‘since the statements made in Number 42 of 14 October 1933,under the title ‘Vision,’ are designed to provoke discord in the popula-tion and abet subversive goals.’’ wl .

8. early confessional synods

1. Rudolf Bultmann, ‘‘Der Arierparagraph im Raume der Kirche,’’ in Die Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland und die Judenfrage, 78–97; Wobberminargued the German-Christian case in Deutsches Pfarrerblatt 37 (1933),

Nr. 44.2. Georg Merz, ‘‘Zur theologischen Erörterung des Arierparagraphen (ab-geschlossen am 11.11.1933),’’ in Die Evangelische Kirche in Deutschlandund die Judenfrage, 102.

3. Grundmann, a student of New Testament scholar Gerhard Kittel, was aGerman Christian leader in Saxony. He later helped establish the In-stitute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Inuence in German

Church Life. See Susannah Heschel, ‘‘Nazifying Christian Theology: Wal-ter Grundmann and the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jew-ish Inuence in German Church Life,’’ Church History 63 (December1994): 587–605.

4. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1934), 98ff.5. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1934), 195–99.

6. Junge Kirche 2 (1934): 494–98.7. Junge Kirche 2 (1934): 494–98.8. Junge Kirche 2 (1934): 501.9. See Die Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland und die Judenfrage, 135–36.

10. Gauger, Gotthard-Briefe, 102. See also Ericksen, Theologians under Hitler .11. Archiv der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für kirchliche Zeitgeschichte, Munich,

246 g .

12. W. Niemöller, Texte zur Geschichte, 28.13. Reich Minister Dr. Frick, ‘‘Die Rassenfrage in der deutschen Gesetzge-

bung,’’ Deutsche Juristenzeitung 39, Heft 1 (1 January 1934): col. 1–6.




251

14. ‘‘Bekenntnis der freien Kirchen-Synode,’’ delivered at the rst Free Re-formed synod and published in Karl Immer, Freie reformierte Synode zu Barmen-Gemarke am 3. und 4. Januar 1934: Vorträge, Verhandlungen und

Entschliessungen (Wuppertal, 1934), 20–33.15. ‘‘Bekenntnis der freien Kirchen-Synode.’’16. Reprinted in Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1934), 25.17. Dated February 1934; it remained in draft form. ‘‘Leitsätze des Pfarrer-

Notbundes,’’ in Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1934), 39.18. On the Barmen Theological Declaration and the discussion of it, see Nic-

olaisen, Der Weg nach Barmen: Die Entstehungsgeschichte der Theologischen Erklärung von 1934 (Neukirchen, 1985).

19. Karl Barth, Theologische Existenz heute, Heft 1, 24–25.20. Barth, Theologische Existenz heute, Heft 1, 24.21. Barth, Theologische Existenz heute, Heft 1, 39.22. Barth, Theologische Existenz heute, Heft 1.23. Barth, Theologische Existenz heute, Heft 1, 4.

24. Junge Kirche 2 (1934): 337; Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1934), 59; Gauger,Gotthard-Briefe, 167.25. See Niemöller, Kampf und Zeugnis, 108.26. Niemöller, Die Evangelische Kirche im Dritten Reich, 29.27. Gerhard Jasper, ‘‘Rasse und Mission,’’ Neue Allgemeine Missionszeitschrift

10 (1933): 203.28. Jasper, Die evangelische Kirche und die Judenchristen (Göttingen, 1934), 20.29. Jasper, Die evangelische Kirche und die Judenchristen, 19 n.55.30. Jasper, Die evangelische Kirche und die Judenchristen, 21.31. Jasper, Die evangelische Kirche und die Judenchristen, 28.32. Jasper is referring to Wilhelm Stapel’s statement that ‘‘The Jew who

believes in Christ is welcome, in God’s eyes, in a Christian church, but— who among us can ward off a shudder at the sight of him?’’ Jasper, Die

evangelische Kirche und die Judenchristen, 27.33. A renowned New Testament scholar and one of the most prominentacademic supporters of the German Christians.

34. Jasper, Die evangelische Kirche und die Judenchristen, 25.35. Jasper, Die evangelische Kirche und die Judenchristen, 26.36. ‘‘Juden II,’’ dated 1934,lkavw .37. See Barth, Theologische Existenz heute, Heft 1, 24–25.38. ‘‘Die Ziele der Deutschen Christen,’’ Schriftenreihe der Deutschen Christen

im Rheinland, 1934, Heft 5. This is evidence of the diversity among Ger-man Christians, even on the Jewish question. See also Kurt Meier, Die




252

Deutschen Christen: Das Bild einer Bewegung im Kirchenkampf des Dritten Reiches (Halle, 1964), 309.

39. ‘‘Die Ziele der Deutschen Christen.’’

40. The Aryan paragraph was reenacted on 21 August. See Junge Kirche 2(1934): 720–21.41. Gauger, Gotthard-Briefe, 143–45, 451, 497.42. Gauger, Gotthard-Briefe, 303.43. ‘‘Kampf um die Freiheit der ersten Christengemeinde,’’ dated 28 Janu-

ary 1935, lkavw .44. ‘‘Kampf um die Freiheit der ersten Christengemeinde.’’

45. ‘‘Grundsätzliche Stellungnahme der Vorläugen Leitung der DeutschenEvangelischen Kirche zur Frage des Neuheidentums,’’ in Schmidt, Die

Bekenntnisse (1935), 65–66. See also Gauger,Gotthard-Briefe, 461.46. Joachim Beckmann, ed., Kirchliches Jahrbuch für die Evangelische Kirche in

Deutschland, 1933–1944 (Gütersloh, 1948), 84–85.47. ‘‘Beschlüssen der Bekenntnissynode der Evangelischen Kirche der alt-

preussischen Union’’ (Dahlem, 4–5 March 1935), in Schmidt, Die Bekennt- nisse (1935), 70; Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 85–86.

48. Niemöller, Die Evangelische Kirche im Dritten Reich, 55.49. ‘‘Beschlüssen der Bekenntnissynode der Evangelischen Kirche der alt-

preussischen Union,’’ (Dahlem, 4–5 March 1935), in Schmidt, Die Be- kenntnisse (1935), 70.

50. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1935), 78ff.

51. Kurt Meier, ‘‘Kristallnacht und Kirche: Die Haltung der evangelischenKirche zur Judenpolitik des Faschismus,’’ in Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig 13 (1964), Gesellschafts- und Sprach- wissenschaftliche Reihe, Heft 1, ed. by the Rector of the Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig, 99.

52. Marcion had accused the church of a ‘‘Judaistic falsication.’’ See K. D.Schmidt, Grundriss der Kirchengeschichte, 71.

53. Reich Council of Brethren proclamation, dated 18 March 1935, in Her-melink, Kirche im Kampf , 253.

54. ‘‘Memorandum on the Responsibilities of the Confessing Church to theEvangelical Non-Aryans,’’ eza , 50/110, 636, 199.

55. ‘‘Memorandum on the Responsibilities of the Confessing Church to theEvangelical Non-Aryans.’’ Letter dated 24 May 1935. In speaking of ‘‘ourchurch’s obligation,’’ Albertz was referring to the pel pledge.

56. W. Niemöller, ed., Die Dritte Bekenntnissynode der Deutschen Evangelischen Kirche zu Augsburg: Texte, Dokumente, Berichte (Göttingen, 1969).

57. eza , 50/110, 636.




253

58. See the 12 December 1934 proclamation by the missionary and social welfare associations in Gauger, Gotthard-Briefe, 437.

59. eza , 50/110, 636.

60. See Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1933), 180.61. eza , 50/110.62. eza , Archives of the Berlin Kirchliche Hochschule, Nr. 101 B, Memoran-

dum, 2 September 1935.63. eza , Archives of the Berlin Kirchliche Hochschule, Nr. 101 B, Memoran-

dum, 2 September 1935.64. ‘‘Die Juden,’’ Die Stadtmission 58 (1935): 114–17.

65. ‘‘Juden II,’’lkavw . A handwritten note is attached, noting that the essay led to many attacks against its author.

66. In a letter to the Völkischer Beobachter , 7 August 1935.67. See Günther Harder, ‘‘Die kirchenleitende Tätigkeit des Brandenburg-

ischen Bruderrates,’’ in Zur Geschichte des Kirchenkampfes: Gesammelte Aufsätze, ed. Heinz Brunotte and Ernst Wolf, agk , Bd. 15 (Göttingen,1965), 202.

68. Gauger, Gotthard-Briefe, 522.69. ‘‘Staatsfeinde,’’ in Gauger, Gotthard-Briefe.70. Marga Meusel, ‘‘Zur Lage der deutschen Nichtarier’’ (On the situation of

the German non-Aryans), delivered to the synod by Martin Albertz. Re-printed in W. Niemöller, Die Synode zu Steglitz: Geschichte—Dokumente— Berichte, agk , Bd. 23 (Göttingen, 1972), 29–48.

71. See Niemöller, Die Synode zu Steglitz, 48–58.72. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1935), 130.73. ‘‘Proclamation to the Christians in Germany,’’ in the May 1933 English

monthly, St. Martin’s Review, eza , Archives of the ekd -Kanzlei, C I/Bd. I.74. Niemöller, Die Synode zu Steglitz, 44.75. Niemöller, Die Synode zu Steglitz, 46–48.

the isolation of the jews1. Bernard Lösener and Friedrich A. Knost, Die Nürnberger Gesetze über das

Reichsbürgerrecht und den Schutz des deutschen Blutes und der deutschen Ehre nebst den Durchführungsverordnungen sowie sämtlichen einschlägigen Bestimmungen (insbesondere über den Abstammungsnachweis) und denGebührenvorschriften (Berlin, 1936), 15–16.

2. See Gamm, Judentumskunde, 93. Der Stürmer was the Nazi newspaperedited by Julius Streicher.

3. Gerald Reitlinger, Die Endlösung. Ausrottung der Juden Europas, 1939–1945(Munich, 1964), 12.




255

6. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1935), 64.7. See Schmidt, Die Bekentnisse (1935), 124–25; and Niemoller, Die Dritte Be-

kenntnissynode, 78.

8. Niemöller, Die Evangelische Kirche im Dritten Reich, 383.9. Niemöller, Die Evangelische Kirche im Dritten Reich, 383.10. Conrmed by Helmut Baier (author of a dissertation, ‘‘Die Deutschen

Christen Bayerns’’) in a letter to the author, 27 September 1968.11. ‘‘Die evangelische Gemeinde und die Judenfrage,’’ Evangelisches Gemein-

deblatt Nürnberg (1926), no. 33–35. Reprinted in 1935 by Pastor Fr. W.Hopf ( Lutherisches Missionsjahrbuch 1935, 92).

12. Niemöller, Die Evangelische Kirche im Dritten Reich, 383.13. Niemöller, Kampf und Zeugnis, 285.14. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 486–87.15. Niemöller, Kampf und Zeugnis, 289; Die Synode zu Steglitz, 165.16. Die Synode zu Steglitz, 165, 168.17. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 649.18. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 651.19. See the synodal resolutions in Wilhelm Niesel, Um Verkündigung und

Ordnung der Kirche: Die Bekenntnissynoden der Evangelischen Kirche der altpreussischen Union, 1934–1943 (Bielefeld, 1949), 18–22, and Niemöller, DieSynode zu Steglitz, 370.

20. Karl Kupisch, ‘‘Die deutschen Landeskirchen im 19. und 20. Jahrhun-dert,’’ in Die Kirche in ihrer Geschichte: Ein Handbuch, ed. K. D. Schmidt and

E. Wolf (Göttingen, 1966), 4:168 n.10.21. Niemöller, Die Synode zu Steglitz, 370.22. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 489.23. Niemöller, Zwischen Dahlem und Steglitz, 129.24. See Niesel,Um Verkündigung und Ordnung , 20.25. Niemöller, Zwischen Dahlem und Steglitz, 130.26. Niemöller, Die Synode zu Steglitz, 30.

27. Niemöller, Die Synode zu Steglitz, 143ff.28. Niemöller, Die Synode zu Steglitz, 146.29. Niemöller, Die Synode zu Steglitz, 144.30. Niemöller, Die Synode zu Steglitz, 119–20.31. Niemöller, Die Synode zu Steglitz, 143.32. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 487.33. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 490.34. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 655.35. W. Niemöller, Zwischen Dahlem und Steglitz, 128.36. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 490.




256

37. ‘‘Sonderausgabe des Rundbriefes—Nur für Glieder der Bekenntnisge-meinden,’’ lkavw . This and the following paragraph appear on pp. 389–90 of the German edition.

38. ‘‘Sonderausgabe des Rundbriefes.’’39. ‘‘Sonderausgabe des Rundbriefes.’’40. W. Niemöller, Bekennende Kirche in Westfalen (Bielefeld, 1952), 97.

11. the jewish question after steglitz

1. ‘‘Beschlüsse der Ersten Synode der Bekennenden Evang.-Luth. KircheSachsens,’’ 28–29 September 1935, in Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1935),

224.2. ‘‘Denkschrift der vl der dek zur Frage des ev. Religionsunterrichts an

den Volks-, Mittel- und höheren Schulens,’’ in Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse(1935), 229–30.

3. ‘‘Zur deutschen Judengesetzgebung,’’ Christliche Welt , no. 21 (1 Novem- ber 1935).

4. ‘‘Zur deutschen Judengesetzgebung.’’5. See Scholder’s discussion of Pechmann, Churches and the Third Reich,

vol. 1.6. Friedrich Wilhelm Kantzenbach, Widerstand und Solidarität der Christen

in Deutschland, 1933–1945: Eine Dokumentation zum Kirchenkampf aus den Papieren des D. Wilhelm Freiherrn von Pechmann (Neustadt, 1971), 167–68.

7. Kantzenbach, Widerstand und Solidarität , 168.8. Bonhoeffer to Karl Barth, 24 October 1933. Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte

Schriften, 2:132.9. ‘‘Juden II,’’lkavw .

10. This refers to a church statement condemning the idolatry of ‘‘bloodand race,’’ the ‘‘Kundgebung des Landeskirchenvorstandes an die Ge-meinden der Landeskirche,’’ 28 March 1935, in Kirchliches Gesetz-und VerordnungsBlatt, Aurich. Bd. 8, 27ff.

11. Hermelink, Kirche im Kampf , 287.12. Hermelink, Kirche im Kampf , 287. See also 291–93.13. ‘‘Juden II,’’lkavw . Zoellner’s reply is not available.14. Hermelink, Kirche im Kampf , 298–300. Wurm’s statement, ‘‘Was heisst

heute auf dem Boden des Bekenntnisses stehen?’’ is dated 4 December1935; his late but fearless protests against the persecution during the war should also be recalled.

15. Adolf Schlatter, Wir Christen und die Juden (Velbert, 1930), 5.16. Schlatter, Wird der Jude über uns siegen? Ein Wort für die Weihnachtszeit

(Velbert, 1935).




257

17. Schlatter, Wird der Jude über uns siegen? 4.18. Schlatter, Wird der Jude über uns siegen? 19.19. Schlatter, Wird der Jude über uns siegen? 25.

20. wl .21. Wilhelm Halfmann, ‘‘Die Kirche und der Jude,’’ in Amt für Volksmission,Heft 11 (Breklum, 1936).

22. Halfmann, ‘‘Die Kirche und der Jude,’’ 3.23. Halfmann, ‘‘Die Kirche und der Jude,’’ 8.24. Halfmann, ‘‘Die Kirche und der Jude,’’ 13–14.25. Halfmann, ‘‘Die Kirche und der Jude,’’ 16–17.

26. The following paragraphs are on pp. 171ff. of the German edition.27. Gross, ‘‘Die Judenfrage im Lichte der Bibel,’’ in Hermelink, Kirche im

Kampf , 22–23.28. ‘‘Volk und Obrigkeit eine Gabe Gottes,’’ excerpted in Die Evangelische

Kirche in Deutschland und die Judenfrage, 109–13.29. Die Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland und die Judenfrage, 113.30. Die Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland und die Judenfrage, 111.31. Die Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland und die Judenfrage, 110.32. Niemöller, Die Synode zu Steglitz, 58.33. On the memorandum’s publication and its consequences, see Jürgen

Schmidt, Dokumente des Kirchenkampfes II: Die Zeit des Reichskirchenaus- schusses, 1935–1937, agk , Bd. 13–14 (Göttingen, 1964), 2:695–719, 1294–95; and Boyens, Kirchenkampf und Ökumene, 1933–1939.

34. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 130–35. See also MartinGreschat and R. Wohlrab, ‘‘ ‘Lasst Euch nicht vergiften’: Ein unbekann-ter Entwurf von Dietrich Bonhoeffer und Franz Hildebrandt fur einPngstwort an die Gemeinden aus dem Jahr 1936,’’ Evangelische The- ologie 48 (1988): 492ff.

35. See Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 135–39; Hermelink, Kirche im Kampf , 355–59. According to Wilhelm Jannasch’s papers, Otto

Dibelius drafted the pulpit proclamation. W. Niemöller, ‘‘Corrigendazur neuesten Kirchengeschichte,’’ Evangelische Theologie 28 (1968): 596–97, and W. Niemöller, Die Bekennende Kirche sagt Hitler die Wahrheit (Bielefeld, 1954), 32.

36. Alfred Rosenberg, Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts: Eine Wertung der seelisch-geistigen Gestaltenkämpfe unserer Zeit (Munich, 1933), and Protes- tantische Rompilger (Munich, 1935). This paragraph is on p. 161 in theGerman edition.

37. Hermelink, Kirche im Kampf , 419–20.38. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 215, 218ff.




258

39. From Kerrl’s speech on 13 February 1937, reprinted in Die Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland und die Judenfrage, 153. On the reasons for Zoell-ner’s failure, see Hermelink, Kirche im Kampf , 375.

40. From Kerrl’s speech on 13 February 1937, reprinted in Die Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland und die Judenfrage, 153.41. Hermelink, Kirche im Kampf , 382–83.42. Hermelink, Kirche im Kampf , 385–86.43. See Günther Heidtmann, ed., Hat die Kirche geschwiegen? Das öffentliche

Wort der Evangelischen Kirche aus den Jahren 1945–1957 (Berlin, 1958), 44–45; and Wilhelm Jannasch, Deutsche Kirchendokumente: Die Haltung der

Bekennenden Kirche im Dritten Reich (Zürich, 1946), 44ff.44. Jannasch, Deutsche Kirchendokumente, 46–47.45. Hermelink, Kirche im Kampf , 346, and Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch,

1933–1944, 131.46. Sasse, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1932, 2–3. See also van Norden, Kirche in der

Krise, 37–38.47. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 133; Hermelink, Kirche im

Kampf , 351–52.48. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 178. See also Niemöller, Die

Evangelische Kirche im Dritten Reich, 124, and Hermelink, Kirche im Kampf ,399ff.

49. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 186.50. Undated hectograph (probably 1937–38), ‘‘Die Kirche und Israel,’’ lkavw .

51. Deutsche Kirche, Heft 7 (5 April 1937), quoted in Wort und Tat, Zeitschrift für evangelische Wahrheit und kirchliche Verantwortung (Berlin, May 1937)(author unidentied).

52. Gerhard Kittel, ‘‘Das Urteil über die Rassenmischung im Judentum undin der biblischen Religion,’’ in Der Biologe, Monatsschrift des Biologenver- bandes 6 (1937): 342ff.

53. Kittel, ‘‘Das Urteil über die Rassenmischung,’’ 352.

54. ‘‘Luther und das Alte Testament,’’ Junge Kirche 5 (1937): 712–24.55. In the preceding passage, Schmidt quoted Luther’s famous anti-Jewish

texts from 1543, ‘‘On the Shem hamphoras’’ and ‘‘On the Jews and theirLies.’’ ‘‘Luther und das Alte Testament,’’ 712.

56. ‘‘Luther und das Alte Testament,’’ 713–14.57. Junge Kirche 5 (1937): 198.58. Junge Kirche 5 (1937): 330.59. Junge Kirche 5 (1937): 241.60. Junge Kirche 5 (1937): 242.61. Junge Kirche 5 (1937): 242.




259

62. Junge Kirche 5 (1937): 330.63. Junge Kirche 5 (1937): 328.64. See Theodor Dipper, Die Evangelische Bekenntnisgemeinschaft in Württem-

berg, 1933–1945: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Kirchenkampfes im Dritten Reich (Göttingen, 1966), 221.65. Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schriften, 2:48.

12. the evangelical church and its non-aryan members

1. Letter of 20 June 1933, Archiv des Kirchenrats Hamburg, B X e.2.7. Uhsa-del became a professor of practical theology in Tübingen after the war.

2. Letter of 20 June 1933, Archiv des Kirchenrats Hamburg, B X e.2.7.3. Letter of 21 June 1933, Archiv des Kirchenrats Hamburg.4. Letter of 4 April 1933, in Kurt Meier, Kirche und Judentum. Die Haltung der

evangelischen Kirche zur Judenpolitik des Dritten Reiches, agk 7 (Göttingen,1968), 93–94.

5. No. 12, March 1934, Landeskirchliches Archiv Nürnberg, lkan-kku Nr.

9/2.6. During the short-lived Munich revolution in spring 1919, Eisner hadordered the arrest of Pastor Hans Meiser (later bishop of the Bavarianregional church). See Gauger, Gotthard-Briefe, 327, 530.

7. ‘‘Juden II,’’lkavw .8. The quotations presumably come from the Gesamtausgabe der Werke

Martin Luthers, Weimar edition, 51, 195. Cf. the essay written during thesame period by church councillor Dr. Steinlein, ‘‘Luthers Stellung zurFrage der Judentaufe,’’ Junge Kirche 3 (1935): 842–46.

9. ‘‘Jüdische Trauung in Bielefeld,’’ Der Stürmer , no. 46 (1935). Cited in Nie-möller, Bekennende Kirche in Westfalen, 175.

10. Niemöller lists Confessing Church pastors who defended the ‘‘non- Aryans’’ in Bekennende Kirche in Westfalen, 258, and in Kampf und Zeugnis,

461–62.11. eza , Archives of the ekd -Kanzlei, Akte C 3/171. The letter is signed ‘‘By order, Hans v. Detten.’’

12. See Kurt Nowak, ‘‘Das Stigma der Rasse,’’ in Kaiser and Greschat, Der Holocaust und die Protestanten, 78–80.

13. Niemöller, Bekennende Kirche in Westfalen, 133.14. Archiv der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für kirchliche Zeitgeschichte, Munich

(copy of Akte 180 41 from the archives of the former Kirchliche Hoch-schule, Berlin).

15. Order of the Thuringian Landeskirchenrat, Eisenach, 30 November




260

1938. Cf. also the second decree of 17 December 1938 (both in the Archiv der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für kirchliche Zeitgeschichte, Munich).

16. Cf. Niemöller, Die Evangelische Kirche im Dritten Reich, 379.

17. ‘‘Taufe und Taufnahme,’’ four-page manuscript. Copy (from the archivesof the Kirchliche Hochschule, Berlin, Nr. 180 37) in Archiv der Arbeitsge-meinschaft für kirchliche Zeitgeschichte München.

18. Blau, Das Ausnahmerecht , 49–51.19. ‘‘Taufe und Taufnahme.’’20. See Ernst Sodeikat, ‘‘Die Verfolgung und der Widerstand der Evangel-

ische Kirche in Danzig,’’ in Brunotte and Wolf, Zur Geschichte des Kirchen-

kampfes, 164.21. In the Gossner Haus in Berlin-Friedenau, a center of the Confessing

Church, approximately sixty persons were baptized during the war.Hans Lokies, in ‘‘Das Haus: Erinnerung und Dank an Pfarrer Friedrich Wilhelm Otto,’’ an eight-page manuscript from 1967 (private collectionof Pastor Klara Hunsche, Berlin). Cf. Hans Lokies, ‘‘Vom Katechumenatder Kirche,’’ Sonderdruck aus Die Stunde der Kirche (Berlin, undated), 164.

22. In any case, Blau’s summary of the anti-Jewish laws does not mentionthis.

23. eza , formerly Archives of the ekd -Kanzlei Hannover, Akte C 3/171.24. Landeskirchliches Archiv Nürnberg, lkan-lkr : Plenary Session from

18 April 1939.25. Martin Rade, ‘‘Einäscherung einer getauften Jüdin in Berlin, Ostern

1938,’’ ‘‘Juden III,’’lkavw

.26. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 275–76.27. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 275–76.28. ‘‘Die Frage der ‘nichtarischen’ Kirchenmusiker,’’ in Oskar Söhngen,

Kämpfende Kirchenmusik: Die Bewährungsprobe der Evangelischen Kirchen-musik im Dritten Reich (Kassel, 1954), 50–56.

29. Letter of 3 July 1936, eza , former Archives of the ekd -Kanzlei Hannover;

copy to the Kirchenkanzlei III 1977, E.O. I 1352/36; a copy was also sent atthat time to the dek -Kanzlei, Berlin.

30. Junge Kirche 3 (1935): 832–33.31. Letter of 3 July 1936, eza , former Archives of the ekd -Kanzlei Hannover;

copy to the Kirchenkanzlei III 1977, E.O. I 1352/36.32. Letter of 3 July 1936, eza , former Archives of the ekd -Kanzlei Hannover;

copy to the Kirchenkanzlei III 1977, E.O. I 1352/36.33. Söhngen, Kämpfende Kirchenmusik, 51.34. According to the German Lexikon der Juden in Musik. Letter of 4 Novem-

ber 1941, eza , former Archives of the ekd -Kanzlei, B VII, Nr. 9.




262

57. Letter of 22 May 1936, in Schmidt, Dokumente des Kirchenkampfes, 2:671.58. eza , former Archives of the ekd -Kanzlei, Akte C 3/171. Provisional

Church Administration to the Berlin chief of police, letter signed by

Fritz Müller (Dahlem), 23 May 1936.59. Provisional Church Administration to the afliated regional churchgovernments and Councils of Brethren, 9 June 1936, in Schmidt, Doku- mente des Kirchenkampfes, 2:764.

60. eza , former Archives of the ekd -Kanzlei, E.O. II 6624/39. EvangelicalHigh Consistory to the Society, 2 August 1939.

61. The society informed the Provisional Church Administration of this in a

letter dated 13 February 1941. ‘‘Nichtarische Christen,’’ lkavw .62. Dated 8 May 1936. Niemöller, Die Evangelische Kirche im Dritten Reich, 379.63. Dated 17 June 1936. Niemöller, Die Evangelische Kirche im Dritten Reich,

379.64. See Klügel, Die lutherische Landeskirche, 83–84, 492.65. Klügel, Die lutherische Landeskirche, 492.66. Jørgen Glenthøj, ‘‘Hindenburg, Göring, und die evangelischen Kirchen-

führer: Ein Beitrag zur Beleuchtung des staatspolitischen Hinter-grundes der Kanzleraudienz am 25. Januar 1934,’’ in Brunotte and Wolf, Zur Geschichte des Kirchenkampfes, 87.

67. Karl Barth, 18 November 1934, to the chief pastor in Lübeck, Dr. Jan-nasch, who had been forced into retirement in April 1934 (Estate of Wilhelm Jannasch).

68. Swiss Evangelical Press Service, 16 September 1939.69. Klügel, Die lutherische Landeskirche. Klügel’s disregard of important andaccessible documentary material is criticized by W. Niemöller, ‘‘Corri-genda zur neuesten Kirchengeschichte,’’ Evangelische Theologie 28 (1968):594–95.

70. Klügel, Die lutherische Landeskirche, 492–93.71. Eberhard Bethge, ‘‘Exil,’’ Pastoral Theologie 57 (1968): 464.

72. Klügel, Die lutherische Landeskirche, 492.73. Klügel, Die lutherische Landeskirche, 491.74. Klügel, Die lutherische Landeskirche, 493.75. Lecture entitled ‘‘Die nichtarischen Christen und die Kirche,’’ by Paul

Leo, delivered in Frankfurt a/M. on 10 November 1937, 13 manuscriptpages. In ‘‘Juden III,’’ lkavw .

76. Leo, ‘‘Die nichtarischen Christen und die Kirche.’’77. These cases are reviewed in greater detail in the German edition, 209–

16.78. See Walter Reimann, ‘‘Nachruf für Pastor Benfey,’’ Junge Kirche 29 (1962):




263

482–85. Two important documents on the case are a letter of 25 July 1936 from Pastor Goethe to Wilhelm Niemöller (in lkavw ); and the re-port by an anonymous parishioner on the 8 November 1936 service in

the Göttingen St. Marien church ( eza , Akte 165 of the former archives of the Berlin Kirchliche Hochschule). I was able to study other documentsin the possession of Benfey’s daughter, Dr. Huckemann-Benfey, inGiessen.

79. See Goethe’s letter to W. Niemöller, 25 July 1936.80. Klügel, Die lutherische Landeskirche, 494.81. In ‘‘Juden I,’’lkavw . See also Niemoller, Bekennende Kirche in Westfalen,

260.82. Niemoller, Bekennende Kirche in Westfalen, 261.83. Niemoller, Bekennende Kirche in Westfalen, 262.

13. ecumenical responses

1. In Niemöller, ‘‘Vor fünfundzwanzig Jahren,’’ Evangelische Theologie 18(1958): 389.

2. See Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 383.3. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 385.4. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 312. For details on Heckel’s relations to the

Confessing Church, see Boyens, Kirchenkampf und Ökumene, 1939–1945,19ff.

5. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 385.6. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 383.7. 18–22 August 1935.8. In Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 479.9. 12–18 August 1935.

10. ‘‘Die Frage der christlichen Nichtarier.’’ This paper, comprising twelvemanuscript pages, is dated 9 August. eza , former Ökumenisches Archiv Soest, Akte H.

11. ‘‘Kirchliche Hilfsarbeit für die deutschen nichtarischen Christen,’’ a re-port by F. Siegmund-Schultze. Undated but obviously from January 1936.eza , former Ökumenische Archiv Soest, Akte N.

12. Siegmund-Schultze, ‘‘Kirchliche Hilfsarbeit für die deutschen nicht-arischen Christen.’’

13. Zoellner to Prof. Dr. Adolf Keller, Geneva, 20 January 1936; Zoellner toProf. Dr. Siegmund-Schultze, Zurich, 28 January 1936. eza , former Oku-menische Archiv Soest, Akte H.

14. Zoellner to Siegmund-Schultze, 28 January 1936, eza , former Okumen-ische Archiv Soest, Akte H.




264

15. Zoellner to Siegmund-Schultze, 28 January 1936, eza , former Okumen-ische Archiv Soest, Akte H.

16. The motion proposed by Bishop Bell of Chichester, accepted by the

Church Assembly of the Church of England on 20 November 1935, hadaroused Heckel’s indignation. The motion had expessed ‘‘sympathy with the Jewish people and those who are of Jewish descent in the suffer-ings that many of them in Germany must endure’’ and called on Chris-tians to protest the Nazi policies. Heckel responded with a letter toZoellner (27 November 1935) demanding that interference ‘‘in the inter-nal affairs of another church’’ not be permitted. eza , former Archives of

the ekd -Kanzlei, Akte C 3/170ff. See also Zoellner’s letter of 1 April 1936,to Bishop Bell, in George Bell and Alphons Koechlin, Briefwechsel, 1933–1954, ed. Andreas Lindt (Zurich, 1970), 247–52.

17. Protocol of the meeting of the International Church Relief Commissionfor German Refugees, held in London on 31 January 1936. eza , formerÖkumenische Archiv Soest, Akte H.

18. Siegmund-Schultze to Zoellner (draft), 28 February 1936, eza , formerÖkumenische Archiv Soest, Akte H.

19. See Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 546–51; Jørgen Glenthøj, ed., Dokumentezur Bonhoeffer-Forschung, 1928–1945 (Munich, 1968), 251; and Boyens, Kirchenkampf und Ökumene, 1933–1939, 146–47.

20. In Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 553. German text in Schmidt, Dokumentedes Kirchenkampfes, 2:989–90.

21. See Schmidt, Dokumente des Kirchenkampfes, 2:695–719; Bernhard Hein-rich Forck, ed., Und folget ihrem Glauben nach: Gedenkbuch für die Blut- zeugen der Bekennenden Kirche (Stuttgart, 1949), 11–22; Niemöller, Die

Bekennende Kirche sagt Hitler die Wahrheit .22. Glenthøj, Dokumente, 253.23. Schmidt, Dokumente des Kirchenkampfes, 2:990.24. Kupisch, Die deutschen Landeskirchen, 164.

25. Letter dated 19 September 1936, in Glenthøj, Dokumente, 254. SeeBethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 554.

26. A good overview of the conference is conveyed by the correspondence inBell and Koechlin, Briefwechsel, 1933–1954, 279–301.

27. See Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 552ff., esp. 560; also 480–82.28. This and the following are quoted from The Churches Survey Their Task:

The Report of the Conference at Oxford, July 1937, on Church, Community, andState, intro. J. H. Oldham, 2d ed. (London: Geo. Allen and Unwin, 1938),232–35.

29. See Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 642–43.




265

30. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 641–42. See also Boyens, Kirchenkampf undÖkumene, 1933–1939, 152–53.

31. Letter from the Church Foreign Ofce (signed by Wahl) to the Berlin

Evangelical Consistory, 19 October 1938. Archiv der Arbeitsgemein-schaft für Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte München, C3.25.32. Heckel to ‘‘My Führer,’’ 15 May 1939. It is preceded by a letter from the

Reich Minister for Church Affairs (Kerrl) to Heckel, 3 May 1939. Copies of this correspondence were given to the author by Prof. Dietrich Gold-schmidt, Berlin.

33. See Junge Kirche 4 (1936): 912–13.

34. Junge Kirche 4 (1936): 913.35. Letter dated 19 October 1938, made available to the author by Wilhelm

Niemöller.36. This was the German Lutheran Congregation of St. Georg in London,

where Bonhoeffer had served from 1933 to 1935 and where his friendHildebrandt now found a position.

37. Between 1933 and 1935, Bonhoeffer had viewed the care of the Germanrefugees as his primary task in this congregation. Bonhoeffer, Gesam- melte Schriften, 1:317.

38. Letter dated 22 October 1938. Copy given to the author by WilhelmNiemöller.

the ‘‘elimination’’ of the jews

1. Klepper, Unter dem Schatten, 676–77.2. On the Reichskristallnacht, see Hofer, Der Nationalsozialismus, 268–76,

294–97; Reitlinger, Die Endlösung , 13–23; Gamm, Judentumskunde, 94–96; Heinrich Uhlig, ‘‘9. November 1938,’’ in Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte,

Beilage zur Wochenzeitung Das Parliament , B 45/63, 6 November 1963, 1–17, and, from the same series, ‘‘Urkunden zur Judenpolitik des DrittenReiches: Dokumente zur Reischskristallnacht,’’ B 45/54, 10 November

1954; Heinz David Leuner, ‘‘Der 9. November und die Christenheit,’’ in Junge Kirche 35 (1968): 557–58; and Rita Thalmann and Emanuel Feiner-mann, Die Reichskristallnacht (Frankfurt am Main, 1987).

3. In Evian, only two of the smallest countries, Holland and Denmark,expressed any willingness to take refugees. The Nazi Völkischer Beobach- ter gloated, ‘‘No one wants to have that tribe. Most of the govermentrepresentatives refuse to open the gates of their own countries to a pack that caused Germany’s ruin.’’ References from Leuner, ‘‘Der 9. Novem- ber,’’ 558–59.

4. Blau, Ausnahmerecht , 52.




267

14. See Alphons Koechlin’s impressions in Bell and Koechlin, Briefwechsel,1933–1954, 377.

15. Dipper, Evangelische Bekenntnisgemeinschaft , 266.

16. Professor Günther Bornkamm, Heidelberg, kindly made the sermonavailable to me.17. This sentence is followed by remarks that Bornkamm himself deeply

regretted later; that, in the ‘‘fury of hate and the unrestrained savagery,’’he saw the ‘‘power of the curse’’ placed upon Israel because it rejectedChrist.

18. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 607–8.

19. See Angelika Gerlach-Praetorius, Die Kirche vor der Eidesfrage: Die Diskus- sion um den Pfarrereid im Dritten Reich (Göttingen, 1967).

20. See Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schriften, 4:450ff.21. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 606–7.22. Martin Sasse, Martin Luther über die Juden: Weg mit ihnen! (Freiburg,

1938). Original copy in possession of the author.23. Dipper, Evangelische Bekenntnisgemeinschaft , 268.24. Letter dated 6 December 1938. ‘‘Evangelischer Oberkirchenrat,’’ Nr.

A11268. Dek. Reg. C III2.eza , former les of the DEK Kanzlei, Hannover.25. Letter dated 6 December 1938. ‘‘Evangelischer Oberkirchenrat,’’ Nr.

A11268. Dek. Reg. C III2.eza , former les of the DEK Kanzlei, Hannover.26. Wurm was referring to the attacks on Württemberg parsonages.27. In Dipper, Evangelische Bekenntnisgemeinschaft , 268.

28. Meier, Kristallnacht , 100.29. Copy given the author by Pastor Richard Fischer, editor (with GerhardSchäfer) of Landesbischof D. Wurm und der nationalsozialistische Staat,1940–1945: Eine Dokumentation (Stuttgart, 1968).

30. In Gerlach-Praetorius, Die Kirche vor der Eidesfrage, 161 n.16.31. In Otto L. Elias, ‘‘Die evangelische Kirchenkampf und die Judenfrage,’’

Informationsblatt für die Gemeinden in den niederdeutschen lutherischen

Landeskirchen 10 (1961): 217.32. Lilje sent this report to the Church Foreign Ofce, with the request that

it be forwarded to the Reich Minister for Church Affairs. We quote froma copy of the report that Heckel sent to Kerrl on 11 January 1939, now inthe possession of Prof. Dietrich Goldschmidt, Berlin.

33. Lilje, report to the Church Foreign Ofce.34. On 27 September 1938, under the threat of imminent war (during the

Sudeten crisis), the Provisional Church Administration and the Councilof Brethren of the Old Prussian Union Church had drafted a prayer of repentance and intercession. In response, the ss accused the churches




268

of treason. Under pressure from the Reich Ministry of Churches, the‘‘intact churches’’ distanced themselves further from the ProvisionalChurch Administration and the Old Prussian Council of Brethren. Dur-

ing the same period, the Confessing Church was torn by the debateabout whether its pastors could take an oath of loyalty to the Führer.35. See Junge Kirche (19 November 1938): 931.36. W. Goebel, ‘‘Der Krieg mit dem Weltjudentum,’’ published in the

Deutsche Gemeinschaftsblatt 29. Cited in Rüppel, Die Gemeinschaftsbewe- gung , 269.

37. See Dipper, Evangelische Bekenntnisgemeinschaft , 269.

38. Dipper, Evangelische Bekenntnisgemeinschaft , 270.39. Dipper, Evangelische Bekenntnisgemeinschaft , 269–70.40. Wilhelm Vischer, ‘‘Wir Christen und die Juden,’’ in Juden, Christen, Ju-

denchristen: Ein Ruf an die Christenheit (Zollikon: Schweizer EvangelischeHilfswerk für die Bekennende Kirche in Deutschland, 1939), 24.

41. Karl Barth, ‘‘Die Kirche und die politische Frage von heute’’ (lecture heldin Wipkingen on 5 December 1938), in Juden, Christen, Judenchristen, 32–33.

42. The Grüber ofce, with its afliate ofces throughout Germany. SeeHartmut Ludwig, ‘‘Zur Geschichte des Büros Pfarrer Grüber,’’ in Beiträgezur Berliner Kirchengeschichte, ed. G. Wirth (Berlin, 1987).

43. Karl Barth, ‘‘Die Bekennende Kirche in Deutschland im Jahre 1938/39,’’in Theologische Existenz heute, Heft 49 (1956): 59.

44. Zelzer, Weg und Schicksal, 157.45. Lamm, Über die innere und äussere Entwicklung , 209.46. In Leonard Baker, Days of Sorrow and Pain: Leo Baeck and the Berlin Jews

(New York: Macmillan, 1978), 159.47. Baker, Days of Sorrow and Pain, 170.48. See Deeg, Die Judengesetze Grossdeutschlands, 95–96.49. See, e.g., Bethge, ‘‘Exil,’’ Pastoral Theologie 57 (1968): 474.

50. Cf. the following gures: ‘‘From 1933 to the beginning of 1938, approxi-mately 140,000 Jews left the Reich’’ (in Enno Meyer, Juden und Juden- feinde: Einführung in die Geschichte der Juden von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart [Darmstadt, 1966], 79); ‘‘Up until the spring of 1939, approx-imately half the 500,000 Jews who had lived in Germany in 1933 emi-grated’’ (in Gamm, Judentumskunde, 94).

51. Ronald Jasper, George Bell: Bishop of Chichester (London: Oxford University Press, 1967), 137–43.

52. Jasper, George Bell, 140, 143.53. Meyer, Juden und Judenfeinde, 79.




269

54. Meyer, Juden und Judenfeinde, 80.55. See Gamm, Judentumskunde, 94.56. Klepper, Unter dem Schatten, 705. Entry dated 29 December 1938.

57. Klepper, Unter dem Schatten, 704. Entry dated 27 December 1938.58. Bonhoeffer, for example, had taken in such persecuted persons in Fin-kenwalde since 1936 and helped them emigrate. See Bethge, ‘‘Exil,’’ 473.

59. Bethge, ‘‘Exil,’’ 463.60. Bethge, ‘‘Exil,’’ 463.61. ‘‘Ordnung, betreffend die Auswanderung der nichtarischen oder nicht-

arisch versippten Pfarrer, Hilfsprediger und in der Ausbildung begrif-

fenen Theologen.’’ Files of the Spiritual Administration of the ChurchProvince of Westphalia, in the Archiv der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für kirch-liche Zeitgeschichte München. This information appears on 266 n.25 inthe German edition.

62. A partial list of the names and subsequent fates of the non-Aryan pastorsis in the German edition, 254–55.

63. Bethge speaks of forty pastors ( Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 639); Gerhard Niemöl-ler cites thirty-four ( Die erste Bekenntnissynode der Deutschen Evangelischen Kirche zu Barmen, I. Geschichte, Kritik und Bedeutung der Synode undihrer Theologischen Erklärung; II. Text, Dokumente, Berichte [Göttingen,1959], 259). In private correspondence with the author in 1985, Majer-Leonhard (Jewish-Christian Alliance in Germany, Inc., German branchof the International Hebrew Christian Alliance, Stuttgart) named seven-

teen additional pastors, probably most of whom emigrated because of their ‘‘non-Aryan’’ wives (list in possession of the author).

15. relief work

1. Little support for Jewish Christians could have been expected as long asMarahrens chaired the Provisional Church Administration. See Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 649.

2. See Bell and Koechlin, Briefwechsel, 1933–1954, 377.3. Die Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland und die Judenfrage, 151.4. ‘‘Die Bekennende Kirche und die Judenfrage,’’ eza , Archives of the Kirch-

liche Hochschule, Berlin, Nr. 207 49.5. ‘‘Die Bekennende Kirche und die Judenfrage.’’6. See Hartmut Ludwig, Die Opfer unter dem Rad verbinden (Dissertation,

Humboldt University, 1988).7. Heinrich Grüber, An der Stechbahn: Erlebnisse und Berichte aus dem Büro

Grüber in den Jahren der Verfolgung (Berlin, 1957), 9. See also HeinrichGrüber, Zeuge pro Israel (Berlin, 1963).




270

8. See Grüber’s letter to Hermann Hesse, 19 August 1938, ‘‘Hesse,’’ lkavw ;and Die Evangelische Kirche und die Judenfrage, 158.

9. See a letter dated 2 December 1938, eza , former Archives of the ekd -

Kanzlei, III 71/39.10. Kurtz stayed in Berlin with his ‘‘non-Aryan’’ wife until the end of the warand went to London only afterward.

11. See Grüber’s letter dated 2 December 1938, eza , former Archiv der ekd

Kanzlei, III 71/39.12. Grüber’s letter of 2 December 1938.13. Grüber to the Berlin Evangelical Consistory, 11 September 1939, in

Meier, Kirche und Judentum, 110–11.14. Klügel, Die lutherische Landeskirche, 497.15. Freudenberg had served in the German government Foreign Ofce and

had been an ‘‘illegal’’ candidate in the Confessing Church (see Nie-möller, Kampf und Zeugnis, 462). Because of his non-Aryan heritage,Freudenberg was forced to emigrate in early 1939.

16. Niemöller, Die Evangelische Kirche in Dritten Reich, 387.17. Archiv der Landeskirchenamt Hamburg, Akte B XVI a 249.18. Reichsgesetzblatt , no. 118 (6 July 1939): 1097.19. Reitlinger, Die Endlösung , 32.20. Grüber, An der Stechbahn, 19.21. Grüber, An der Stechbahn, 20.22. Letter dated 25 July 1939 to the individual church governments and

regional Councils of Brethren within the German Evangelical Church.lkavw , ‘‘Hesse.’’23. Landeskirchliches Archiv Nürnberg, lkan-lkr , Plenary Session of the

Landeskirchenrat from 28 September 1938.24. Amtstagebuch Meiser, Landeskirchenliches Archiv Nürnberg, entries

dated 1 February 1939 and 3 July 1940. See also Ludwig, Die Opfer unter dem Rad, 63ff.

25. Heinrich Schmid, Apokalyptisches Wetterleuchten: Ein Beitrag der Evange- lischen Kirche zum Kampf im Dritten Reich (Munich, 1947), 390.

26. A novelist who had just begun to enjoy literary success at the onset of the Third Reich, Jochen Klepper had married an older Jewish widow.

27. Klepper, Unter dem Schatten, 851. Entry of 17 February 1940.28. Klepper, Unter dem Schatten, 851. Cf. 851–68.29. Klepper, Unter dem Schatten, 862. Entry of 20 March 1940.30. A more detailed portrayal of these efforts, based on Klepper’s diary en-

tries from the years 1941 and 1942, is given in the German edition of this book, 268–69.




271

31. Grüber, An der Stechbahn, 37ff.32. Sylten was a ‘‘half-breed’’ who had been suspended from the ministry for

that reason in Thuringia. See Grüber, ‘‘Werner Sylten zum Gedächtnis,’’

in An der Stechbahn, 76.33. Evangelical High Consistory le memorandum, 18 January 1941; re-printed in Meier, Kirche und Judentum, 112–13.

34. Evangelical High Consistory memorandum of 6 March 1941; reprintedin Meier, Kirche und Judentum, 113.

35. Forck, Und folget ihrem Glauben nach, 9. Grüber gives the date as 26 Au-gust (‘‘Werner Sylten zum Gedächtnis,’’ in An der Stechbahn, 73).

36. Grüber, An der Stechbahn, 77. See also Die Evangelische Kirche in Deutsch- land und die Judenfrage, 187.

37. Meier, Kirche und Judentum, 38.38. See Grüber, An der Stechbahn, 86.39. Zipfel, Kirchenkampf in Deutschland, 221. See also the contribution by

Helene Jacobs in Kurt R. Grossmann, Die unbesungenen Helden: Zeugnisseder Menschlichkeit aus Deutschlands dunklen Tagen (Hamburg, 1964), 11–16, and the description of the group’s resistance in Barnett, For the Soulof the People, 150–51, 186–87.

40. See Die Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland und die Judenfrage, 187. Formore information about some of these women, see Barnett, For the Soulof the People, 74–77, 161–76; and Theodore Thomas, Women against Hitler (Westport ct , 1995).

41. The Württemberg Society was founded by Pastor Hermann Diem to rep-resent the more radical wing of the Confessing Church within the Wurt-temberg Landeskirche.

42. See Max Krakauer, Lichter im Dunkel (Stuttgart, 1959), and Zelzer, Weg und Schicksal, 263–64.

43. Letter of 19 February 1965 from Pastor Kurt Müller’s widow to the author.44. Hugo Linck, Der Kirchenkampf in Ostpreussen, 1933–1945: Geschichte und

Dokumentation (Munich, 1968), 246.45. Reprinted in Léon Poliakov and Josef Wulf, eds., Das Dritte Reich und die

Juden: Dokumente und Aufsätze (Berlin, 1955), 439.46. Die Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland und die Judenfrage, 187.47. eza 1/c 3/173.48. eza 1/c 3/173.49. eza 1/c 3/173. Condential letter of 15 December 1933, Akte C 3/173.50. eza 1/c 3/173. See Themel’s letter to the ‘‘Reich and Prussian Ministry

for Science, Education, and People’s Education,’’ 28 February 1935, inthe same archival le.




272

51. eza 1/c 3/173. Letter from the Unity of Brethren to the German Evangeli-cal Church, 31 January 1936.

52. eza 1/c 3/173. Letter from the Unity of Brethren to the German Evangeli-

cal Church, 27 February 1936.53. Lamm, Innere und Äussere Entwicklung , 324–25, 330ff. Lamm here relieson the following sources: Führer durch die jüdische Gemeindeverwaltung und Wohlfahrtsplege (Berlin, 1932) and Schockenalmanach auf das Jahr 5699 (Berlin, 1938).

54. Law no. e II e 1564, in Deutsche Wissenschaft, Erziehung und Volksbildung ,346.

55. eza 50/hv 2, Bd. 1 and 50/616, letter dated 12 August 1937. This letter isthe source of the quotations in this and the following paragraph.

56. eza 50/hv 2, Bd. 1 and 50/616, letter dated 12 August 1937.57. eza 50/hv 2, Bd. 1 and 50/616, letter dated 12 August 1937.58. eza 50/hv 2, Bd. 1 and 50/616, letter dated 12 August 1937.59. Letter to the Reich and Prussian Minister for Science, Education, and

People’s Education, 30 November 1937. Archiv der Arbeitsgemeinschaftfür Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte München.

60. Archiv der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte München.61. A Provisional Church Administration letter to the Council of the Evan-

gelical Lutheran Church of Germany on 21 January 1938 stated that theguidelines ‘‘have found the approval of the minister.’’ Archiv der Arbeits-gemeinschaft für Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte München.

62. Letter from Martin Albertz to Reich Education Minister, 12 January 1938. Archiv der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Kirchliche ZeitgeschichteMünchen.

63. Letter of 11 March 1938, in response to a letter of 17 February 1938 fromthe Provisional Church Administration, signed by Dr. Fleisch. Archiv der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte München.

64. Gerda Drewes and Eva Kochanski, eds., Heimliche Hilfe: Bericht über die

Hilfe an Rasseverfolgten (Lahr, 1961), 17; and Klara Hunsche, ‘‘Der Kampf um die christliche Schule und Erziehung, 1933–1945,’’ in Kirchliches Jahrbuch für die Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, 1949, ed. Joachim Beck-mann (Gütersloh, 1950), 499–500.

65. Hunsche, in Drewes and Kochanski, Heimliche Hilfe, 17–16, and in Beck-mann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1949, 499–500.

66. Martin Albertz, ‘‘Die Synagoge am Nollendorfplatz,’’ in Durchkreuzter Hass: Vom Abenteuer des Friedens, Berichte und Darstellungen, ed. Rudolf Weckerling (Berlin, 1961), 60.

67. Contrary to the information in Grüber, An der Stechbahn, 42. Letters




273

from Klara Hunsche and Hildegard Kuttner, 12 January 1969, to theauthor.

68. Assistant Secondary School Director Rose Ollendorf, Dr. Landsberg, and

a Ms. Bergmann.69. Contrary to An der Stechbahn, 47, where Grüber asserted that the schoolhad been closed after his arrest. ‘‘The school continued undisturbedafter Pastor Grüber’s arrest’’ until 30 June 1942 (H. Kuttner, letter to theauthor, 12 January 1969).

70. Grüber, An der Stechbahn, 47.71. Information given to the author by Klara Hunsche.

72. Kurtz, in Evangelische Kommentar 1 (1968): 714.73. Grüber, Erinnerungen aus sieben Jahrzehnten (Cologne, 1968).74. Klara Hunsche, letter to the author, 1 January 1969. See also Drewes and

Kochanski, Heimliche Hilfe, 19. Cf. also ‘‘Merkblatt für die Versorgungevangelischer Juden,’’ 24 July 1939. Archives of the Kommission für dieGeschichte des Kirchenkampfes im Dritten Reich, Dresden, Archiv-Nr.107 156.

75. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1949, 500.76. Dehn, Die alte Zeit—die vorigen Jahre, 307.77. Letter to the author, 12 January 1969.78. Blau, Das Ausnahmerecht , 109–10.79. Hofer, Der Nationalsozialismus, 297–98.80. Published in Katharina Staritz, Des grossen Lichtes Widerschein: Berichte

und Verse aus der Gefangenschaft (Münster, undated), 40–41.81. Copies of this correspondence were made available to me by Dr. ErnstHornig, who later became bishop.

82. As was the Breslau Consistory’s response, on 26 September 1941. Copy given to the author by Ernst Hornig.

83. Letter from the Superintendent of the Church Province of Silesia to allclergy and vicars, 18 October 1941, ‘‘I 3310 III,’’ signed by Dr. Hosemann.

Copy given to the author by Ernst Hornig.84. Letter, 18 November 1941, signed by Hornig. Copy given to the author by

Ernst Hornig.85. Staritz’s statement was an ofcial letter from the city dean, although

it had been signed not by City Dean Lierse but by Assistant City DeanMeissner.

86. Letter (Nr. 4230) of 15 December 1941. Copy given to the author by ErnstHornig.

87. Letter dated 2 January 1942. Copy given to the author by Ernst Hornig.88. Letter of 23 December 1941, signed by Kellner (instead of Hornig, so as




274

to underscore the fact that the Provincial Council of Brethren unan-imously stood behind the letter). Copy given to the author by ErnstHornig.

89. Letter of 13 March 1942 (Nr. I 468) (signed by Hosemann) to Pastor Kell-ner (Tiefenfurt). Copy given to the author by Ernst Hornig.90. The details of Staritz’s fate are from Karl Kleinschmidt, ‘‘Der Fall Sta-

ritz,’’ in Evangelisches Pfarrerblatt (published by the Bund evangelischerPfarrer in der ddr , 1962, h 7).

91. From a letter from Charlotte Staritz (Staritz’s sister) to Jochen Klepper,in Unter dem Schatten, 988.

92. From Katharina Staritz’s curriculum vitae, written in 1949 (made avail-able to me by Charlotte Staritz).

93. Hermelink, Kirche im Kampf , 649; also Die Evangelische Kirche in Deutsch- land und die Judenfrage, 184–85; Klepper,Unter dem Schatten, 1042.

94. Klepper, diary entry of 9 July 1942, Unter dem Schatten, 1082, 1089.95. Curriculum vitae of Katharina Staritz.96. Further details are found in the obituaries written by Hanna Sommer,

Claudia Bader, and Gerda Drewes (‘‘In Memoriam Lic. theol. KatharinaStaritz’’) in Die Theologin: Rundbrief des Konvents evangelischer Vikarinnenin Deutschland 14 (1954): 9–16; and from Charlotte Staritz, in Drewes andKochanski, Heimliche Hilfe, 7–16.

97. Charlotte Staritz believes that Paul Graf Yorck von Wartenburg, at thattime member of the Council of Brethren in Silesia, obtained her release

(letter to the author, 17 October 1967). See also Gerhard Ehrenforth, DieSchlesische Kirche im Kirchenkampf, 1932–1945 (Göttingen, 1968), 210–15.98. A copy of the protocol of this conversation was given to the author by

Charlotte Staritz.99. See Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 746; and Günther van Norden and Fritz

Mybes, Evangelische Frauen im Dritten Reich (Düsseldorf, 1979). See alsoGertrud Staewen’s account of her resistance (in the Kaufmann circle) in

Katharina Schmidt-Biesalski, Lust, Liebe und Verstand: Protestantische Frauen aus fünf Jahrhunderten (Gelnhausen, 1981), 84ff.

100. Meier, Kirche und Judentum, 114.101. ‘‘Nichtarische Christen,’’ lkavw ; the author is unnamed. (W. Niemöller

mentions Forell as the author.) See also eza 50/619, 22ff.; 50/845; and50/640, 15.

102. ‘‘Die Synagoge am Nollendorfplatz,’’ in Weckerling, Durchkreuzter Hass,60.

103. Letter of 3 February 1965 to the author.104. ‘‘Bilder aus der Arbeit der illegalen Judenhilfe,’’ in Drewes and Kochan-




275

ski, Heimliche Hilfe, 25. See also Unterwegs (Berlin) 1, 3 (1947): 21–22, andHeinrich Fink, ed., Stärker als die Angst (Berlin, 1968), 81–82.

105. In Fink, Stärker als die Angst , 187.

106. See Ruth Felgentreff, Ist verpichtet den Judenstern zu tragen: Eine Doku- mentation über die Diakonissen Johanne und Erna Aufricht: Kaiserswerth— Theresienstadt—Auschwitz (Kaiserswerth, 1973), 10.

107. The Jewish wife of the organist Anton Penkert in Hamburg was de-nounced after she was seen without the star; she was deported to Ausch- witz and died there. Heinrich Wilhelmi, Die Hamburger Kirche in der nationalsozialistischen Zeit, 1933–1945 (Göttingen, 1968), 279 n.162.

108. eza , former Archives of the ekd -Kanzlei, 1/c 3/170ff.109. eza , former Archives of the ekd -Kanzlei, 1/c 3/170ff. Letter dated 21 No-

vember 1941.110. eza , former Archives of the ekd -Kanzlei, 1/c 3/170ff. Letter dated 21 No-

vember 1941.111. Letter of 31 October 1941 (from the papers of W. Jannasch, sent to me by

W. Niemöller).112. Letter of 12 November 1941, signed by Kracht (from the papers of W.

Jannasch, sent to me by W. Niemöller). After 9 January 1942 the Hann-over regional church imposed a similar policy. Niemöller, Handbuch,380.

113. Cf. Reitlinger, Die Endlösung , 33 n.5.114. Cf. Lamm,Über die innere und äussere Entwicklung , 207 n.44.

115. Harold Flender, Rescue in Denmark (New York, 1963), 31–32, 266–67 n.6.

16. the godesberg declaration

1. See Hermelink, Kirche im Kampf , 474–81; Die Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland und die Judenfrage, 165–79; Heydenreich, ‘‘Erklärungen,’’235–41; Boyens, Kirchenkampf und Ökumene, 1933–1939, 256–61. Seealso Bergen, Twisted Cross, 149ff., and Heschel, ‘‘Nazifying Christian

Theology.’’2. Junge Kirche 5 (1937): 701–2.3. The Council of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Germany informed

its members of both decrees in a letter on 23 January 1939. ‘‘Juden IV,’’lkavw , I f 2 88/39.

4. Council of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Germany, letter of 23 January 1939.

5. Council of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Germany, letter of 23 January 1939.

6. From the private les of Eberhard Bethge. ‘‘Juden IV,’’ lkavw , contains a




276

report of the same incident. See also Die Evangelische Kirche und die Juden- frage, 173.

7. See Brunotte, ‘‘Die Kirchenmitgliedschaft der nichtarischen Christen

im Kirchenkampf,’’ 155–56.8. Junge Kirche 7 (1939): 215.9. See ‘‘Juden IV,’’lkavw .

10. See Fink, Stärker als die Angst , 60.11. A copy of the protest letter, signed by Aurel von Juechen and Karl Klein-

schmidt, is in eza , former archives of the Kirchliche Hochschule, Berlin(Akten-Nr. 135 B).

12. Fink, Stärker als die Angst , 60.13. Letter of 24 March 1939, signed by Dr. Schmidt zur Nedden. Fink, Stärker

als die Angst , 61–62.14. The outcome of this is unknown.15. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 293. See also Niemöller,

Kampf und Zeugnis, 464–77.16. These were the leaders of the churches in the Old Prussian Union, Sax-

ony, Nassau-Hesse, Schleswig-Holstein, Thuringia, Mecklenburg, the Pa-latinate, Anhalt, Oldenburg, Lübeck, and Austria. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 294–95.

17. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 295.18. See Meier, Die Deutschen Christen, 290ff., and the material on the Godes-

berg Declaration in Bergen, Twisted Cross.

19. Declaration dated 13 April 1939. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 236–330.20. Heydenreich, ‘‘Erklärungen,’’ 236.21. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 236–330.22. In Die Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland und die Judenfrage, 178–79.23. Published in Die Nationalkirche in Sachsen-Anhalt , 30 April 1939, in Beck-

mann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 298.

24. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 330–31 (undated, presum-ably from the end of April 1939). See also Boyens, Kirchenkampf undÖkumene, 1933–1939, 256–61, 380–81.

25. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 331.26. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 309.27. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 312–17.28. Hermelink, Kirche im Kampf , 476.29. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 299.30. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 299.31. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 300–301.




277

32. Hermelink, Kirche im Kampf , 478.33. Klügel, Die lutherische Landeskirche, 497.34. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 301–5.

35. Brunotte and Wolf, Zur Geschichte des Kirchenkampfes, 118–19.36. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 331–34.37. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 305–7. See also Niemöller,

‘‘Corrigenda zur neuesten Kirchengeschichte,’’ Evangelische Theologie 28(1968): 598–601.

38. According to the Provisional Church Administration’s letter.39. Niemöller, ‘‘Kirche und Israel,’’ Evangelische Theologie 17 (1957): 472–73.

40. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1934), 107; Gauger,Gotthard-Briefe, 293.41. Deutsches Christentum, 8 January 1939.42. The exact reference to the decree is ‘‘I d 42 X/38—5501 b—(RMBliV 1938,

Nr. 35, S. 1345/48).’’ See the list of legally permitted Jewish names inDeeg, Die Judengesetze Grossdeutschlands, 88–90; and Junge Kirche 6 (1938):681–82.

43. Brunotte’s draft and defense of it are in eza , former archives of the ekd -Kanzlei, Akte B XVIII Nr. c Bd. I.

44. See also Linck, Der Kirchenkampf in Ostpreussen, 242.45. eza , former Archives of the ekd -Kanzlei, Akte C 3/171.46. Brunotte’s 1967 attempt to explain his actions, ‘‘Die Kirchenmitglied-

schaft der nichtarischen Christen im Kirchenkampf’’ (in Zeitschrift für evangelisches Kirchenrecht 13 [1967]), was an apologia. See Wilhelm Nie-

möller’s critique, ‘‘Ist die Judenfrage ‘bewältigt’?’’ Junge Kirche 35 (1968):Beiheft 2.

17. the aryan certif icate for the ologians

1. Junge Kirche 4 (1936): 128. See also Harder, ‘‘Die kirchliche Tätigkeit desBrandenburgischen Bruderrates,’’ in Brunotte and Wolf, Zur Geschichtedes Kirchenkampfes, 196.

2. Junge Kirche 7 (1939): 638.3. Letter dated 30 May 1939, ‘‘Geistliche Leitung Koch,’’ lkavw .4. Letter dated 30 May 1939, ‘‘Geistliche Leitung Koch,’’ lkavw .5. Letter dated 30 May 1939, ‘‘Geistliche Leitung Koch,’’ lkavw . See also

Niemöller, in ‘‘Kirche und Israel,’’ 474.6. Niemöller, Kampf und Zeugnis, 460.7. Letter of 7 July 1939, Archives of the Kirchenkampf-Kommission Dres-

den, Archiv-Nr. 107 149.8. Letter of 21 August 1939, eza 50/844 and 50/827.9. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1933), 96–98.




278

10. Undated letter, ‘‘Juden IV,’’ lkavw .11. Letter dated 11 July 1939. Printed in Niemöller, Kampf und Zeugnis, 461.12. O. Palmer, ‘‘Materialsammlung zur Geschichte des Kirchenkampfes in

der Braunschweigischen Landeskirche,’’ 76ff. Archiv der Braunschwei-gischen Landeskirche.13. From a copy in the private les of Eberhard Bethge. See also Martin

Broszat, Bayern in der NS-Zeit (Munich: Oldenbourg Verlag, 1977), 1:453.14. Letter dated 30 September 1939 (reply to letter of 19 July 1939). No.

11364/ a 13–17,lkavw .15. Copy of this letter given to the author by Wilhelm Niemöller. Pastor Ul-

rich Dähne worked closely with the ‘‘illegal’’ young Confessing Churchpastors in Westphalia; Pastor Ludwig Steil’s protests against the Naziregime led to his imprisonment in Dachau, where he died in January 1945.

16. Schmidt, Die Bekenntnisse (1934), 25.17. Niemöller, Der Pfarrernotbund, 132ff.

18. Letter of 16 November 1939 (copy from W. Niemöller).19. ‘‘Arierfrage für den theologischen Nachwuchs,’’ ‘‘Juden IV,’’ lkavw . SeeNiemöller, Bekennende Kirche in Westfalen, 260.

20. ‘‘Arierfrage für den Theologischen Nachwuchs,’’ ‘‘Juden IV,’’ lkavw , p. 5.21. ‘‘Arierfrage für den Theologischen Nachwuchs,’’ ‘‘Juden IV,’’ lkavw , p. 5.22. Letter of 11 December 1939, ‘‘Juden IV,’’lkavw .23. Niemöller, Bekennende Kirche in Westfalen, 284.24. Letter of 20 December 1939 (private le from W. Niemöller).25. Letter of 23 December 1939 (private le from W. Niemöller).26. Letter of 2 February 1940 to the Evangelical Consistory. Niemöller,

Kampf und Zeugnis, 463.27. See Ernst Sodeikat, ‘‘Die Verfolgung und der Widerstand der Evange-

lische Kirche in Danzig von 1933–1945,’’ in Brunotte and Wolf, Zur Ge-

schichte des Kirchenkampfes, 167–68.28. Letter of 18 October 1940 to the Evangelical Consistory in Münster (private le of Wilhelm Niemöller).

18. the f inal solution and the end of the church

struggle

1. For a summary of the trial, see Barnett, For the Soul of the People, 93–94.

2. Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schriften, 2:430.3. See Fischer and Schäfer, Landesbischof D. Wurm, 147–48.4. See the reports on the situation at the time in Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte




279

Schriften, 2:640–64, 428–32; and the Confessing Church statement ‘‘Zur Jahreswende’’ in Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 382–88.

5. Canaris and Dohnanyi, a lawyer who worked in military intelligence,

became key gures in the 20 July 1944 conspiracy to kill Hitler; both were executed.6. See Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 747–49.7. The annual volume of the Ofcial Gazette of the Evangelical Lutheran

Church of Hannover announced this as a ‘‘legally binding order’’ on 9 January 1942.

8. Hofer, Nationalsozialismus, 305. Cf. Döscher, Das Auswärtige Amt im Drit- ten ReichDiplomatie im Schatten der ‘‘Endlosung’’ (Berlin, 1987).

9. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 479.10. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 481.11. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 482.12. Letter of 6 February 1942, printed in Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch,

1933–1944, 482–84; see Fischer and Schäfer, Landesbischof D. Wurm, 153–

56.13. Fischer and Schäfer, Landesbischof D. Wurm, 153–56.14. Fischer and Schäfer, Landesbischof D. Wurm, 155.15. Letter to the German Evangelical Church Chancellery of 5 February

1942, signed by Heinz Kloppenburg (for the Conference of RegionalCouncils of Brethren) and Hans Böhm (for the Provisional Church Ad-ministration). Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 484–85.

16. Letter of 23 March 1942, ‘‘Juden IV,’’lkavw . On the Hannover implemen-tation decree, see the ofcial newsletter of the regional church in Han-nover, 9 January 1942.

17. See Klügel, Die lutherische Landeskirche, 497–98.18. Archiv der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte, Munich.

The letter from the Spiritual Condential Council is printed in its en-

tirety in the German edition of this book, 332–37.19. Archiv der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte, Munich.20. Archiv der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte, Munich.21. Brunotte, ‘‘Kirchenmitgliedschaft,’’ 173.22. Elisabeth Dreyer, ‘‘Die Predigt der Evangelischen Kirche in der national-

sozialistischen Zeit,’’ unpublished manuscript, Hamburg, October 1963.23. ‘‘Unser Hirte und Bischof’’ (Our shepherd and bishop), sermon on 1 Pet.

2:21–25, 15 April 1934 (Stuttgart, 1934), in Dreyer, ‘‘Die Predigt der Evan-gelischen Kirche.’’

24. Dreyer, ‘‘Die Predigt der Evangelischen Kirche,’’ 113.




280

25. Dreyer, ‘‘Die Predigt der Evangelischen Kirche’’; ‘‘Der Gang zum Kreuz’’(The path to the cross), sermon on Sunday Sexagesimae, 31 January 1937.

26. Dreyer, ‘‘Die Predigt der Evangelischen Kirche’’; ‘‘Christus, Christen-

tum, Kirche,’’ sermon on John 1:18, 3:5, 21:14–19, 28 February 1937. Hisinformation is inconsistent with the gures given of the Jews deportedfrom Württemberg in 1941 (Fischer and Schäfer, Landesbischof D. Wurm,148).

27. Fischer and Schäfer, Landesbischof D. Wurm, 156.28. Fischer and Schäfer, Landesbischof D. Wurm, 157.29. Fischer and Schäfer, Landesbischof D. Wurm, 157–58.30. Letter of 10 November 1941. Fischer and Schäfer, Landesbischof D. Wurm,

158.31. Fischer and Schäfer, Landesbischof D. Wurm, 158, 277.32. Fischer and Schäfer, Landesbischof D. Wurm, 159.33. For one example, see Wurm to Reich Governor Murr, dated 17 February

1942, in Hermelink, Kirche im Kampf , 620.

34. A neighborhood party organization sent a form letter of voluntary con-sent to divorce to the ‘‘Aryan’’ wives of twelve non-Aryan men, along with instructions that their husbands formally present this text to their wives. Papers of Wilhelm Jannasch, undated.

35. Information given to the author by Dr. Margarethe Sommer, at thattime the director of the Relief Organization of the Episcopal Ordinarius.(Letters dated 15 March and 8 April 1965.)

36. This draft was made available to the author by Wilhelm Niemöller.37. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 432–33.38. Wurm noted that his request was all the more urgent because he had

received no reply to his letter of 8 February 1943 to Reich Governor Murr.39. Fischer and Schäfer, Landesbischof D. Wurm, 162–63.40. Fischer and Schäfer, Landesbischof D. Wurm, 163–64.

41. The petition was from 19 January 1943. Printed in entirety in Klügel, Dielutherische Landeskirche. Dokumente, 202–3.42. See Fischer and Schäfer, Landesbischof D. Wurm, 164.43. Pastor Dr. Jannasch to Pastor Lenz, Wohnbach (Upper Hesse), 16 March

1943. ‘‘Akte vkl ,’’ lkavw .44. Pastor Dr. Jannasch to Pastor Lenz, 16 March 1943.45. Hermelink, Kirche im Kampf , 654–56.

46. Fischer and Schäfer, Landesbischof D. Wurm, 167.47. See Hermelink, Kirche im Kampf , 654–56; Hofer, Der Nationalsozialismus,

164–66; Fischer and Schäfer, Landesbischof D. Wurm, 164–65.




281

48. Fischer and Schäfer, Landesbischof D. Wurm, 168.49. In his weekly letter of 20 July 1943, in Hermelink, Kirche im Kampf ,

692.

50. Hermelink, Kirche im Kampf , 692–93.51. From Wurm’s sermon in St. Mary’s Church in Reutlingen, 17 October1943. In Fischer and Schäfer, Landesbischof D. Wurm, 169.

52. Hermelink, Kirche im Kampf , 656–58; Fischer and Schäfer, Landesbischof D. Wurm, 311–13.

53. Hermelink, Kirche im Kampf , 656–58; Fischer and Schäfer, Landesbischof D. Wurm, 311–13.

54. Dated 3 March 1944. Hermelink, Kirche im Kampf , 700–702; Fischer andSchäfer, Landesbischof D. Wurm, 313–15.

55. Lammers mentioned Wurm’s letters to the government on 20 December1943, to Marahrens on 9 August 1943, and the petition sent on 16 July 1943 to the Führer and Reich government, which had been distributedabroad.

56. See Wurm, Erinnerungen aus meinem Leben (Stuttgart, 1953), 171.57. Fischer and Schäfer, Landesbischof D. Wurm, 315–17.58. Letter of 8 February 1945. Hermelink, Kirche im Kampf , 658–60.59. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 391ff.60. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 394–96. See also Niesel,Um

Verkündigung , 99ff.61. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 391ff.62. On 17 July 1968, Prof. Günther Harder, who had been an outspoken

Confessing pastor in Brandenburg and president of the BrandenburgCouncil of Brethren, wrote Wilhelm Niemöller that he and others hadtried to organize protests against the Fürle decree at many local meet-ings of clergy. He suggested that such activities might have been onereason that the Prussian church did not issue such a law.

63. Niesel, Um Verkündigung , 99–100.64. Niesel, Um Verkündigung , 99–100.65. In Luther’s cathechism, ‘‘Thou shalt not kill’’ is the fth commandment;

in the Heidelberg cathechism (and in most U.S. denominations) it is thesixth.

66. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 398ff.; Niesel, Um Verkündi- gung , 105ff.

67. Niesel, Um Verkündigung , 105ff.68. Niesel, Um Verkündigung , 105ff.69. Niesel, Um Verkündigung , 105ff.




282

70. The English translation of this letter, dated 19 December 1938, is in Her- bert Hartwell and Frank H. de Jonge, eds., The Bridge (London: German-British Christian Fellowship, November 1967), 13–14.

71. Klepper, Unter dem Schatten, 105–6. Journal entries of 7, 8 September1933.72. Klepper, Unter dem Schatten, 984–86. Journal entry, 17 November 1941.73. Klepper, Unter dem Schatten, 1133. Final journal entry, 10 December

1942.74. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 402ff.; Niesel, Um Verkünd-

igung , 109–10.75. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1933–1944, 402.76. See 248–49 in the German edition of this book.77. Ritter, in a letter to the author, 5 February 1965. Cf. Ritter, Karl Goerdeler

und die deutsche Widerstandsbewegung (Munich, 1964), 513 n.71.78. Annedore Leber and Freya Grän von Moltke, Für und Wider: Entschei-

dungen in Deutschland (Berlin, 1961), 246. See also Bethge, Dietrich Bon-

hoeffer , 775–77; and Christine-Ruth Müller, Dietrich Bonhoeffers Kampf gegen die nationalsozialistische Verfolgung und Vernichtung der Juden (Mu-nich, 1990), 275ff.

79. On Bauer, see Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 907, and his obituary written by Adolf Kurtz, in Evangelische Kommentar 1 (1968): 714, 734.

80. Fischer and Schäfer, Landesbischof D. Wurm, 348–49.81. The entire memorandum is in Helmut Thielicke and Philipp von Bis-

marck, eds., In der Stunde Null: Die Denkschrift des Freiburger ‘Bonhoeffer- Kreises’: Politische Gesellschaftsordnung: Ein Versuch zur Selbstbesinnung deschristlichen Gewissens in den politischen Nöten unserer Zeit (Tübingen,1979). The subtitle of this volume (‘‘The Bonhoeffer Circle’’) is histor-ically false, since the group never used this name.

82. Thielicke and Bismarck, In der Stunde Null, 146–47.

83. Thielicke and Bismarck, In der Stunde Null, 148.84. Thielicke and Bismarck, In der Stunde Null, 149.85. Thielicke and Bismarck, In der Stunde Null, 149–50.86. Thielicke and Bismarck, In der Stunde Null, 150.87. Thielicke and Bismarck, In der Stunde Null, 151.88. Thielicke and Bismarck, In der Stunde Null, 151.89. See Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer , 775, 794–95.

90. Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schriften, 2:51.91. W. A. Visser’t Hooft, ed., ‘‘The Message of the Assembly,’’ inThe First

Assembly of the World Council of Churches (London: scm Press, 1949), 9.




284

19. confessions of guilt

1. Fischer and Schäfer, Landesbischof D. Wurm, 479–80.2. In Klügel, Dokumente, 204. See also Klügel, Die lutherische Landeskirche,

497–98.3. Klügel, Die lutherische Landeskirche, 497–98.4. In Joachim Beckmann, ed., Kirchliches Jahrbuch für die Evangelische Kirche

in Deutschland, 1945–1948 (Gütersloh, 1949), 4.5. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1945–1948, 12–13.6. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1945–1948, 18.7. See W. Niemöller, ‘‘Corrigenda zur neuesten Kirchengeschichte,’’ Evan-

gelische Theologie 28 (1968): 594ff., esp. 602–3; also Glenthøj, Dokumente,324–28.

8. Joachim Beckmann, ed., Kirchliches Jahrbuch für die Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, 1950 (Gütersloh, 1951), 26. See also Martin Greschat, DieSchuld der Kirche: Dokumente und Reexionen zur Stuttgarter Schulder- klärung vom 18./19. Oktober 1945 (Munich, 1982); and Gerhard Besier andGerhard Sauter, Wie Christen ihre Schuld bekennen: Die Stuttgarter Schul- derklärung 1945 (Göttingen, 1985).

9. See Greschat, Die Schuld der Kirche.10. The entire text of the Stuttgart Declaration is reprinted in Barnett, For

the Soul of the People, 209.11. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1950, 21.12. Bell and Koechlin, Briefwechsel, 1933–1954, 433.

13. Bell and Koechlin, Briefwechsel, 1933–1954, 433.14. See Heydenreich, ‘‘Erklärungen,’’ in Goldschmidt and Kraus, Der unge- kündigte Bund, 248.

15. Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1950, 24.16. eza , former Archives of the ekd -Kanzlei, C I, Bd. I.17. Heinz Schmidt, Die Judenfrage und die christliche Kirche in Deutschland

(Stuttgart, 1947), 57–58.

18. Niemöller, Bekennende Kirche in Westfalen, 318.19. ‘‘Anschreiben an die Pfarrämter wegen der Verpichtung der Gemein-

den gegenüber den Juden,’’ in Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt für die Ev.- Luth. Kirche in Oldenburg , XIII. Bd., 15. Stück, Nr. 107 (reprinted in Kirch- liches Jahrbuch, 1950, 223). Dated 6 December 1947 and signed by WilhelmStählin.

20. See Heydenreich, ‘‘Erklärungen,’’ 249–50.21. Heydenreich, ‘‘Erklärungen,’’ 249–50.22. Heydenreich, ‘‘Erklärungen,’’ 249–50.23. Heydenreich, ‘‘Erklärungen,’’ 248.




286

24. See Friedrich Baumgärtel’s article, ‘‘Wider die Kirchenkampegenden,’’ Deutsches Pfarrerblatt 58 (1969): 127–28.

25. See Christian Kinder, Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte der evangelischen Kirche

in Schleswig-Holstein und im Reich, 3d ed. (Flensburg, 1968), 118–26.26. Kupisch, ‘‘Die deutschen Landeskirchen,’’ 172ff.27. Kupisch, ‘‘Die deutschen Landeskirchen,’’ 172ff. See, too, Klügel, Die lu-

therische Landeskirche, and Boyens, Kirchenkampf und Okumene, 1933–1939, 171–72.

28. See Bergen, Twisted Cross, 206ff.29. Kinder, Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte, esp. 118–26.

30. In Beckmann, Kirchliches Jahrbuch, 1950, 381.31. Kinder, Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte, 11.32. Kinder, Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte, 124. He was referring here to the ‘‘so

ill-reputed laws of the Synod of 1933.’’33. Kinder, Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte, 239.34. Niemöller, Kampf und Zeugnis, 454.35. In Drewes and Kochanski, Heimliche Hilfe, 5.



287

glossary

Aryan paragraph The legal clause that stipulated that all civil servants hadto be ‘‘pure Aryans.’’

central council ( Landeskirchenrat ) The administration, or governing body, of some regional churches.

church federation ( Kirchenbund) The church federation uniting the Evangeli-cal regional churches.

Confessing Church The movement within the German Evangelical Churchthat most strongly opposed the Aryan paragraph and the German Chris-tians; it never broke away completely from the German EvangelicalChurch, and many of its leaders retained their ofcial positions in the gec .

Confidential Clerical Council (Geistliche Vertrauensrat) An advisory boardof three church leaders, appointed by Dr. Friedrich Werner, the GermanChristian director of the gec Chancellery in Berlin. Because of the politi-

cal tendencies of its members, the council was not trusted by Confessingleaders.

consistory A national or regional church governing council.Council of Brethren (Bruderrat) The advisory councils of the Confessing

Church, on both the regional and national level, consisting of clergy andlay representatives.

Ecclesiastical Ministry (Geistlichen Ministerium) Advisory Committee ap-pointed by Reich Bishop Ludwig Müller in September 1933.

Evangelical Central Council (Evangelischer Oberkirchenrat, or eok ) One of the administrative bodies of the Old Prussian Union Church. Other govern-ing bodies were the chancellery ( Kanzlei) and the consistory ( Konsistorium: which included the lay and clergy representatives and had some supervisory powers).

Evangelical Church of Germany (after 1945) See German Evangelical Church.executive committee or church board ( Landeskirchenausschuss) Advisory

committee of a regional church.executive committee of the Reich Church ( Reichskirchenausschuss).Gauleiter The leader of a district ( Gau) in the organization of the National

Socialist Party.German Christians ( Deutsche Christen) A movement that sought to merge

Christianity and the ‘‘Aryan’’ principles of Nazism.German Evangelical Church (before 1945) The Protestant church of Ger-

many, incorporating the Reformed, Lutheran, and United theological and



Glossary

288

church traditions. Smaller Protestant denominations in Germany (e.g.,Methodists) are ‘‘free churches.’’ When Protestant is used in this book, itrefers to the German Evangelical Church and its members.

German Evangelical Church Chancellery (Deutsche Evangelische Kirchen-Kanzlei) One of the two highest Protestant governing boards (the other wasthe German Evangelical Church Consistory in Berlin).

Gleichschaltung The legal process of ‘‘synchronization,’’ placing all aspectsof German life under Nazi control and direction.

Gutachten Professional opinion usually requested by the church leadershipand written by prominent theologians and professors.

‘‘illegal’’ pastors and theologians Clergy and theological students who hadstudied and taken their theological exams from boards of the ConfessingChurch, not the German Evangelical Church (whose examination boards were often controlled by German Christians). After Himmler banned Con-fessing Church seminaries in 1937, these pastors and theology students were ‘‘illegal.’’

‘‘intact’’ churches The three largest regional churches, Bavaria, Württem- berg, and Hannover, led by Lutheran bishops (sometimes called ‘‘neutral’’churches).

Jewish Christian Christians dened by Nazi racial laws as Jews or ‘‘non- Aryans’’ (also called ‘‘non-Aryan’’ Christians).

Kirchenkampf The ‘‘church struggle’’ between the German EvangelicalChurch and Nazi authorities and, more specically, with the GermanChristian Faith Movement.

Kirchliche Hochschule In this work, it refers to the illegal Confessing semi-nary in Berlin.

Ministry of Church Affairs Established in February 1935 to oversee the OldPrussian Union Church, directed by Hanns Kerrl.

Old Prussian Union Church (Kirche der Altpreussischen Union) The Evangeli-

cal Church in Prussia, which included eight regional churches (East Prus-sia, Brandenburg, Pomerania, Mark Posen-West Prussia, Silesia, Saxony, Westphalia, Rhineland).

Pastors’ Emergency League (pel ) Organization founded in late 1933, in-tended to show solidarity with non-Aryan clergy.

Provisional Church Administration of the Confessing Church (VorläugeKirchenleitung, or vkl ) Confessing Church government established at

the Dahlem confessional synod in October 1934) as a counterpart to theChurch Consistory and Chancellery in Berlin, which were headed by Ger-man Christians or ‘‘neutral’’ leaders.



Glossary

289

regional church ( Landeskirche) The Evangelical church in one of the German‘‘lands,’’ or regions (comparable to an American state).

Regional Council of Brethren (Landesbruderrat) Advisory council for the

Confessing Church on the regional level.Reich Church Committee (Reichskirchenausschuss) Convened by Reich Min-ister of Church Affairs Hanns Kerrl in October 1935.

Reich Central Security Department (Reichssicherheitshauptamt; rsha )Formed in 1939; it oversaw the Security Police (including the Gestapo) andother Nazi police forces.

SA (Sturmabteilung) ‘‘Storm troopers’’; the rst Nazi paramilitary force.SS (Schutzstaffel) The elite guard of the sa .Synod A church assembly of laity and clergy on the local, regional, or na-

tional level, convened to discuss and sometimes decide church affairs.Volk A word not to be confused with the English ‘‘folk’’; in German, this and

related words ( völkisch, Volkstum, etc.) connote both national and racial/ethnic ties. The term Volk was used a great deal in Nazi ideology andpropaganda.

Völkischer Beobachter Leading newspaper of the National Socialist Party.Volkskirche The church concept of German Protestantism, which is struc-

tured more democratically than the Roman Catholic Church and deliber-ately not constituted as a ‘‘state church.’’ The concept, which came intouse during the nineteenth century, is partly derived from Martin Luther’sconcept of a ‘‘priesthood of all believers.’’ Under Nazism, the GermanChristians interpreted this concept to mean that the church should serveonly the German people and exclude those not of the Volk. It should benoted, however, that this term did not originate with the Nazis.

Volkstum Sense of culture marked by exclusivity in terms of race, mentality,and national character.

Wehrmacht The German armed forces, including army, navy, and air force.World Alliance for Promoting International Friendship through the Churches

One of the rst ecumenical organizations, founded in 1909.Young Reformation Movement Formed in the spring of 1933 to oppose the

German Christians and the Aryan paragraph; precursor of the Pastors’Emergency League.



291

note on sources

archives and ins titut ions The following archives and institutions were visited in preparing this work: Archiv der Evangelische-Lutherische Kirche in Hamburg; Archiv der Arbeits-gemeinschaft für kirchliche Zeitgeschichte in Munich; Archiv der Evangel-ischen Kirche Westfalens in Bielefeld ( lkavw ); the Bodleian Library, Oxford;the Wiener Library, London ( twl ).

The following archival collections used for the original research for this book are now part of the Evangelische Zentralarchiv in Berlin: Archiv derKirchenkanzlei (Hannover); Archiv der Kirchlichen Hochschule (Berlin); Öku-menisches Archiv (Soest).

Other archives and organizations consulted were the following: Archiv derBraunschweigischen evangelische-lutherische Landeskirche (Braunschweig); Archiv der Kirchenkampf-Kommission (Dresden); Archiv des Evangelischen

Oberkirchenrats (Stuttgart); Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (Bonn);Centre de Documentation Juive Contemporaine (Paris); Evangelische Hilfs-stelle für ehemaligen Rasseverfolgte (Berlin); Germania Judaica (Cologne);Hilfsstelle für Rasseverfolgte bei der Evangelischen Gesellschaft (Stuttgart);the Jewish congregation in Berlin; Kirchenkanzlei der ekd (Berlin); Landes-kirchenamt der Evangelische-Lutherische Kirche in Thüringen (Eisenach);Pfarrer-Ludwig-Steil-Bibliothek für Zeitgeschichte der Jahre 1918–1945(Wanne-Eickel); Schweizerische Evangelische Judenmission (Zurich); Yad Vashem—Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Memorial Authority (Jerusalem).

bibliographical essay

Several of the works cited are particularly valuable in portraying the Kirchen- kampf and the situation of the German Evangelical Church during the Nazi

era: Gerhard Besier and Gerhard Ringshausen, Bekenntnis, Widerstand, Mar- tyrium: Von Barmen 1934 bis Plötzensee 1944 (Göttingen, 1986); Armin Boyens’s Kirchenkampf und Ökumene, 1933–1939 (Munich, 1969) and Kirchenkampf undÖkumene, 1939–1945 (Munich, 1973); Günther Harder and Wilhelm Niemöl-ler, eds., Die Stunde der Versuchung: Gemeinden im Kirchenkampf, 1933–1945:Selbstzeugnisse (Munich, 1963); Heinrich Hermelink, ed., Kirche im Kampf: Dokumente des Widerstandes und des Aufbaus der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland von 1933–1945 (Tübingen, 1950); and Günther van Norden, Kirchein der Krise: Die Stellung der evangelischen Kirche zum nationalsozialistischenStaat im Jahre 1933 (Düsseldorf, 1963); also see Die Evangelische Kirche in



Note on Sources

292

Deutschland und die Judenfrage: Ausgewählte Dokumente aus den Jahren des Kirchenkampfes 1933–1943 (Geneva: Refugee Organization of the EcumenicalCouncil of Churches, 1945).

For background material on Nazi Germany, the primary works consulted were Walter Hofer, Der Nationalsozialismus: Dokumente, 1933–1945 (Frankfurtam Main, 1957); and Gerald Reitlinger, Die Endlösung: Ausrottung der Juden Europas, 1939–1945 (Munich, 1964).

The published works of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, all of which are available inEnglish, contain invaluable material about the churches under Nazism. A new English edition of Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography, was

published by Fortress Press in 2000. See also Bethge, ‘‘Dietrich Bonhoefferund die Juden,’’ in Die Juden und Martin Luther—Martin Luther und die Juden,ed. Heinz Kremers (Neukirchen, 1985), and Asta von Oppen, Der unerhörteSchrei: Dietrich Bonhoeffer und die Judenfrage im Dritten Reich (Hannover, 1996).

Books consulted on relations between Christians and Jews in Germany included Edna Brocke and Jürgen Seim, eds., Gottes Augapfel: Beiträge zur Erneuerung des Verhältnisses von Christen und Juden (Munich, 1986); RobertRaphael Geis and Hans-Joachim Kraus, eds., Versuche des Verstehens: Doku- mente jüdischer-christlicher Begegnung aus den Jahren 1918–1933 (Munich,1966); Dietrich Goldschmidt and Hans-Joachim Kraus, eds., Der ungekündigte Bund: Neue Begegnung von Juden und christlicher Gemeinde (Stuttgart, 1962);and Hans Hermann Henrix and Martin Stöhr, eds., Exodus und Kreuz im öku- menischen Dialog zwischen Juden und Christen: Diskussionsbeiträge für Religion-

sunterricht und Erwachsenenbildung (Aachen, 1978). The complete bibliogra-phy is in the original German edition.Related works in English include Alan Abrams, Mischlinge, Special Treat-

ment: The Untold Story of Hitler’s Third Race (Secaucus nj , 1985); Shelley Bar-anowski, The Confessing Church, Conservative Elites, and the Nazi State (New York, 1986); Kenneth C. Barnes, Nazism, Liberalism, and Christianity: Protestant Social Thought in Germany and Great Britain, 1925–1937 (Lexington ky , 1991);

Victoria Barnett, For the Soul of the People: Protestant Protest under Hitler (New York, 1992); Doris Bergen,Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movement in theThird Reich (Chapel Hill, 1996); John S. Conway, The Nazi Persecution of theChurches, 1933–45 (New York, 1968); Donald J. Dietrich, God and Humanity in Auschwitz: Jewish-Christian Relations and Sanctioned Murder (New Brunswick,1995); Robert P. Ericksen, Theologians under Hitler: Gerhard Kittel, Paul Althaus,and Emanuel Hirsch (New Haven, 1985); Jack Forstman, Christian Faith in DarkTimes: Theological Conicts in the Shadow of Hitler (Louisville, 1992); SarahGordon, Hitler, Germans, and the ‘‘Jewish Question’’ (Princeton, 1984); RichardGutteridge, Open Thy Mouth for the Dumb! The German Evangelical Church and



Note on Sources

293

the Jews, 1879–1950 (Oxford, 1976); Steven Haynes, Reluctant Witnesses: Jewsand the Christian Imagination (Louisville, 1995); Ernst Christian Helmreich,The German Churches under Hitler: Background, Struggle, and Epilogue (Detroit,

1979); Franklin H. Littell and Hubert G. Locke, eds., The German Church Strug- gle and the Holocaust (Detroit, 1974); Heiko A. Oberman, The Roots of Anti- Semitism in the Age of Renaissance and Reformation (Philadelphia, 1984); KlausScholder, The Churches and the Third Reich: Preliminary History and the Time of Illusions, 1918–1934, and The Year of Disillusionment: 1934 (Philadelphia, 1988);Uriel Tal, Christians and Jews in Germany: Religion, Politics, and Ideology in theSecond Reich, 1870–1914 (Ithaca, 1975); and Jonathan R. C. Wright, ‘‘Above Par-

ties’’: The Political Attitudes of the German Protestant Leadership, 1918–1933 (Lon-don, 1974).



295

index

Albertz, Martin, 59, 81, 83, 154–55, 158,165–66, 173, 236; imprisonment of,192; at Steglitz, 94, 97

Althaus, Paul, 39–41. See also ErlangenGutachten

American Joint Distribution Committee,142

Ammundsen, Bishop Valdemar, 59, 60,132

Anhalt, church of, 117, 194anticommunism, 12anti-Judaism, 6–7, 39, 83, 165, 214, 228–

29anti-Semitism, 2–4, 5–6, 19, 67–69, 198,

211; among church leaders, 13–17, 46,148–49, 150; church’s defense of, 39–40, 56, 91, 105; church’s postwar con-demnation of, 229–30; protestsagainst, 53, 133. See also Aryan para-graph; boycott; Hitler, Adolf; ‘‘Jewishquestion’’; legislation; National So-cialism; National Socialist regime; ra-

cial ideology Arnade, Herbert, 175 Arndt, Ino, 5, 6 Arnim-Lützlow, Wilhelm von, 172 Arnold, Heinz, 156 Aryan certicate, 187–88, 189–90, 192,

281 n.62

Aryan paragraph, 24–25, 30, 62, 64–66,76, 78, 103, 126, 144; Bonhoeffer on,26, 27–28, 29–30; debate about, 37–43, 44, 69–70, 72; ecumenical dis-cussion of, 60–61; Erlangen supportfor, 40–41; protests against, 33–35,45–49

Asmussen, Hans, 226, 233 Association of German Students, 2 Augsburg Synod (1935), 81, 94, 97 Auschwitz, 193

Bad Oeynhausen Synod (1936), 94Baden, church of, 54–55Baeck, Leo, 57, 59, 152, 161–62, 169 baptism, of Jews, 24, 111, 114–18Barmen confession, 72, 75–76, 206; and

non-Aryan Christians, 73–75Barmen Synod, 80, 93, 113; tenth anni-

versary of, 217–18Barth, Karl, 46, 47, 67, 72, 126–27; and

Aryan paragraph, 31–32; and Barmenconfession, 73–76; criticizes Confess-ing Church, 95, 231; after November1938 pogrom, 151–52

Bauer, Walter, 210Bavaria, church of, 78, 93, 119, 158. See

also Meiser, Bishop HansBell, George, 50, 57, 59, 60, 132, 133, 155,

208, 227; and aid to emigrants, 62,152–53, 154; statement of support for Jews of, 264 n.16

Benfey, Bruno, 127–29Berlin Church Chancellery, and church

musicians, 120–22. See also GermanEvangelical Church

Berlin City Mission, 83Bertram, Cardinal, 200Bethel, 28Bethel confession, 28–30, 49, 77Bismarck, Otto von, 2

Blankenburg, Friedrich, 122Bodelschwingh, Fritz von, 28, 32–33, 156Boegner, Marc, 59Böhm, Frank, 210Böhme, Jakob, 39Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, 25–30, 75, 82, 102,

119, 130, 193; and Aryan paragraph,30, 35, 47; and Bethel confession, 49,77–78; and ecumenical movement,60–61, 134; and Freiburg memo, 210,214; and November 1938 pogrom,



Index

296

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich ( cont.)147; petition to National Synod of, 33,43–44; refugee work of, 59; andSteglitz Synod, 96–97, 99

Bornkamm, Günther, 147, 267 n.17 boycott (1 April 1933), 12–17, 26; church

responses to, 49–50, 56Brandt, Wilhelm, 37Braune, Paul, 156Breit, Thomas, 108Bremen, church of, 186

Brendel, Pastor, 116Breslau Synod (August 1943), 206–7Bronisch-Holtze, Ernst, 27, 95Brown Synod, 30, 31, 35Brunotte, Heinz, 176–77, 183–84, 197–98Brunswick, church of, 188Buber, Martin, 24, 67

Bultmann, Rudolf, 37, 69Burghart, Hermann, 50, 58, 59

Cadman, S. Parkes, 63Canaris, Wilhelm, 193Catholic Church, 85, 230; and Catholic

members of Freiburg group, 210; andconcordat with Nazi regime, 34; onNazi intermarriage laws, 200–201;and Protestant churches, 68, 131, 199;and work with Grüber ofce, 157

Chamberlain, Houston Stewart, 2Chamberlain, Neville, 141Chamby conference (1936), 130, 133. See

also ecumenical movement; World Al-

liance for Promoting InternationalFriendship through the Churches

Christianity, and Judaism, 2, 5–6, 24. Seealso German Evangelical Church: andresponses to state anti-Jewish mea-sures; Judaism; Old Testament; theol-ogy, Christian: on Judaism

Christian Social Party, 2Christology, 11‘‘Church and the Jewish Question’’

(Bonhoeffer), 26–27

Church Federation, 51Church Foreign Ofce, 51, 130, 132, 153–

54; and ecumenical movement, 59–60, 135–36.See also Heckel, Theodor

civil service, and legislation, 17–19. Seealso National Socialist regime: legisla-tion of

clergy: arrests of, 80; military conscrip-tion of, 144, 193; non-Aryan, 113. Seealso Aryan paragraph; ConfessingChurch: and non-Aryan members;

German Evangelical Churchconcentration camps, 133Confessing Church, 7, 25, 200–201; at-

tacks on, 112–13, 136; divisions within, 93, 94; during the war, 169,192, 205–10; and ecumenical move-ment, 133; memo to Hitler by, 133;

ministry to Jews of, 114–19; and Na-tional Socialist regime, 108, 109, 231;and non-Aryan members, 79–80, 126–29, 167, 172–74; and November po-grom, 143–52; paralysis of, 183, 267–68 n.34; and persecution of Jews, 75–76, 81–86, 94–100, 132, 135–36, 160–62, 215, 218; postwar discussion of guilt of, 225, 235–36; and Steglitz, 98–99, 100; and synods on Aryan para-graph, 29–30. See also Aryan para-graph; Barmen confession; Bonhoef-fer, Dietrich; Council of Brethren;Dahlem Synod; ecumenical move-ment; German Christians; German

Evangelical Church; Godesberg Decla-ration; Old Testament; Pastors’ Emer-gency League; Provisional Church Administration

Council of Brethren, 79, 93, 158, 163,224; and Godesberg Declaration, 180;and non-Aryan pastors, 117, 126, 187;

in Silesia, 171, 172

Dahlem Synod, 79, 80, 93. See alsoProvi-sional Church Administration



Index

297

Dähne, Ulrich, 189, 190Daladier, Edouard, 141Dannenbaum, Hans, 83Darmstadt Synod (1948), 228Dehn, Günther, 169denazication, 234Denmark, and response to German mea-

sures, 62, 175Derichsweiler, 110Dibelius, Martin, 133Dibelius, Otto, 13–16, 50, 108–9, 133,

210, 233Dickinson, Lord, 58–59Diem, Hermann, 161, 198–99, 215, 227–

28. See also Württemberg Society Diestel, Max, 136Dietze, Constantin von, 210, 214Dipper, Theodor, 161

Dohnanyi, Hans von, 26, 193Draeger, Margarete, 168

ecclesiology, 73, 75Ecumenical Council for Practical Chris-

tianity, 50ecumenical movement: and Aryan para-

graph, 31; and Godesberg Declara-tion, 181; and German churchfactions, 43, 57, 135–36; and Germanpersecution of Jews, 49–53, 57–59, 59–64, 134–35.See also Bell, George;Chamby conference; World Alliancefor Promoting International Friend-ship through the Churches

Ehrenberg, Hans, 24–25, 37, 129Eidem, Bishop Erling, 53, 57, 59, 61, 68Einstein, Albert, 16, 67Eisner, Kurt, 116, 259 n.6Elert, Werner, 39–41emigration, 16, 58, 131–32, 152–54. See

also Grüber, Heinrich; refugees;

Siegmund-Schultze, FriedrichEnabling Act, 12England, 63, 152–53Enlightenment, 1

Erlangen Gutachten, 39–41Eucken, Walter, 210euthanasia, 199Evangelical Central Council, 120. See also

German Evangelical ChurchEvangelical Chancellery (Berlin), 124. See

also German Evangelical ChurchEvangelical Church of Germany, 224, 226Evian conference (1938), 135, 141, 153,

160, 265 n.3

Fabricius, Cajus, 27Fanø ecumenical meeting, 60, 130Faust, 39Feuchtwanger, Leon, 16Fiedler, Otto, 51Fiessler, K. A., 162‘‘nal solution,’’ 141. See also National So-

cialist regimeFinkenwalde seminarians, 96–99, 147Flender, Harold, 175foreign community: and press reactions

to Nazi measures, 14–15, 16, 92; and re-sponse to persecution of Jews, 141–42

Foreign Ofce (German state), 43, 131Forell, Birger, 53, 159Forell, Friedrich, 64–65Frankfurt, church of, 79Freiburg memo, 210–14Freudenberg, Adolf, 156Frick, Wilhelm, 71, 80Friedenthal, Charlotte, 155, 161, 193Fritsch, Theodor, 2

funerals, of non-Aryan Christians, 118–19

Fürle, Günther, 193, 194, 197Fürst, Dr., 169Fürstenheim, Frieda, 168

Gaus, Günter, 47

Gerhard, Maria, 161German Christians, 11, 19, 23, 46, 62,102, 108, 109, 112–13, 183; and Aryanparagraph, 25, 35, 44, 45; and Godes-



Index

298

German Christians ( cont.) berg Declaration, 176, 179–80; andnon-Aryan clergy, 78–79, 128, 186;and postwar revision of record, 234–35; strength in regional churches of,93. See also Confessing Church;Müller, Ludwig; Old Testament; ‘‘posi-tive Christianity’’

German Evangelical Church, 19, 31, 76,80, 93, 136–37, 230; anti-Semitismamong clergy of, 4–8; Aryan certi-

cate for clergy of, 186; Aryan para-graph, 45, 70; central Berlin ofces of,20, 120, 177; and ecumenical move-ment, 50–53, 59–60, 62, 130, 132, 133,135–36; and Godesberg Declaration,181–82; Grüber ofce of, 156; andNazi state, 94; and non-Aryan mem-

bers, 20, 22, 114–19, 120–22, 124–25,126–29; and November 1938 pogrom,144; overseas congregations of, 51–52,62; and regulations for non-AryanChristians, 174–75, 176, 178–79, 184–85; and responses to state anti-Jewishmeasures, 13–15, 17, 36, 53–57, 183–84, 193–96, 201–2; and schools fornon-Aryan children, 162–63, 166–67.See also Confessing Church; ecumeni-cal movement; German Christians

German Evangelical Church Federation(Kirchenbund), 49

Germany: foreign criticism of, 16, 50, 92;and popular response to anti-Jewish

laws, 19Gestapo, 124; and Grüber ofce, 158–59;

and measures against churches, 79,80, 95, 144, 146–47, 173, 217; pres-sures on Confessing Church by, 183,192; and Staritz case, 171–72

Geyer, Christian, 116

Girkon, Pastor, 35, 37Gleichschaltung , 20, 31Godesberg Declaration, 176, 179–82, 187Goebbels, Joseph, 141, 142, 199

Goerdeler, Karl, 210Goethe, 91Goetze, Pastor, 188Goldmann, Erwin, 123Goldstein, Ernst, 116Gollwitzer, Helmut, 146–47, 241 n.2Göring, Hermann, 12, 142–43Gospel and Church group, 30Gossner Mission, 173Greiffenhagen, 173Gross, Erich, 106

Grüber, Heinrich, 159, 191–92, 208, 235,236; ofce of, 117, 155–59, 170, 193;and Oranienburg school, 168–69. Seealso Confessing Church: and non- Aryan members, and persecution of Jews; emigration; refugees

Grundmann, Walter, 70, 250 n.3

Grynszpan, Herschel, 142guilt, postwar confessions of, 223–30;statements of 201, 203

Günther, V. A., 51Gürtner, Franz, 148, 149Gustloff, Wilhelm, 142Gutachten, on Aryan paragraph, 41–42.

See also Erlangen Gutachten; MarburgGutachten

Hafa, W., 162Halfmann, Wilhelm, 104, 105–6Hannover, church of, 93, 156, 193. See

also Marahrens, AugustHannover, Reformed church of, 102

Hapsburg monarchy, 1Hardenberg, Karl von, 1Harder, Günther, 116, 281 n.62Heckel, Theodor, 59–61, 62, 130, 132,

137, 154, 181, 264 n.16Hempel, Johannes, 63Hengstenberg, Ernst-Wilhelm, 216Henriod, Henri-Louis, 51, 61, 134, 154Hermann, Rudolf, 36Hess, Rudolf, 109Hesse, Hermann Albert, 95, 216



Index

299

Hesse, Helmut, 216Hesse-Nassau, church of, 188Heydrich, Reinhard, 142, 143Hildebrandt, Franz, 25, 96–97, 137–38;

ghts Aryan paragraph, 31, 43–44;ees, 153–54

Hirsch, Emanuel, 62, 249 n.64Hitler, Adolf, 51, 55, 91–92, 109, 111,

136–37, 141–43, 202–3, 234; Confess-ing Church memo to, 107, 133; Pas-tors’ Emergency League telegram to,

231–32Höchstädter, Emil, 216, 217Höchstädter, Walter, 217–18Holland, 16, 52, 62Hornig, Ernst, 64–65, 171Hosemann, Johannes, 56, 171, 172Humburg, Paul, 8

Hunsche, Klara, 161, 167, 168–69

ideology. See anti-Semitism; National So-cialism

Inner Mission, 2, 57, 82–83, 85intact churches. See Lutheran churchesintercessory prayer lists, 110, 183intermarriage. See legislation: on inter-

marriageIrenaeus, Bishop, 59Israel: Christian theological perspectives

on, 23–24, 26, 27, 77, 106, 111–12,151; Confessing Church statementson, 206–7

Iwand, Hans-Joachim, 241 n.2

Jacobi, Gerhard, 26, 30 Jacobs, Helene, 161 Jacobsen, Justus, 118 Jan, Julius von, 144–46, 148, 149, 232–33 Jannasch, Wilehlm, 151, 200, 202, 230 Jasper, Gerhard, 76–77

‘‘Jewish question’’, 108; Bonhoeffer on,25, 60; in Freiburg memorandum,211, 213–14; Protestant discussionsof, 6, 11–12, 53–57, 70–72, 80, 100–

102, 103–7, 130, 155; theologicalstatements on, 23–25, 39–40, 110–12,113. See also anti-Semitism; NationalSocialism: racial ideology of

Jews, 1, 51, 90, 152–53; baptism and conversion of, 77, 101, 124–25, 127–28,228, 260 n.21; and Jewish relief orga-nizations, 57–58; lack of support for,141–43, 151; legislation against, 17–19, 157, 169; persecution of, 12, 14,84, 141–43, 159, 193, 211–12, 215, 218,

225; postwar church attitudes toward,227, 228–29; statistics about, 254n.10, 268 n.50; suicides of, 208–9; sup-port for, 21, 57–59, 60–61, 63, 67–68,69, 107, 155–62; theological perspec-tives on, 23, 37, 103–7. See also anti-Semitism; Judenmission; November

1938 pogrom Joseph II, 1 Judaism, 1, 24, 104 Judenmission, 5, 11, 77, 95 Junge Kirche, 61, 65, 68, 70, 113, 150, 234

Kapler, Hermann, 50, 51, 55Kassel, church of, 20–21Kaufmann, Franz, 160–61Keller, Adolf, 51, 155Kerrl, Hanns, 94, 96, 108, 116, 179, 182,

183, 193–94Kessel, Fritz, 99Kinder, Christian, 234–35 Kirchenkampf , 25, 26, 230–37.See also

Confessing Church; German Chris-tians; Pastors’ Emergency League

Kittel, Gerhard, 77, 111–12Klepper, Jochen, 13, 141, 153, 158–59,

208–9, 233Klügel, Eberhard, 156Knak, Siegfried, 37, 95

Köberle, Adolf, 6–7Koch, Karl, 30, 35–36, 81, 93, 94, 129, 130,133, 183, 189, 190, 192

Koechlin, Alphons, 193



Index

300

Koopmann, Otto, 35Krakauer, Max, 161Krause, Reinhold, 46, 64Kristallnacht. See November 1938

pogromKritzinger, Friedrich, 199Kube, Wilhelm, 83Kübel, Johannes, 17, 79Kupisch, Karl, 53–54, 229, 234Kurhessen-Waldeck, church of, 118Kurtz, Adolf, 156, 167, 168, 173Kuttner, Hildgard, 168, 169

Laible, Wilhelm, 66–67Lamm, Hans, 59, 152Lammers, Hans-Heinrich, 204–5Lamparter, Eduard, 4–5Lampe, Adolf, 210

Law for the Protection of German Bloodand German Honor, 89

League of Nations, 231Lefer, Siegfried, 112legislation, 152; anti-Jewish, 26, 84, 89–

93, 117–18, 142, 157, 163; and churchofcials, 30, 121–22, 200–201; civil

service, 17–19; dening Jews and non- Aryans, 254 n.3; on intermarriage, 90,114–15, 116, 200–201

Leibholz, Gerhard, 25, 31, 119Lempp, Albert, 215Lempp circle, 215–18Leo, Paul, 127–28

Lesser, Friedrich-Karl, 124Leutheuser, Julius, 112 Licht und Leben (periodical), 68Life and Work, 59–60, 62, 134–35.See also

ecumenical movementLilje, Hanns, 52, 63, 133, 150, 229, 234Linck, Hugo, 161, 232Lisbon, German congregation of, 52Livingstone, Laura, 158Loerzer, Fritz, 44Lohmeyer, Ernst, 37

London, German congregation of, 153–54

loyalty oath controversy, 147. See alsoConfessing Church: divisions within

Lübeck, church of, 117Lücking, Karl, 37Ludwig, Emil Cohn, 16Luther, Martin, 112, 116, 147, 196Lutheran churches, 44, 93, 234Lutheran World Federation, 150

Maas, Hermann, 59, 130–31, 132, 155Mann, Golo, 3–4Manning, Gordon, 50Marahrens, August, 44, 93, 94, 98, 108,

137–38, 154, 156, 182, 201–2, 203,223; and non-Aryan pastors, 126–28

Marburg Gutachten, 38–39, 69, 81, 82, 244

n.38Mark Brandenburg, church of, 187Marr, Wilhelm, 2Marxism, 7Meckenburg, church of, 117, 177, 194 Mein Kampf , 8Meiser, Bishop Hans, 35, 44, 93, 95–96,

98, 158, 182, 215, 216–17Meissner, Otto, 170, 172Menn, Wilhelm, 13Merz, Georg, 69Meschke, Kurt, 159Meusel, Marga, 81–86, 95, 97, 107, 124,

154, 161, 236Michaelis, Walter, 55, 68

Monod, Wilfred, 59Moravian Church 162, 163Mörike, Otto, 161Mulert, Hermann, 68Müller, Fritz, 108Müller, Hans Michael, 66Müller, Kurt, 161Müller, Ludwig, 35, 45, 59, 63, 65; and

Aryan paragraph, 64, 71–72; at Na-tional Synod, 43–44. See also GermanChristians; Reich Bishop



Index

301

Munich agreement, 141–42Murr, Wilhelm, 205Muzzle Law (1934), 71

Nassau-Hesse, church of, 194nationalism, 6; in churches, 39–40, 49,

233–34; in Confessing Church, 231–32National Socialism, 6–8, 141; racial ideol-

ogy of, 11, 17–18, 16, 60, 67.See alsoanti-Semitism; ‘‘positive Chris-tianity’’; racial ideology

National Socialist Party, 3, 12; andchurches, 50, 56, 83–84, 95–96; andparty program Article 24 on religion,14, 20, 102, 109

National Socialist regime, 12, 22, 101,157; anti-Jewish legislation of, 17–19,89–93, 117–18, 152, 163, 169, 200–

201; church protests against, 209;measures against Confessing Churchof, 107–8, 109–10, 143–44, 155, 192–93, 217; and regulations affectingchurches, 96, 99, 108, 109, 250 n.23.See also Hitler, Adolf; legislation;state, church attitudes toward

National Synod (September 1933), 25, 30,43; and Gutachten, 38, 41–42

Niemann, Karl, 116Niemann, Pastor, 188Niemöller, Martin, 44, 71, 82, 96–97, 124,

150, 187, 224–25, 229, 232; arrest of,109, 153; and Aryan paragraph, 30–31, 32–33, 47, 48; and Bethel con-

fession, 49, 77–78; and early anti-Semitism, 46–47; postwar statementsof guilt by, 45, 227

Niemöller, Wilhelm, 76, 100, 235non-Aryan Christians, 17–18, 20, 22, 25,

29, 95, 205–6; and Bethel confession,28; ecumenical attitudes toward, 130–

31; numbers of, 31, 131; and questionof separate congregations, 38, 76, 77–78, 82, 110; pressures on, 84, 108; re-lief efforts for, 57–58, 78; and Staritz

case, 170–72; status debated, 120–22,193–98, 199; support for, 81, 177–78,207–8, 209

non-Aryan clergy, 33, 48, 186, 269 n.63;emigration of, 154; lack of supportfor, 36, 37–38, 41–43, 70; measuresagainst, 64–65

Norway, response to German measures,52, 63

November 1938 pogrom, 129, 141–43,204, 212, 232, 266 n.10

Novi Sad ecumenical meeting, 59–60Nuelsen, John, 50Nuremberg Laws, 59, 84, 89–93, 101, 116,

132, 212

Oldenburg Church Council, 228Old Prussian Union Church, 31, 80, 93,

96, 106, 169, 181, 186–87; October1943 synod, 207–8, 209–10; Septem- ber 1942 synod, 205–6

Old Testament, 22; defense of, 11, 70–71,79, 80, 112, 195, 206; German-Christian statements on, 27, 45–46

Olympic Games (1936), 92Operation 7, 193. See also Bonhoeffer,

Dietrich; Friedenthal, CharlotteOranienburg Street Family School, 167–

68, 174Oxford conference (1937), 134–35. See

also ecumenical movement

Palestine, 136–37

Pastors’ Emergency League, 33, 44, 94,231; on Aryan paragraph, 45–49, 65–66, 71; guidelines of, 73, 189; pledgeof, 36, 46–48, 143–44, 186–87.See alsoNiemöller, Martin

Paulusbund, 123–24Pechmann, Wilhelm von, 54–56, 75–76,

102Perels, Friedrich Justus, 193Polnauer, Richard, 152‘‘positive Christianity,’’ 20, 110



Index

303

cil of Brethren in, 116, 187; GermanChristians in, 180–81; opposition toministry and membership of non- Aryans in, 117, 194

Schacht, Hjalmar, 153Schaeder, Hilde, 161Schäfer, Dr. 169Scharf, Kurt, 45Schlatter, Adolf, 104–5, 195Schleswig-Holstein, church of, 194Schmidt, Adolf, 190–91

Schmidt, Albert, 129Schmidt, Gerhard, 112Schmidt, Karl Ludwig, 67Schmidt-Henrici, Walter, 66Schöffel, Bishop Simon, 115Scholder, Klaus, 17schools, 100–101; for Jews, 101; for non-

Aryan Christians, 131, 162–69; and ra-cial legislation, 17–18, 19Schreiber, August, 51, 52, 63Schultz, Bishop Walther, 177Schultz, Georg, 34Schweitzer, Carl, 103, 215Seeberg, Reinhold, 70Seidmann, Bernhard, 122Shanghai, emigration to, 153Siegmund-Schultze, Friedrich, 49–50,

60–61, 68; and relief work, 57–59, 62,131, 132

Silesia, church of, 170–72. See alsoStaritz, Katharina

Soden, Hans von, 171

Söderblom, Nathan, 53Soa, ecumenical meeting in, 43, 60–61Söhngen, Oskar, 120–33Spiero, Heinrich, 123Spiritual Condential Council, 197Sports Palace rally, 45–46, 64. See also

German Christians

Staewen, Gertrud, 43–44, 161, 174Stahn, Julius, 96Stallmann, Martin, 98Stange, Erich, 50, 133

Staritz, Katharina, 161, 169–73state, church attitudes toward, 22, 26, 29,

82, 84, 128Steck, Elsie, 161Steglitz Synod (1935), 84–85, 94–99.See

also Confessing Church: synods on Aryan paragraph; Meusel, Marga;Nuremberg Laws

Steil, Ludwig, 23, 37, 189Steinbauer, Karl, 188Steiner, Ernst, 173Steinmetz, Melanie, 161Stoecker, Adolf, 2, 6, 83, 149, 195Stoll, Gerhard, 66–69Stoltenhoff, Ernst, 13Strathmann, Hermann, 42Streicher, Julius, 112 Der Stürmer (periodical), 89, 91, 103, 115–

16, 118Stuttgart Confession of Guilt, 44, 226,

233Sutz, Erwin, 25Sweden, 53, 63–64Sydow Brotherhood, 34Sylten, Werner, 159, 168

Tecklenburg confession, 23Theological Existence Today (periodical),

32, 73theology, Christian, 26; and Aryan para-

graph, 37–43; in Barmen confession,72–76; on Judaism, 11, 28–29. See also

Barth, Karl; Bonhoeffer, Dietrich; Con-fessing Church; Erlangen Gutachten;Marburg Gutachten

Thielicke, Helmut, 210, 214 Thieme, Karl, 231 Thimme, Hans, 189, 191 Thuringia, church of, 112, 147, 156; and

exclusion of non-Aryan Christians,117, 176–77, 194

Treitschke, Heinrich von, 149 Treysa meeting, 224–25

wolfgang gerlach, victoria barnett-and the witnesses were silent_ the confessing church and the...

Documents