The Grey Book / A collection of protests against anti-semitism and the persecution of Jews issued by non-Roman Catholic churches and church leaders during Hitlers rule

by Johan M. Snoek

14 HUNGARY

The first anti-Jewish Law, restricting the economic activities of Jews, was enacted in 1938. The representatives of the Churches in the Hungarian Upper House, amongst whom was the Protestant Bishop Ravasz, voted for the passage of this law. [163] <64>

"The only amendment the representatives of the Churches wished to be introduced was that certain modifications should be included for the benefit of the baptized Jews. Apart from that, they took the view that once the Bill had become law 'it would be possible to avoid emphasis being laid on the Jewish question and thus to allay anti-Semitism'. This attitude turned out to be a fatal mistake. It was the stone that started the landslide, and it is all the more regrettable that the Christian Churches lent this Bill their support." [164]

Rabbi Fabian Hershkovits (former Chief Rabbi of Budapest, now living in Tel-
Aviv, Israel) had the following to say:

"Bishop Ravasz was certainly not an anti-Semite. After the war, in 1947, he was the President of the Council of Christians and Jews of which I also was a member. He and his friends intended, by supporting the anti-Jewish law in 1938, to guard the national Hungarian interest. He did not understand that Europe, after Hitler had come to power, had become a powder-magazine; one should not light a match in a powder-magazine; that was Bishop Ravasz's historical mistake." [165]

The fact remains that Protestant Bishops supported an anti-Semitic Law. If this was an error of judgment, it certainly was a fatal error.

In 1939, the Hungarian government introduced a bill for the enactment of the second anti-Jewish Law. The measures included drastic curtailments of personal rights. The representatives of the Churches "stood solidly against the passage of the bill" but ultimately "refrained from voting down the Teleki government," that is to say they did not vote against the passage of the Law but tried "to incorporate such provisions in the law as would insure the greatest possible benefits for particular Jewish categories, the first among these being the Jewish converts to Christianity". [166] Hilberg comments:

"In waging the struggle for the baptized Jews in the first place, the church had implicitly declined to take up the struggle for Jewry as a whole. In insisting that the definition exclude Christians, the church in effect stated the condition upon which it would accept a definition that set aside a group of people for destruction." [167] <65>

15 RUMANIA

We hardly found any statement against anti-Semitism issued by one of the
Orthodox Church leaders in Eastern Europe, before the second world war.
Rumania was notorious for the strong anti-Semitic influences in that country.
The following Declaration, issued on April 15, 1933, by Mgr. Pimem,
Metropolitan of Moldavia and Suceava, is the more striking:

"We now are in the Holy Week and for a time we must forget petty affairs and acts of men. Nevertheless I wish to state one thing, namely, that I do not approve of the actions and policies of the Nazis with respect to the Jews of Germany, just as I disapprove of the anti-Christian campaign carried out in Russia. I desire peace for the entire world and on the occasion of this Holy Feast I express my wishes for the health and progress of our people. We should follow but one course: the way of Christ, for only thus can we be led to salvation." [168]

16 GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND

Many leaders of the Churches in Great Britain publicly protested against the first anti-Jewish measures in Germany. Most of the protests were made by the leaders of the Church of England, though some made by other Churches are also recorded. The Church of England, however, certainly had the widest range of influence in England. I have not recorded all protests that were made. [169] <66>

Already in 1933 the protests were clear and unequivocal, though the Church leaders seemed to be afraid of offending the German Government. The Archbishop of Canterbury said in the House of Lords, on March 30, 1933, in reply to statements made by Lord Reading:

"I feel that it would be a decided omission on my part, were I not to state publicly, in the name of the worthiest citizens of our country, whom I represent here, that I entirely agree with the words just spoken by the Right Hon. Lord Reading, words which touched us all. I sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government will, as I know it hopes to do, be able to assure us that it is doing its utmost to express to the Jewish community the sympathy of this country and of all Christian subjects, - not least of those amongst us who have a feeling of sincere friendship for the German nation." [170]

The Archbishop himself apparently belonged to "those amongst us who have a
feeling of sincere friendship for the German nation".
The Bishop of Ripon addressed the following Message to the International
League combating Anti-Semitism and Racialism, on May 1, 1933:

"Most gladly do I avail myself of this opportunity of expressing my sympathy with you and the International League in your struggle against anti-Semitism, on the occasion of the distressing situation created in Germany by the new form of government. It seems almost incredible that such things should happen in the 20th century, and above all in a country like Germany. The leaders of this country, - of the Church as well as of the State, - have not left the German government in doubt as to the feelings aroused in us by its policy of cruelty and suicide." [171]

On May 5, 1933, the Archbishop of York issued the following Message:

"Racial persecution is an insult to civilization and culture. It is our duty to endeavour to understand the cause and the character of the Nazi revolution in Germany, which has gained the support of a large number of the best citizens of the country. But although it generally happens that understanding produces sympathy, the persecution of Jews, Pacifists and others, such as has so far disgraced the conquests of the Revolution, cannot but alienate all sympathies. It is highly important that the government and leaders of the German nation should realize how great the animosity is which these acts provoke among the best British citizens. <67> Whatever excuses may be made for deeds of violence committed in the course of a revolution, no condemnation can be too severe for the persecution and the organized terror, which undeniably are typical aspects of the recent revolution." [172]

No doubt the Nazi revolution in Germany had gained the support of a large number of citizens of that country. That the Archbishop believed that they belonged to the best citizens of Germany, is typical of the atmosphere that reigned in those days. Fortunately, however, "the best British citizens were provoked by the persecution".

On May 15, 1933, a Meeting of Protest was held in Birmingham.
The Bishop of Birmingham presented the following Resolution:

"This meeting of Christian citizens of Birmingham who are anxious to promote friendly international relations, expresses its profound conviction that the discriminating measures adopted against the Jewish race, both in Germany and elsewhere, are contrary to the spirit and the principles of Christianity. It urges Christian men and women everywhere to exert their influence in order to do away with racial and national prejudice." [173]

The resolution was adopted at the close of the Meeting.

On May 31, 1933, the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed a Meeting of Anglican
Clergy at Westminster. The English Primate appealed to the German nation:

"to give up, without delay, the racial discrimination which is now being practised. The true strength of a nation and the respect owing to it by other nations lies in the impartial administration of justice to all those who live in its territory". [174]

On June 27, 1933, the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed a Meeting of Protest, held at Queen's Hall, London:

"We all know that at this very time while we are gathered here in an atmosphere of peace and security, the members of the Jewish community in Germany are being expelled from all public employment, from the posts which they had obtained in virtue of their qualifications, in law, in medicine, and at the universities, and that they are even excluded from concert halls, where music was always considered to be the language common to all mankind. They are being progressively deprived - even when permission is given to practise their profession or their trade - of every chance of earning a living… <68> I think with particular indignation of what I have heard concerning the treatment inflicted on Jewish children, who are set apart in schools, separated from other children as though they were unclean. Think of the effect this must produce on such children in whom the feeling is inculcated from their tenderest years that they are not worthy to mix with other Germans! And then picture to yourselves the effect this is bound to have on non-Jewish German children, who are thus taught from their earliest days to despise and look down upon other children. When injustice prevails to such an extent, it is impossible here or in any part of the civilized world, that men for whom justice is a part of the heritage they desire to keep intact should remain silent. They must needs speak, were it only to ease their own conscience." [175]

The Archbishop showed a remarkable insight when he expressed his particular indignation about the separation of Jewish children in schools from other children. That was at a time when many Christians and Jews tended to underestimate the malevolent intentions of the rulers of the Third Reich.

Representatives of all religious creeds, responding to an appeal of the
United Council of Christian Churches in Ireland (now renamed the Irish
Council of Churches) voted for the following Resolution, on the occasion
of a public Meeting of Protest, held at Belfast, in May 1933:

"We have met here in order to express our deepest regret that millions of law-abiding citizens who are not guilty of any crime or of any criminal intentions, should have been accused, persecuted and placed beyond the pale of the law, for the sole reason that they belong to the race which was, after all, the source of our European religion, and to which the founder of Christianity belonged. The meeting is horrified at the thought of the sufferings endured and the consequences, which are bound to ensue for Europe and the whole world. The history of the human race, of these islands, and of Ireland herself presents countless examples of the disastrous effects that persecution has had for us, not to mention the repercussion elsewhere. We know the obstacles that intolerance placed in the way of our national development, the harm it has done, the wounds it has inflicted, the hatred it has caused to accumulate in the course of centuries; hatred by which the minds of men are poisoned long after the actual grievances have disappeared. For this reason we deplore this new seed of death, the dire results of which we foresee, not only for Germany, but also for the whole of Europe."[176] <69>

The Church of Scotland is by far the largest Church in Scotland. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland is the final authority of that Church. It is convened annually in May and attended by about 700 ministers and 700 elders, delegated by the presbyteries of the Church. The following statement was issued by the General Assembly, in May, 1933:

"The General Assembly rejoice that, in this country, the longstanding traditions of friendliness and goodwill to the Jewish people continue to be maintained; they deplore the growth of anti-Semitism in many lands to-day, and, in particular, its recent intensified manifestations in Germany; and they respectfully appeal to the sister German Churches to secure, through their influence with their fellow countrymen and governing authorities, that, notwithstanding the inevitable unsettlement of revolutionary conditions, the suffering of the innocent shall cease, and justice and charity towards all shall prevail." [177]

The Church of Scotland apparently was optimistic about the "influence of the sister German Churches with their fellow-countrymen and governing authorities". We, who now live after the events, are not astonished that the General Assembly lamented, in 1937, that, "the protesting voice of the Christian Church has been so barren of results". [178] The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was the only ecclesiastical authority, which as far as I know, spoke out against anti-Semitism year after year. The contents of the statements show that it was not an automatic affair, for the changing character of the situation was reflected in these protests. In May, 1934, the following Statement was adopted:

"The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, in light of the present world situation as concerns the Jewish race, place on record the following expression of their view and convictions. <70> Remembering the age-long sufferings of the Jewish people, their homelessness a nation which has lasted for centuries, the persecutions, injustices and hardships they have endured, from Governments, Churches and individuals; in view also of the present fresh outbreaks of anti-Semitic fanaticism manifested in many lands, the General Assembly offer to the Jewish people their heartfelt sympathy with them in their almost intolerable wrongs. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland desire to assure the entire Jewish world that ill-treatment of the Jews on account of their race or religion is to them abhorrent; that in their judgment it is a denial of the first principles laid down by the great Founder of the Christian Faith, who places love and kindness to all as fundamental laws of His Kingdom; and that it is their firm belief that any Church which claims to be animated by the spirit of Jesus Christ and which nevertheless acts with intolerance towards members of the Jewish race, is thereby denying the elementary doctrines of the Christian Faith. The General Assembly acknowledge with gratitude to God the great contributions to human knowledge which the Jewish race has made in many realms; in a special degree they express their debt to the Jewish people for the scrupulous care with which they preserved the early documents of Holy Scripture for the ultimate benefit of all nations, which for centuries have nourished the piety of myriads who thereby have learned of the grace of Almighty God. The General Assembly would, in conclusion, again express their sense of the profound significance of the fact that the One whom they rejoice to believe in as the divine Saviour of the world came, according to the flesh, of the Jewish race, and they feel that this thought imparts to the Hebrew nation a special and peculiar position in world history, rendering it a duty on the part of all who love the Lord Jesus Christ to love also the race from which He sprang." [179]

It was then moved and resolved that the Assembly send to the Chief Rabbi a message of sympathy. The statement issued in May, 1935, is as follows:

"The General Assembly renew their protest against the anti-Semitic spirit which still prevails in many countries, express their sympathy with the Jews in their sufferings, and urge their faithful people to a greater earnestness in commending the Gospel as the one sure basis of fellowship and peace among all men." [180]

Not all statements and protests issued over this period in Great Britain and Ireland can be recorded here, but we mention in conclusion two statements issued by Churches, not yet mentioned. <71>

In April 1933, the following Message was sent by Dr. Scott Midgett, President of the United Methodist Church, to a meeting at the White-chapel Art Gallery:

"All the different branches of the Christian Churches share the Jewish Communities' horror of all deeds of violence against citizens, and especially of such outbursts of violence against any race or class of society. I feel convinced that I am interpreting the feeling of the Methodist Church in stressing our hope that measures will instantly be taken in Germany in order to prevent a recurrence of explosions of this nature in the future." [181]

In 1934, the "Report to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in
England" stated:

"There has unhappily appeared in various parts of the world, notably in Germany, a recondescense of that irrational and wholly unchristian spirit of anti-semitism, which from time to time has disgraced European civilisation. A number of its victims have arrived in our country, and the Archbishops of Great Britain have issued a moving appeal for their relief. But we must do something more. To quote the News Sheet issued by the International Committee for the Christian Approach to the Jews: "We must play the part of the Good Samaritan". But that is only one of our objectives. Wise Christian statesmanship demands that in addition to our relief activities, we must also endeavour to eliminate the causes, which create anti-semitism and its victims. Those who are in a position to know, maintain that the outbreak in Germany is sure to spread to other lands. Indeed it has already begun to do so. We know of attempts to foster the spirit in our own country. And there are so-called Christians who attempt to justify it. But note the fact that anti-semitism is essentially anti-Christian. No conscious anti-Semite can do homage to Christ, the Jew."

The Assembly adopted the following Resolution:

"The Assembly regrets the spirit of anti-semitism now prevalent in Germany and other parts of Europe, and urges its faithful people so to act towards all Jews as to allay the spread of this spirit." [182] <72>

* * *

On November 20, 1935, the Bishop of Chichester (Dr. George Bell) moved a resolution in the Church Assembly. [183] The Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Lang) had to leave to officiate at the christening of His Majesty's grandson. He asked the Archbishop of York to take his place in the chair. Without a word of explanation, however, his absence might be misunderstood.

"Speaking simply for himself, he felt bound to say that he did most strongly protest against the persecution of the Jews… He was sure that the continuation of the present modes of persecution must seriously affect the good will with which the people of this country desired to regard the German nation."

The Bishop of Chichester then moved: "That this Assembly desires to express its sympathy with the Jewish people and those of Jewish origin in the sufferings which are being endured by many of their number in Germany, and trusts that Christian people in this and other countries will exert their influence to make it plain to the rulers of Germany that the continuance of their present policy will arouse widespread indignation and prove a grave obstacle to the promotion of confidence and good will between Germany and other nations".

He said he moved the resolution with great reluctance, as one who had a profound admiration for Germany, as one who had many friends in that country, and desired the closest co-operation and the firmest mutual understanding between Germany and Great Britain. He was compelled to move his resolution because, as a human being, he saw a wrong done to humanity in one great area of German life and action. As a friend of Germany he saw the hoped-for friendship between two kindred countries tumbling into ruin through the prosecution of a policy against a section of its population, which was unworthy of a great civilized nation. He appealed to the rulers of Germany to desist from a course which shocked Christian opinion in this country in a way to which the nearest analogy was the oppression of the Jews in Russia by the Tsarist Government exactly 30 years ago. The hardships suffered by baptized persons of Jewish origin made a peculiar claim upon their Christian sympathy and compassion. There were two points of attack: <73> the casting out of the Jews from all cultural and professional life, together with the precariousness of their position in business, and the defamation of the Jews throughout Germany. The Nuremberg laws passed last September were supposed to give protection and security within limits to the Jews, yet suffering of individuals increased and the personal attacks grew bolder. No doubt they saw in The Times not so many weeks back that prayer was asked in all German synagogues for protection for the Jews against slander, with the result that the Chief Rabbi suffered imprisonment for one day and other Rabbis suffered punishment. He was sure that great masses of German people themselves abhorred the policy of persecution. They, too, must feel as we felt, that it was a great scar across the fair fame of Germany.

The Bishop of Southwark (Dr. Parsons), in seconding the resolution, said they had hoped that the days of the Ghetto had passed for ever. Now the Jewish people in Germany apparently were being forced back into conditions which reminded them all too vividly of the Ghetto. Their whole position, if it could not be compared with that of slaves, could be compared with that of helots. An article in The Times had described the whole policy as a "cold pogrom".

Mr. S. Carlile Davis, the German Vice-Consul at Plymouth, in opposing the resolution, said that every member of the Assembly would agree that they should all express sympathy with those who suffered from persecution, envy, hatred, malice, or any uncharitableness… The Jewish question, so far as it affected Germany, was purely a race question, and it was nothing new in Germany. It was not for us to dictate to any people how they should handle a race question… The Bishop of Durham (Dr. Henson) submitted that they had in the resolution brought before them by the Bishop of Chichester one of those matters which required from them as a great representative Assembly of Christian men a clear pronouncement of their convictions. One thing which they ought to emphasize was the solidarity of civilization… The Jews were just as mixed a race as the Germans - they could hardly be more. This nonsense about race - as if there were some poison in the ancestry of Judaism which must be guarded against - was sheer hallucination and nonsense. We knew in this country that the Jews could be as prominent in good citizenship as any other section of His Majesty's subjects. We, who were the children of Christendom, could not exclude from our minds the vastness of the obligations under which we stood to the Jewish people. Our Divine Lord, according to the flesh, was a Jew. His Apostles were all Jews. The Sacred Book, which we used was a Jewish Book. It was preposterous, base and almost incredibly mean that we, the children of Christendom, should turn on the ancient children of God, to whom religiously, spiritually and morally we owed almost everything we value. <74> "The least we can do," Dr. Henson concluded, "is to make it clear from our hearts that we loathe and detest this attitude which is obtaining in Germany, and protest against the continuance of this brutal oppression of a small minority of Jewish citizens in Germany." (Loud and continued cheers.)… Mr. G.F. Lefroy (Exeter), in opposing the resolution, said that Parliament itself would not dream of passing it. He moved, as an amendment, that only the first portion of the resolution should be moved, confining it to the words "That the Assembly desires to express its sympathy with the Jewish people and those of Jewish origin in the sufferings which are being endured by many of their numbers in Germany".

On being put to the vote, Mr. Carlile Davis's motion for the previous question and Mr. Lefroy's amendment were rejected by very large majorities. The Bishop of Chichester's motion was then carried, with few dissentients. [184]

Some of the Bishop of Chichester's words mentioned above could create misunderstanding, for instance, that he "had a profound admiration for Germany". Dr. Bell's record regarding the fight against anti-Semitism (as well as in many other respects) is outstanding. [185] One should note the policy of deception practised by the Germans: "The Nuremberg laws passed last September were supposed to give protection and security within limits to the Jews…". [186] That seems incredible, and yet it provided a pretext for people who wanted to do nothing. In the discussion on the above mentioned resolution, one Mr. Lefroy, in opposing the resolution, said: "Parliament itself would not dream of passing it. Therefore, why should the Assembly pass it?" Apparently it escaped the attention of Mr. Lefroy that a Church Assembly is not a Parliament, and that a Church body often can and ought to say things publicly, even though a Parliament is not prepared to do so, or perhaps for that very reason. However, the Bishop of Durham's speech, in the same meeting of the Church Assembly, is an outstanding example of how a Christian leader could and should speak. <75> The Chief Rabbi, Dr. J.H. Hertz, wrote to the Bishop of Chichester:

"Your words will come as a ray of hope to hundreds of thousands whose annihilation seems to have been decided upon by the Nazi rulers." [187]

At a meeting of the London Diocesan Conference [188] held in Central Hall, Westminster, in 1936, the following resolution was submitted for discussion by permission of the Bishop of London:

"This Conference, while fully aware of the difficulties that must arise from the presence in certain districts of large populations of people of other religious beliefs and social habits, asserts that the Jew and the Christian are equal children of God, and therefore calls upon all Christians to stand firm against any and every attempt to arouse anti-Semitic feeling for political or any other needs." [189]

The Bishop of Chichester was very active in promoting help for Christians of Jewish origin. [190] This subject is, however, beyond the scope of this book. In the summer session of the Church Assembly, in June 1938, Dr. Bell pleaded that the needs of Jews and Christians alike should be remembered. "The Bishop of Chichester moved: That this Assembly records its deep distress at the sufferings endured by 'non-Aryan' Christians, as well as by members of the Jewish race, in Germany and Austria, and urges that not only should everything possible be done by Government aid to assist their emigration into other countries but also that Christians everywhere should express their fellowship with their suffering brethren by material gifts as well as by personal sympathy and by prayer."

He said he did not want to speak of political matters in a country with which they desired to be friends, nor to attack the leadership of the great German State. He asked the Assembly not to make any protest against a system, but to record its deep distress at the suffering of Christians and Jews… <76> What could members do? First of all they must not forget it, but let it be printed on their memory and never rest while the distress was unhealed. They must remember the needs of Jews and Christians alike. It was wrong to separate the Jews and leave the Jews to the Jews and the Christians to the Christians. They both made a deep appeal by their sufferings to all humanity and above all to the Christian Church.'… First of all they could pray for the sufferers; prayer from the heart availed and was a great bond of fellowship. Next they could feel deeply for and with them until something was done. Thirdly there was material help… He asked for their (the Assembly's) help and for the help of their constituents all over England and he asked for the awakening of conscience. They would not forget and he could not forget that their Master was a Jew, a non-Aryan. They thought in their hearts that if they saw their Master in sorrow they would wish to help him, but it was right to remember the parable that their Master uttered of judgment and what He said when He rebuked certain disciples: 'For I was an hungered and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger and ye took me not in: naked and ye clothed me not: sick and in prison and ye visited me not.' When the disciples in defending themselves asked what he meant, the Master added: 'Verily I say unto you, in as much as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me'. He was convinced that their attitude in England and in the Church of England to the needs of those suffering non-Aryan Christians and members of the Jewish race was the test of their attitude to their Master himself. It was because of that that he felt so deeply and that he asked them to give their prayers and sympathy and their material help.

The motion was carried. [191]

The Bishop of Chichester followed this move with a plea for more vigorous
Government action in his maiden speech in the House of Lords, on July 27, 1938.
He began with a strong condemnation of the Nazi persecution:

"I cannot understand - and I know many Germans - how our own kinsmen of the German race can lower themselves to such a level of dishonour and cowardice as to attack defenceless people in the way that the National-Socialists have attacked the non-Aryans. <77>

He then pleaded with the Government to follow up the initiative of President Roosevelt by increasing its facilities for training younger refugees in Great Britain, by providing greater scope for settlement in the Colonies, and by persuading the Dominions to open their doors more widely. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs assured him that the Government would do what it could. But Dr. Bell remarked a few weeks later in his Diocesan Gazette:

"It is almost as hard to understand the seeming apathy with which the fate of the Jews and the non-Aryan Christians is being regarded by the people of the British Empire… These non-Aryans can no longer be called 'refugees' for they have as yet no country of refuge. We emphasize the responsibility of the British Empire in this connection, because the British Colonies and the British Dominions cover the larger part of the whole available globe. It seems to us impossible, both on the grounds of charity and on the grounds of statesmanship, that the doors can remain forever shut." [192]

Resolutions adopted by the Presbyterian Church of England exposed the danger of anti-Semitism existing in England in those days. In 1937, the General Assembly stated:

"The Assembly notes with concern the attempts which have been made to create racial antipathy against the Jews, with whom the Assembly expresses its sympathy. The Assembly expresses its conviction, that in a nation professing Christianity, no discrimination on grounds of race must be recognised. The Assembly urges that the freedom accorded by law in this country to citizens of any faith to live in peace and pursue their lawful callings shall be specially safeguarded. The Assembly resolves to send a copy of this resolution to the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and to the Home Secretary." [193]

In May, 1938, the General Assembly adopted the following Resolution:

"The Assembly urges its faithful people to encourage every effort to overcome the evil spirit of anti-Semitism which thing we hate." <78>

There was hesitancy in the minds of some about the word 'hate', when the Convener moved this resolution, but the Assembly overwhelmingly approved of it. [194]

The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland certainly did not mince words.
It declared in 1936:

"The General Assembly learn with profound regret that the past year has brought no alleviation of the sufferings caused to the Jewish people by the inhuman political, social and economic persecutions prevalent in Central and Eastern Europe. They protest against the religious intolerance, the narrow nationalism and race-pride on which anti-semitic hatreds are based. They call on the Christian people of Scotland, in loyalty to the law of Christ and their own high traditions of liberty and toleration, to rid their minds of all narrow anti-Jewish prejudice, and to broaden out their obedience to the Gospel ever commanding peace and goodwill to all men. The General Assembly again commend to the liberality of their faithful people appeals made on behalf of refugee Jews from Germany and other lands, specially remembering the Christians of Jewish race who are involved in the terrors of persecution." [195]

In 1937, the General Assembly declared:

"The General Assembly renew in Christ's name their condemnation of the unabated brutality still being dealt to the Jewish minorities in Central and Eastern Europe, and lament that the protesting voice of the Christian Church has been so barren of result. They deprecate the attempts in certain parts of England to create antipathy against the Jews." [196]

The statement adopted in May 1938, reads as follows:

"The General Assembly renew their protest against the virulence and cruelty of the attacks still being directed against helpless Jewish minorities in Central and Eastern Europe, and they affirm that no Church can be truly Christian and anti-semitic at one and the same time." [197]

* * *

The first reaction to the horrors of the "Crystal Night" pogroms was a letter of the Archbishop of Canterbury to "The Times":

"I believe that I speak for the Christian people of this country in giving immediate expression to the feelings of indignation with which we have read of the deeds of cruelty and destruction which were perpetrated last Thursday in Germany and Austria. <79> Whatever provocation may have been given by the deplorable act of a single irresponsible Jewish youth, reprisals on such a scale, so fierce, cruel and vindictive, cannot possibly be justified. A sinister significance is added to them by the fact that the police seem either to have acquiesced in them or to have been powerless to restrain them. it is most distasteful to write these words just when there is in this country a general desire to be on friendly terms with the German nation. But there are times when the mere instincts of humanity make silence impossible. Would that the rulers of the Reich could realize that such excesses of hatred and malice put upon the friendship which we are ready to offer them an almost intolerable strain. I trust that in our churches on Sunday and thereafter remembrance may be made in our prayers of those who have suffered this fresh onset of persecution and whose future seems to be so dark and hopeless." [198]

The Archbishop's letter expressed "feelings of indignation", but also reflected the spirit of appeasement: the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain had signed the Munich agreement with Hitler, only six weeks before.

On November 16, 1938, during the Autumn Session of the Church Assembly, the Bishop of Chichester pleaded that help should be given to Christian refugees of Jewish origin. In January 1939, he was to urge "to aid the entire mass of non-Aryans". Now the tendency still was to stress the help to Christians of Jewish origin, not to the Jews in general. There was one notable exception, in which Jews and Christians jointly took action, without asking themselves whether the persons to be helped were Jews or Christians. Lord Gorell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury to be joint Chairman (with Lord Samuel) of the "Movement for the Care of Children from Germany", in February 1938. This movement succeeded in bringing over 9,354 children from Germany to England. Roughly nine-tenths were Jewish, and one-tenth Christian children. <80> "Where a Jewish child was received in a Christian home - which occurred frequently - it was prescribed by the Movement, and accepted by the foster-parents, that there should be no attempt to proselytise. The nearest Rabbi, or Jewish teacher, was put in touch with the child, and if personal contact was not possible, instruction was arranged by correspondence. The last transports of the children from Germany reached England a few days after the outbreak of the war." [201]

A Joint Statement was issued by British Church leaders, in April 1939:

"In making the following statement, we, the undersigned, - the Archbishop of York; Dr. Jas. Black, Moderator of the Church of Scotland; the Bishop of Edinburgh; Dr. S.M. Berry, Congregational Union of England and Wales and Federal Council of Free Churches; the Rev. M.E. Aubrey, Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland, - feel that we are giving expression to the convictions of a large number of Christians in Great Britain: 1. We believe that the following is an essential and basic principle of all true civilization: Religious freedom, freedom of opinion and action in accordance with religious beliefs, provided that social order is in no way endangered thereby; legal equality for all, independently of social position or race…" [202]

In November, 1938, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland wrote a letter to the Chief Rabbi of the British Empire, who replied as follows:

London, 24th Nov. 1938/5699. Dear Dr. Black, "I am indeed touched by your letter of the 18th inst. conveying to me on behalf of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the deep horror of the suffering inflicted on the Jewish people throughout Europe. In the agony through which hundreds of thousands of my coreligionists are now passing, it is fortifying to read your strong repudiation of all persecution as unchristian, inhuman and pagan; and to learn that the love of God, love of fellow-man, and love of freedom rule with undiminished strength in little, but great Scotland. I should be glad if you would kindly convey to the General Assembly the deep felt thanks of my community for their kind expression of Christian sympathy with the suffering of Israel.

The General Assembly commented: <81>

"It is now the duty of the Church to contrive that the wave of sympathy shall not ebb, but, while it is on the flow, shall be turned into the only channel, which, as we believe, reaches the heart of the Jewish problem. The immediate duty, however, is to direct sympathy towards practical and generous action with regard to the gigantic Refugee problem which confronts the free peoples of the world…" [203]

The following statement was issued by the Conference of the Methodist Church in
Ireland, in June 1939:

"The Conference notes with grave concern the growth of anti-Semitism in Europe and America, and expresses its profound conviction that this tendency is directly contrary to the spirit of Christianity. It views with horror the treatment now being meted out to men, women and children in Germany on purely racial grounds, and regards with apprehension the possibility of the spread of such policy to other countries. It commands to the sacrificial sympathy of the Church, the efforts being made on behalf of non-Aryan Refugees both in Eire and in Northern Ireland, and suggests that they offer a most effective method of bearing Christian testimony against the terrible divisions of the present hour." [204]