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

17 THE UNITED STATES

Protestant Churches in America have protested against racial discrimination in general. We only record, however, the resolutions and statements, which expressly denounced anti-Semitism.

On March 22, 1933, American Christian clergymen and laymen appealed to the German people to put an end to the persecution of Jews. They urged preachers throughout the United States to rally their congregations on the following Sunday for a united stand against Hitlerism. The summons to the Churches was sponsored by the Interfaith Committee and signed by Bishop Manning (Episcopalian), Mr. Al Smith, the former Governor of New York State (a Roman Catholic), and others equally prominent. [205] <82>

On March 28, 1933, a mass meeting was held in New York, Madison Square Garden, attended by 20,000 persons, as a protest against anti-Semitic activities in Germany. 38,000 swarmed round the building to hear the voice of speakers brought to them through amplifiers. The meeting followed a day of fasting and prayer with similar protests being staged in 300 other cities. Former Governor Alfred Smith, Bishop William T. Manning, and Senator Robert F. Wagner were among the speakers. [206]

On May 26, 1933, a Manifesto signed by 1200 Protestant ministers from 42 States of the United States and Canada was published:

"We Christian ministers are greatly distressed at the situation of our Jewish brethren in Germany. In order to leave no room for doubt as to our feelings on this subject, we consider it an imperative duty to raise our voices in indignant and sorrowful protest against the pitiless persecution to which the Jews are subjected under Hitler's rule. We realize full well that there are religious and racial prejudices in America, against which we have repeatedly protested and for this very reason we all the more deeply deplore the retrogression which has supervened in Germany where so much had been achieved while we in America were still fighting for human rights. For many weeks we have waited, refusing to believe all the reports concerning a State policy against the Jews. But now that we possess the irrefutable testimony of facts, we can no longer remain silent. Hitler had long vowed implacable hatred against the Jews. One of the fundamental Nazi doctrines is that Jews are poisonous germs in German blood and must therefore be treated as a scourge. Hitler's followers now apply this doctrine. They systematically pursue a 'Cold Pogrom' of inconceivable cruelty against our Jewish brethren, dismissing them from important positions they had occupied, depriving them of civil and economic rights, and deliberately condemning those who survive to a life without legal protection, - as outcasts, threatening them with massacre should they make the slightest protest. We are convinced that the efforts made by Nazis to humiliate an entire section of the human family, are liable to cast the civilized world back into the clutches of mediaeval barbarism. We deplore the consequences which may ensue for the Jews and also for Christianity which tolerates this barbarous persecution, and, more particularly, for Germany herself. We are convinced that in thus protesting against Hitler's cruel anti-Semitism we are acting as sincere friends of the German nation." [207] <83>

Speaking of their "Jewish brethren in Germany", those 1200 Protestant ministers apparently had in mind the Jews of Germany in general, not just the Christians of Jewish origin.

* * *

The next statement to be recorded in this chapter was issued by the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America. This organization represented the great majority of American Protestants. The total membership of Churches affiliated with it was, in 1941-1942: 25,551.560. The Executive Committee of the Federal Council published the following statement in November 1935:

"At a recent meeting of protest against the treatment at present inflicted on Jews in Germany, the Assembly of the Church of England expressed the hope that other Christian bodies would join in this protest. We feel constrained to do so. We are members of churches which have numerous and close bonds of union with the German church. We recognise our indebtedness to the great German preachers and teachers of Christianity, who have done so much to enrich our common heritage from the days of Luther to the present day. After the last war we protested strongly against the limitations to which Germany was subjected by the Treaty of Versailles and made constant efforts for their suppression. For this very reason we consider it our duty to speak equally freely now that Germany is pursuing a policy, which threatens her with moral isolation. We protest against this policy because the treatment of the Jews is unworthy of a great nation. To treat a considerable part of the population as being essentially inferior for racial reasons only, and to impose restrictions on the normal life of persons whose families have lived in Germany for generations, and who have rendered eminent services in the realms of education, art, and government, is to violate the codes of honour and good faith which are the common property of civilized nations. But our reason for protesting goes far deeper. We protest against this policy because the philosophy on which it is based is a heathen philosophy. Founded on a religious interpretation of race, the actual treatment inflicted on the Jews raises far greater problems than any former persecutions of Jews and other minorities, which were founded on political and incidental considerations. It is an attempt of a tribal heathen movement, based on race, blood, and soil, to separate Christianity from its historical origin and a Christian nation from its religious past. All the different branches of the Christian Church are, therefore, in duty bound to protest, not only in the name of the human brotherhood, but also in the name of our Christian faith. [208] <84>

The meeting of protest mentioned at the beginning of this statement was held on November 20, 1935. [209] The response of the Federal Council came very promptly indeed. International contacts between Churches were a factor the importance of which can hardly be overestimated.

Dr. Charles S. Macfarland, the then General Secretary of the Federal Council, had had a personal interview with Hitler in the autumn of 1933. Before accepting Hitler's invitation to call, he was warned that no one was even permitted to mention the Jewish issue to him. Dr. Macfarland, however, had made it clear that he was not going there to discuss Tennyson or Browning and that he would have to be permitted to choose his own subjects. Word came that "His Excellency desired me to talk freely with him". Dr. Macfarland relates:

"I told Herr Hitler that, in my judgment, the German Evangelical Church could not and would not yield itself to his polito-social theory, including his so-called Aryan laws, and that if it did, it would not only cut itself off from the Christian churches of the world, but would cease to be Christian…" [209]

Dr. Macfarland followed up this conversation by correspondence. In one letter he wrote that the near complete hostility of the American people was deeply ethical in nature and could be modified only by two processes:

1. "A constructive measure of justice in dealing with the Jews in Germany, stopping all continuation of the boycott, conferring with leading Jews of high character, and, while still recognizing the social problem involved, endeavouring to secure needed readjustments by friendly measures and, above all, restoring neighbourly good feeling between Jewish rabbis and Christian pastors and among Jews and non-Jews who live side by side… I also hope that, by a final settlement of the Jewish problem which will do full justice, this barrier between the German people and the peoples of the world may be removed." [210] <85>

Apparently Hitler did not underestimate the influence of the American Churches: he replied to Dr. Macfarland's letters, stating that he wished "to promote the unity of the Church", that he accepted one of these letters "in the same spirit in which it was written" and that he thanked Dr. Macfarland for his "candid and sympathetic appeal". [211] On June 2, 1937, however, Dr. Macfarland published an open letter to Hitler, from which we quote the following:

"You especially demarcated the church's "confession" as a sacred ground on which the State could not and would not intrude, and I handed you a memorandum calling attention to the fact that by that confession the church was supernatural, supernational and superracial and that the so-called 'Aryan paragraph' cut right across the confession; that if the church accepted it, it would make a breach between the church in Germany and the 'positive Christianity' for which you declared you stood. As previously mentioned, you replied to later correspondence that you accepted my appeal 'in the spirit in which it was given'. That appeal was for a constructive measure of justice in dealing with the Jews in Germany, stopping all continuation of the boycott, conferring with leading Jews of high character and, while still recognizing the social problem involved, endeavouring to secure needed readjustments by friendly measures and, above all, restoring neighbourly good feeling between Jewish rabbis and Christian pastors and among Jews and non-Jews who live side by side'. And I added: 'I hope that this barrier between the German people and the peoples of the world may be removed'… What now are the results of my continued study and how do they appear in the light of your earnest assurances?… Instead of doing justice to the Jews, you have permitted them to be harassed and despoiled. Your treatment of them has been ruthless, without the slightest appearance of mercy, even reminding one of the infamous edict of Herod in stretching the hand of violence to the littlest child. Your attitude toward the little handful of Jews in Germany and your so-called Aryan and Nordic ideas have had no little effect in confusing members of the Evangelical Church, so that, in this way, you divided instead of fulfilling 'the desire you expressed to me of uniting the church. You undermined the most basic ideal of Christianity, on which unity alone could be secured… I have been reading a paper called Der Stuermer. Not only does it explicitly teach and urge hate-hate-hate, but does it in forms whose viciousness never would be believed by one who had not seen it. The language in this paper is too vile for repetition, and its falsehoods are obvious to any ordinarily informed person who knows Germany. The best that one can say of the illustrations is to hope that they emanate from a disordered, rather than a depraved mind…" [212] <86>

I think that, if Dr. Macfarland had been a citizen of my country (the Netherlands), legal proceedings might have been instituted against him in those days, for "public offence to the Head of a friendly State".

The Home Missions Council, early in December 1937, issued a special Christmas message concerning Jewish and Christian relations which it addressed to all Christians of North America. We quote the following from this message:

"As Christians of the United States and Canada we desire to express to those Jews who are the victims of injustice and abuse our sincere sympathy, and we emphatically declare that such conduct is utterly alien to the teaching and spirit of the faith we profess and an affront to all our ideals of civil liberty and justice." [213]

* * *

The Executive Committee of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America proposed to set aside November 20, 1938, as "the occasion when prayer will be sought in the United States for refugees, both Christian and Jewish". [214] The officials of both the Roman Catholic Church and Jewish Organizations, following the example set by the Federal Council, designated the same date for a period of prayer and intercession. The Governors of about a score of States issued statements or proclamations urging citizens to repair to their places of worship on that day for united prayer for the suffering. The day of prayer was widely observed in all parts of the country and in all the churches. [215] The Executive of the Federal Council had issued "an appeal to all church people to respond generously to the efforts for the relief of refugees as carried on by the American Committee for Christian German Refugees and also by the Catholic and Jewish organizations". [216]

When the first reports of the new measures of oppression and persecution of the Jews in Germany appeared in the press, the Federal Council's office invited outstanding Christians, both ministers and laymen, to express their views and give wide publicity to them. <87>

Among the lay voices, which were most widely heard across the nation was that
of Honourable Herbert Hoover, who, in a message telegraphed to the Federal
Council, gave expression to the sympathy of all thoughtful Christian people.
A statement of Dr. Edgar De Witt Jones of Detroit, President of the Federal
Council, was also quoted in all parts of the country. [217]

On the evening of November 13, 1938, the Federal Council of Churches sponsored a national broadcast over the Columbia Broadcasting System in which Christian sympathy was again expressed and carried to every part of the nation. There also was a national broadcast under the auspices of the National Conference of Jews and Christians, on November 20, 1938. [218]

On January 9, 1939, a petition on behalf of German refugee children was left for President Roosevelt at the White House by a deputation of clergymen. The petition was signed by leaders of the Catholic and Protestant Churches. It read as follows:

"The American people has made clear its reaction to the oppression of all minority groups, religious and racial, throughout Germany. It has been especially moved by the plight of the children. Every heart has been touched, and the nation has spoken out its sorrow and dismay through the voices of its statesmen, teachers and religious leaders. Americans have felt that protest, however vigorous and sympathy, however deep, are not enough, and that these must translate themselves into such action as shall justify faith. We have been stirred by the knowledge that Holland and England have opened their doors and their homes to many of these children. We conceive it to be our duty, in the name of the American tradition and the religious spirit common to our nation to urge the people, by its Congress and Executive, to express sympathy through special treatment of the young, robbed of country, homes and parents. A heartening token of the mood of America is to be found in the fact that thousands of Americans of all faiths have made known their eagerness to take these young children into their homes, without burden or obligation to the State. Working within and under the laws of Congress, through special enactment if necessary, the nation can offer sanctuary to a part of these children by united expression of its will to help. <88> To us it seems that the duty of Americans in dealing with the youthful victims of a regime which punishes innocent and tender children as if they were offenders, is to remember the admonition of Him who said, 'Suffer little children to come unto me'. And in that spirit we call on all Americans to join together without regard to race, religion or creed in offering refuge to children as a token of our sympathy and as a symbol of our faith in the ideals of human brotherhood." [220]

Senator Robert F. Wagner, attempting to implement the clergymen's proposal, introduced a resolution in the Senate. Known as the Child Refugee Bill, it proposed that a maximum of ten thousand children under the age of fourteen be admitted in 1939, and a similar number in 1940. Their entry would be considered apart from and in addition to the regular German quota. [221] The Executive of the Federal Council supported the Bill:

"In the extraordinary circumstances which have created the problem of Jewish and Christian refugees from Germany, we feel that it is not enough to call upon other nations to help or to voice our protests but some such practical step as the one here contemplated is imperative and will do much to facilitate a larger approach to the problem of which it is but one part." [222]

On July 1, 1939, the proposed Bill was modified: the twenty thousand childrens' visas would be issued against the German quota, not in excess of them. Senator Wagner, realizing that the twenty thousand children's visas might become twenty thousand death warrants for adults they would replace, withdrew his proposal. [223] <89>

In March 1939, the Federal Council urged the United States to continue to provide asylum for refugees of other countries in the face of any legislative proposals to suspend immigration or curtail existing quotas. Declaring that the Churches were deeply concerned with the refugee problem and that "as Christians we have responsibility for suffering human beings as children of our common Father wherever they may be", the Council said:

"We, therefore, urge our government to maintain its historic policy of friendliness to refugees. We oppose legislative proposals, which would suspend immigration at this time or curtail the established quotas."

In its objection to any change in the immigration policy the Council pointed out that refugees "would be consumers as well as producers" and added:

"However, even if they were not an economic asset as well as a liability, we would still have a Christian responsibility to them." [224]

In April 1939, the National Council of the Protestant Episcopal Church issued the following Resolution on behalf of aid to refugees:

"In view of the persecution of minorities now taking place in Europe, we, as Christians and members of the National Council of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and in keeping with the traditional spirit of our country, reaffirm our conviction that the United States should continue to show its spint of generosity and hospitality in opening its doors to afflicted people. We commend the program, as prepared by the Episcopal Committee on German Refugees, to the interest and support of all members of the Church, reminding ourselves of our Lord's admonition: 'in as much as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me'."

The program prepared by the Committee on German Refugees called for co-operation with local refugee committees in helping to obtain employment, in placing children in homes and in obtaining affidavits of support for individual immigrants. [225] To the best of my knowledge, there is no other country in which Churches and Church leaders in those days so unequivocally demanded asylum for the refugees.

So far we have recorded actions and statements on behalf of the refugees only.
The following statements also denounced anti-Semitism in Germany and/or in the
United States. <90>

The Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. stated, at the end of 1938:

"… We are deeply shocked at the continuance of persecutions based on race in Germany, Austria, Rumania and other nations. We sympathize with our Jewish brethren in the United States, many of whose relatives are the innocent victims of fanatical hatred abroad. We commend the National Conference of Jews and Christians for all its labour to the end that race murders and race discriminations shall not happen here…" [226]

In its Bulletin (February, 1939) the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ published the following article:

The Christian Attitude towards Anti-Semitism

Every thoughtful Christian must gratefully acknowledge his spiritual indebtedness to the Hebrews. We Christians have inherited the ethical and religious insights of Israel. We hold them with a difference - at one point with a momentous difference - but we can never forget that the historic roots of our faith are in the Hebrew people. From Israel we inherit the Ten Commandments, which are still our basic moral standards. From Israel we inherit the priceless treasure of the Psalms, which are an essential part of Christian worship around the world. From Israel we inherit the vision of social justice which has come to us through Amos and Isaiah and Micah. From Israel we inherit even our own unique Christian classic, the New Testament, nearly all of which (if not all) was written by Jews. A Christian who faces the modem world must also be conscious of a present spiritual kinship with his Jewish neighbours to whom their religious heritage is still a vital force. That kinship is grounded in our common faith in the ultimate spiritual foundations of the universe. Over against those who adhere to a materialistic philosophy of life and a mechanistic conception of human destiny, we recognize ourselves as at one with the Jews in the first sublime affirmation of the Pentateuch: 'In the beginning God'. Over against current disillusionment and despair Christian and Hebrew stand together in their belief in the one Holy God Who is the Creator of all and whose righteous will gives meaning and direction to life. A Christian who knows anything of history must also speak a word of confession. For he cannot help recalling how grievously the Jewish people have suffered at the hands of men who called themselves Christians. The record of the treatment of Jews in Europe through long centuries is one which Christians of to-day view with penitence and sorrow. One has also regretfully to admit that the day of cruel treatment of the Jews by some who call themselves Christians is not yet a thing of the past. Even in our own country there are misguided groups which circulate statements that spread a poison of mistrust and hate which is antithetical to the true genius both of America and of the Christian religion. Anti-Semitism is inherently un-Christian, contrary to the plain teaching and spirit of our Lord, and it can be asserted with confidence that an intolerant attitude towards the Jews is opposed by the great body of American Christians… <91> But everything which has happened since shows that what started as a movement against the Jews turns out to be a movement against Christianity also… [227]

In May 1939, the Commissioners of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church in the U.S.A. stated:

"… We confess the sins of our country in this respect. We condemn the attacks on Jews and Christians and other minority groups throughout the world. We would be lacking in a sense of common morality and decency if we did not express our strong disapproval of such an outrageous assault by any government upon an innocent and defenceless people. We urge our government to continue its efforts to make generous arrangement for the settlement of refugees, so continuing our national tradition of being an asylum for the oppressed of all the nations." [228]

The General Synod of the Reformed Church in America, attended by 200 pastors and delegates, adopted (June, 1939) the social welfare report which said in part:

"The failure of the Church to recognize the Jew has behind it a record of misunderstanding, intolerance and spiritual malpractice that has been unequaled in dealing with any other people. Even America is not free from the blight of anti-Jewish prejudice. Both Jew and Gentile are responsible for existing conditions and both must co-operate for their betterment. Christians must rebuke all anti-Semitism… Third, in reference to the refugee problem, a linking up of our efforts and agencies with all others in more adequately caring for those who are so greatly in need. Fourth, a wholehearted endorsement of the legislation permitting 10,000 children (refugees) to be received each year for two years." [229]

18 INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS OF CHURCHES

The World Alliance for International Friendship through the Churches was constituted at Constance, in 1914, at the eve of the first world war. Its supreme body, the International Council, was composed of some 145 members appointed by the various National Councils. <92> In some countries, especially on the continent of Europe, the National Councils worked in close relation with ecclesiastical authorities; in most areas, however, they remained entirely independent agencies, based on the personal adhesion of their members. The Executive Council of the "World Alliance", at its meeting in Sofia, 1933, unanimously adopted the following Resolution:

"… We especially deplore the fact that the State measures against the Jews in Germany have had such an effect on public opinion that in some circles the Jewish race is considered a race of inferior status. We protest against the resolution of the Prussian General Synod and other Synods [230] which apply the Aryan paragraph of the State to the Church, putting serious disabilities upon ministers and church officers who by chance of birth are non-Aryans, which we believe to be a denial of the explicit teaching and spirit of the Gospel of Jesus Christ." [231]

The International Council of the "World Alliance", at its meeting in Chamby
(August, 1935), adopted the following Resolution:

"In view of the pitiable situation of refugees and stateless persons in Europe, having regard to the policy of expulsion which is being pursued by the majority of the European States, to the inadequacy of the measures for providing refugees with valid identification papers and residence and labour permits, and recognising the fact that a turn for the better cannot be attained by legislation undertaken by individual States but only on the basis of international agreements, the World Alliance most warmly welcomes the initiative taken by the Norwegian Government which, in the spirit of Fritjof Nansen, has proposed to place the situation of the refugees upon the agenda of the next plenary assembly of the League of Nations. It expresses the hope that in this way it will be possible to secure for refugees and stateless persons a minimum of individual rights and, by the setting up of a central organisation for refugees, within the framework of the League of Nations, to provide a basis for the settlement of the problem. In order to make this resolution effective, the World Alliance resolves: a. to bring the text of this resolution of the Norwegian Government to the knowledge of the General Secretary of the League of Nations and of all States members of the League of Nations; b. to request the Churches and organisations affiliated to the World Alliance in the different countries to make representations to their governments in the spirit of the resolution before the next meeting of the League of Nations in order to obtain the support of these governments for the Norwegian initiative." [232] <93>

Another International Organization of Churches, more influential than the "World Alliance", was the Ecumenical Council for Life and Work, which had its first world conference in 1925, in Stockholm, and its second in 1937, in Oxford. Its purpose was "to stimulate Christian action in society". Its President, Dr. George Bell (Bishop of Chichester) wrote a letter to Dr. Kapler, President of the Federation of Protestant Churches in Germany, dated May 17, 1933:

"… We do not wish to enter into political questions, nor indeed is it our business to do so. At the same time it would not be fair to disguise from our friends in Germany that certain recent events, especially the action taken against the Jews, have caused and continue to cause us anxiety and distress; and we feel that we ought to share our concern with you here…" [233]

The annual meeting of Life and Work was held at Novi Sad, in Yugoslavia, on 9-12 September, 1933. A German delegation under the leadership of Dr. Heckel, who supported Hitler's policy, was present at the meeting. The minutes record that representatives of other Churches had expressed grave anxiety over the severe action taken against people of Jewish origin. [234] Bishop Bell proposed that, in addition to this, he should write a letter to the leaders of the German Church. This proposal was adopted unanimously. Only Dr. Heckel abstained from voting. Bishop Bell wrote this letter to the German Reich Bishop Mueller, on October 23, 1933. He referred to two features, which were gravely disturbing to the Christian conscience, namely, the adoption of the Aryan Paragraph by the Prussian Church Synod [235] and certain other Synods, and the forcible suppression of minority opinion. Mueller's reply of 8 December was intended to be reassuring. The enactment of the Aryan Paragraph had been stopped, and he hoped for an opportunity when they might discuss together the problems of race, the state, and international order. [236] The Executive Committee of the Ecumenical Council of Life and Work at Novi Sad issued the following "Appeal on Behalf of German Refugees" in November, 1933: <94>

"A new appeal is hereby addressed to Christians, at this Christmastide. It is an appeal to help those who are suffering because there is no place for them in Germany: Jews, Christians of Jewish origin and political refugees. They are dispersed in Palestine and in different lands of Europe. They are in a deplorable situation and a great number of them are destitute… The gifts of the Churches will constitute a welcome proof of that truly ecumenical and Christian spirit which, beyond all differences of race and class, regards every man as a brother." George Cicestr, President of the Ecumenical Council for Life and Work; Germanos, Archbishop of Thyatira, Co-President; W.A. Brown, President of the Administrative Committee; Waldemar Ammundsen, Interim President of the European Section; Wilfred Monod, Vice President. [237]

* * *

The International Missionary Council was organized in 1921, to co-ordinate missionary work throughout the world. Its "Committee on the Christian Approach to the Jews" met at Vienna, 28 June-2 July, 1937. A report of the Subcommittee on Anti-Semitism and the Church was submitted, and adopted in the following form:

"We desire to record our conviction that in contemporary anti-Semitism we face an extraordinary menace against which all Christians must be warned. All forms of hatred and persecution must be deplored by Christians, and their victims must be succoured; but there exists to-day a type of racial anti-Semitic propaganda inspired by hatred of everything springing from Jewish sources; and this creates more crucial issues for Christianity than ordinary outbursts of race feeling. Christian Churches must be warned that they cannot be silent in the presence of this propaganda, still less connive at or participate in the extension of its errors and falsehoods, without betraying Christ, undermining the basis of the Church, and incurring the most severe judgment of God. The Christian Church must let no doubt about this attitude prevail in the eyes of the world. Realizing that enmity to the Jews has now become a cloak for the forces of anti-Christ, and conceals hatred for Christ and His Gospel, the Christian Church must reject anti-Semitism with complete conviction. <95> To realize its true nature and to vindicate its right to the title of the 'Body of Christ', the Church must preach the Gospel and open its fellowship to men of all race, including the Jews. Our mission to the Jews cannot consistently be carried out without at the same time combating anti-Semitism among Christians, and giving more tangible evidence than has been given of our sympathy with Jews and Hebrew Christians in their present distress. Anti-Semitism can and should be combated systematically: 1. By suitable literature, capable of influencing specially wide classes, also by sustained treatment in Christian Reviews and newspapers. 2. By occasional conversations, discussions, and lectures, on the destiny and the hope of the people of Israel. 3. By sincere and friendly discussion between Jews and Christians. 4. By the realization among Christians of the treasures committed to them (Christianizing of Christians)." [238]

The same Committee submitted the following resolution to the Oxford
Conference, in 1937:

"The International Committee on the Christian Approach to the Jews desires to lay before the Oxford Conference on Church and Community and State the problem of Anti-Semitism. The fact of Anti-Semitism is proved, by the ample material in the possession of the Committee to be of growing importance and menace in the world. It constitutes one of the principal denials of modern life of the Christian doctrine of man. It is an attack upon the unity of the Una Sancta, it is even a denial of the person of Christ Himself. It has been largely instrumental in aggravating existing economic and social strains until they have become intolerable. The human misery created, maintained and at the same time concealed by the influence of Anti-Semitism is difficult to estimate. Graver, however, than the volume of human misery is the poisoning of the spirit, the drying up of sympathy and the warping of judgment caused by the influence of Anti-Semitism, especially among the young. Deepest of all is the denial which Anti-Semitism offers to the Unity of the Church, and to the meaning of the Person of Christ Himself. The Committee would further ask the Conference to consider the terrible fact that this problem is not, like many on the Conference will consider, that of an influence external to the Christian Church with which it must make its account, but also of an evil within the Church. Anti-Semitism antedates Christianity and it is not suggested that it is a purely Christian phenomenon, but it is aided by false Christian teaching and it results in the appalling situation, present in several countries where Christian Churches are reluctant, or frankly refuse, to receive a Jewish convert. <96> It is plain that where racial and physical conditions of church membership override the conversion of heart and will, the Christian religion has ceased to exist except in a vain form. But this devitalising influence is present within the Church, not only in one country but in many, and far more widely than is suspected. The Committee therefore invites the Oxford Conference to do two things: in the first place, realizing that the Conference can make its voice heard widely among the Churches of all lands it begs the Conference to speak out clearly on the dangers of Anti-Semitism to the Church itself and to recognize openly the total impossibility of a Church tainted with this form of racial absolutism bearing any valid witness to the word of God in the world. Secondly, it asks that in any provision that is made after the Conference for international Christian study of the great problems that confront the Church in the modem world, attention shall be given to this problem of Anti-Semitism. The International Committee which has already collected a certain amount of information on the subject would gladly co-operate in such a study." [239]

The Oxford Conference (July, 1937), organized by "Life and Work", was an event of major importance. [240] The 425 regular members of the Conference included 300 delegates officially appointed by the Churches, representing 120 communions in forty countries, and constituting a cross-section of Christendom, with the exception of the Roman Catholic Church; only some personal observers from that Communion were present by invitation. Not less than 300 delegates came from the United States and the British Common-wealth. The Orthodox Churches and the Lesser Eastern Churches were represented by some two score dignitaries and scholars. This delegation represented the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch, the Churches of Cyprus, Greece, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Poland, the Russian Church in Exile, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Armenian Church, and the Church of the Assyrians. <97> German Church leaders had taken a prominent part in the preparations for the Conference, but the German secret police had seized the passports of leading members of the Confessing Church, including those of Dibelius and Niemoeller, who had been chosen as delegates to Oxford. On July 1, 1937, before the Conference opened, Niemoeller was arrested. Other delegates of the Confessing Church who still retained their passports decided that, unless all the representatives of the Confessing Church were allowed to attend, none of them would come, thereby demonstrating their unity. [241]

The German authorities must have realized that the absence of the leaders of the Confessing Church would make a bad impression on world opinion, but apparently they were also aware that the position of Niemoeller and his friends would have been strengthened, if they had been able to attend the Conference.

The Oxford Conference sent a "Message to the Churches of Christ throughout the World". We quote the following:

"The Christian sees distinctions of race as part of God's purpose to enrich mankind with a diversity of gifts. Against racial pride or race-antagonism the Church must set its face implacably as rebellion against God. Especially in its own life and worship there can be no place for barriers because of race or colour. Similarly the Christian accepts national communities as part of God's purpose to enrich and diversify human life. Every man is called of God to serve his fellows in the community to which he belongs. But national egotism tending to the suppression of other nationalities or of minorities is, no less than individual egotism, a sin against the Creator of all peoples and races. The deification of nation, race, or class, or of political or cultural ideals, is idolatry, and can only lead to increasing division and disaster." [242]

We also quote the following from the Oxford Conference's "Longer Report on Church and Community":

"Each of the races of mankind has been blessed by God with distinctive and unique gifts. Each has made, and seems destined to continue to make, distinctive and unique contributions to the enrichment of mankind. All share alike in the love, the concern and the compassion of God. Therefore, for a Christian there can be no such a thing as despising another race or a member of another race. Moreover, when God chose to reveal Himself in human form, the Word became flesh in One of a race, then as now, widely despised… <98> Against racial pride, racial hatreds and persecutions, and the exploitation of other races in all their forms, the Church is called by God to set its face implacably and to utter its word unequivocally, both within and without its own borders. There is a special need at this time that the Church throughout the world should bring every resource at its command against the sin of anti-Semitism… The recrudescence of pitiless cruelty, hatred, and race-discrimination in the modern world (including most notably anti-Semitism) is one of the major signs of its social disintegration. To these must be brought not only the weak rebuke of words but the powerful rebuke of deeds. For the Church has been called into existence by God not only for itself but for the world; and only by going out of itself in the work of Christ can it find unity in itself." [243]

An immense effort was made, notably in the Anglo-Saxon world, to bring home the message of the Conference to the rank and file of the Churches. The message was referred to by Church leaders when the fight against anti-Semitism intensified as, for instance, by the 170 ministers in the city of New York, 1941, [244] and Rev. Bertrand in France, in his circular letter of June 11, 1942. [245] Many Church leaders who were present at the Oxford Conference were to denounce anti-Semitism vehemently and publicly, during the Second World War. We mention: Dr. Visser 't Hooft, the General Secretary; the Archbishop of York (Dr. Temple); the Bishop of Chichester (Dr. Bell); Archbishop Eidem, of Sweden; Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard, of Denmark; Archbishop Stephan, of Bulgaria; Dr. Samuel Osusky, Czechoslovakia; the Rev. Marc Boegner, France; Prof. Emil Brunner, Switzerland; and Dr. Samuel McCrea Cavert, the United States.

Another statement to be recorded in this chapter was adopted by the World Alliance for International Friendship through the Churches, on its meeting at Larvik (Norway), in August, 1938:

"The Council appeals to its members to do all they can to awaken public opinion in their own countries to the great evils involved in the systematic ostracism and persecution now being directed against the Jewish race and against thousands of Christians who have kinship with the Jews. Whilst acknowledging the weakness, hesitancy and failure of Christians in this matter, it is appalled by the growth of racial and religious intolerance throughout the world. <99> It holds it to be a total denial of faith in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of men as revealed in Jesus Christ and it calls upon all Christians to unite their efforts so that in a distracted and divided world Christ may be made manifest 'Who is our peace. Who made both one and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us'." [246]

* * *

In 1938, two great Ecumenical Movements - Faith and Order and Life and
Work - associated together in forming a Provisional Committee of the World
Council of Churches (in process of formation). The World Council of Churches
was officially constituted in Amsterdam, in 1948.

On November 16, 1938, Dr. Visser 't Hooft, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, H. L. Henriod, General Secretary of the World Alliance for International Friendship through the Churches and Adolf Keller, Director of Inter-Church Aid sent the following letter to the member Churches:

"At the moment when the terrible persecution of the Jewish population in Germany and in other Central European countries has come to a violent climax, it is our duty to remind ourselves of the stand which we have taken as an ecumenical movement against anti-Semitism in all its forms. The World Alliance at the meeting of its Executive in Sofia in 1933 and at its recent Assembly at Larvik in August 1938, and the Conference on Church, Community and State at Oxford in 1937 have unequivocally expressed the Christian attitude on this point and called upon the Churches to help those who suffer from racial persecution. We suggest that at this time all Churches should take immediate action based on these statements. The most practical action would seem to be: 1. Corporate prayers of intercession. 2. An approach to the Governments of the various countries requesting that they should act immediately. a. in order to allow a larger percentage of non-Aryan refugees to enter provisionally or definitely into the country concerned; b. to further without delay the plan proposed by the Evian Conference [247] for securing a permanent settlement of a large number of actual and potential non-Aryan refugees. 3. Undertake as a Church the responsibility of the maintenance of some non-Aryan and Christian families and particularly of at least one non-Aryan pastor or theological student. <100> We put ourselves at your disposal for further information on any of these projects." [248]

We know that Church leaders in the United States made the requested "approach to the Government". [249]

The International Missionary Council held a large international conference at Tambaram, Madras, in December, 1938. It reiterated the Vienna (1937) statement of the International Committee on the Christian Approach to the Jews on anti-Semitism [250], expressed "its deep concern about the increasingly tragic plight of the Jews", and urged "that this constitutes a claim of first importance on the Christian Church". It recommended:

1. That prayer should be regularly made in Christian Churches, and
particularly on Good Friday and the Jewish Day of Atonement, for all Jews
and non-Aryans who are suffering persecution.
2. That individuals, Churches and Christian Councils in countries suitable
for the reception of immigrants should use their influence, wherever
possible, to secure an open door for refugees.
3. That Christian people in all countries should make a special effort to
welcome and help such of their refugee brethren as arrive in their country.
4. That an appeal be made in all churches for help for recognized refugee
funds…" [251]

In January 1939, at the First ordinary session of the Provisional Committee of the World Council of Churches, the Bishop of Chichester proposed that the Council create a special department to deal with refugee problems.

"He felt that the time had come to aid the entire mass of non-Aryans. He meant not only the non-Aryan members of the Church but also the others, albeit there being a special responsibility towards members of the Christian Church. Soon afterwards Dr. Adolf Freudenberg was appointed the first secretary of this new Department for Aid to Refugees." [252] <101>

III

DURING THE WAR

19 HISTORICAL EVENTS, 1939-1945

1939
Sept. 1 Germany attacks Poland.
Sept. 3-4 Great Britain and France declare war upon Germany.
Sept. 17 Russia invades Poland.
Nov. 30 Russia attacks Finland.

1940
March 20 Finland accepts peace with Russia.
Apr. 9 Germany occupies Denmark and attacks Norway.
May 10 Germany attacks the Netherlands and Belgium.
May 14 Capitulation of the Netherlands.
May 28 Capitulation of Belgium.
May 20-June 4: Evacuation of the British expedition force at Dunkirk.
June 10 Italy attacks France.
June 24 France concludes armistice with the Axis.
Aug.-Nov. The "Battle of Britain": Hitler tries to subdue Great Britain by
air raids.
Oct. 28 Italy attacks Greece.
Dec. 7-11 Victory of Great Britain in North Africa.

1941
April Victory of Germany in North Africa.
April 6 Germany attacks Yugoslavia and Greece.
April 13 Belgrade occupied.
April 27 Athens occupied.
May 10 Rudolf Hess flies to Scotland.
June 22 Germany invades Russia.
Dec. 6 Russian counter offensive; Germany fails to take Moscow.
Dec. 7 Japan attacks Pearl Harbour.
Dec. 11 Hitler declares war upon the United States.

1942
Jan. 20 The Wannsee Conference on the "Final Solution of the Jewish
Question" in Europe.
June Rommel defeats Great Britain in North Africa and captures El
Alamein.
Aug. 23 Germany's sixth army reaches the Volga near Stalingrad.
Nov. 2 Montgomery breaks through at El Alamein.
Nov. 8 Allied forces land in Morocco and Algeria.
Nov. 11 Germany seizes the unoccupied zone of France.
Nov. 19 Russia launches its counter offensive near Stalingrad.

1943
Jan. 3 End of the Battle of Stalingrad.
April 19-May 16 Warsaw Ghetto uprising.
July 10 Allied forces land on Sicily.
Sept. 3 Allied forces land in Southern Italy.
Dec. The Soviet armies approach the Polish and Rumanian frontiers.

1944
June 6 The beginning of the Invasion.
July 20 Attempt on Hitler's life.
August Russia conquers Rumania.
Aug. 25 Liberation of Paris.
Sept. 3 Liberation of Brussels.

1945
Jan. 17 Russia captures Warsaw.
Feb. 13 Russia captures Budapest.
Apr. 30 Hitler commits suicide.
May 2 Capitulation of Berlin.
May 7 Unconditional surrender of Germany.
<106>

20 GERMANY

Deportations from Austria and the Protectorate (Bohemia-Moravia) began in the winter of 1939/1940. On February 12, 1940, Jews were deported from Stettin. On July 31, 1941, Heydrich was charged by Goering with the preparation and execution of the "Final Solution". On October 14, 1941, the systematic deportation of the Jews from the Reich began. On January 20, 1942, the Wannsee-Conference on the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe" was held. From July, 1942, the selections for the gas chambers took place in concentration camps such as Auschwitz. On June 19, 1943, Goebbels declared Berlin to be free of Jews. An estimated number of 3,000 Jews, however, succeeded in surviving "illegally", until the end of the war.

It is, as has been explained before, not my intention to record the help rendered by individuals to Jews. There are, however, indications that organized help to Jews did not wholly stop with the closure of Rev. Grueber's office. [253] Mr. Krakauer relates how he and his wife were helped and hidden during the last years of the war. [254] Not less than 34 ministers of the CONFESSING Church were involved in the rescue of these two people. They all had them in their homes for some days or longer, as staying at the same place for too long a period was too dangerous. It appears that there existed a kind of organization of pastors who passed on persecuted Jewish people from one manse to another. The book also shows how difficult it was in those days, to help and hide people who had no identity cards and no ration cards. Mr. Krakauer stated: "On May 20, 1945, I had the opportunity to speak with Landesbischof D. Wurm, the highest prelate of the country (of Wurttemberg), and to thank him for the fact that by his attitude he had made it possible for his pastors to interest themselves actually on our behalf". [255] Some Church leaders did not speak out publicly, or, only spoke when it was too late; the reason may just have been that they were afraid to accept the personal risk involved. We know of Bishop Wurm's protests, which came late, even too late to do any good for the Jews in general. <107> I do not know very much about his "attitude" in the time before he took official action. The fact that Mr. Krakauer felt that he should thank the Bishop, throws an important sidelight on the dilemma which Church leaders sometimes had to face. If they spoke out publicly against the persecutions, they did not only risk their own freedom and life, but they also risked the lives of the persecuted Jews whom they secretly tried to save. Mr. Krakauer's story should certainly be read by anyone who is interested in the attitude of Protestants in Hitler's Germany toward the Jews.

No public statement whatsoever against anti-Semitism was issued by the CONFESSING Church in Germany, or by any of its leaders, from the end of 1938 until 1943. In April, 1943, a letter was sent by a group of Christian laymen to the Lutheran Bishop of Bavaria. The Bishop asked for at least two signatures to enable him to raise the matter officially, but no one was willing to sign. However, the letter had an indirect influence because Bishop Wurm of Wurttemberg read it, and then sent two letters to the German Government.

Letter of a Group of Christian Laymen:

"As Christians we no longer can tolerate that the Church in Germany should keep silent in regard to the persecution of the Jews. in Churches where the true Gospel is preached, all members are equally responsible for supporting such preaching. We are therefore aware that we also, are equally guilty for the Church's failure in this matter. The inclusion of the so-called 'privileged' Jews in this persecution is the next threat: the dissolving of marriages which are valid according to God's law, should cause the Church to protest, in faithfulness to the World of God, against this violation of the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth commandments, thus, at last, doing what it should have done long ago. What moves us is the simple commandment to love one's neighbour, as expounded by Jesus in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Here He explicitly precluded any limitation of our love only to members of our own faith, race or nation. At this time every 'non-Aryan' in Germany, whether Jew or Christian, 'has fallen among murderers'; we are challenged as to whether we will act towards him as did the priest and the Levite, or as the Good Samaritan?

The Duty of the Church <108>

No 'Jewish Question' can release us from this decision. Rather should the Church declare that the Jewish question is primarily an evangelical question and not a political one. The politically unusual, and unique existence and character of the Jews is, according to the Holy Scriptures, based on the fact that God has chosen this people as the instrument for His revelation. The Church, just as the first apostles after the crucifixion, must tirelessly testify to the Jews: 'Unto you first, God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities' (Acts of the Apostles 3, 26). This testimony of the Church will only seem worthy of belief to Israel, if the Church is also concerned about the Jews who 'have fallen among murderers'. The Church must especially resist 'Christian' anti-Semitism within its borders, which excuses the actions of the non-Christian world against the Jews, as well as, the inactivity of the Church in this matter, by saying that a 'deserved' curse lies upon Israel. Let us not forget the apostle's exhortation to us Gentile Christians: 'Be not high-minded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee' (Romans 11, 20, 21). The Church must testify to the State about the purpose of Israel in the plan of salvation, thus actively resisting every attempt, to 'solve' the Jewish question, according to a man-made political gospel, which brings about the annihilation of the Jews. This is an attempt to fight against God and his first commandment. The Church must confess that she, as the true Israel, is united with Jewry by indissoluble ties, both in her guilt and in her right to the promises of God. She must not try any more to remain in safety while Israel is attacked. Rather, she must testify that by the attack on Israel, the Church and her Lord Jesus are also being attacked.

God remains faithful to his Covenant.

The parable of the Good Samaritan reveals the kind of example which should be given by the Church, in regard to the Jewish question. The phenomenal history of the Jews, in which the prophecy has been fulfilled: 'they shall be a curse, and an astonishment, and a hissing, and a reproach, among all the nations' (Jeremiah 29, 18), proclaims to the whole world that the God who gave the first commandment, by his dealings with Israel has manifested to the nations his sovereignty. The Church must explain this phenomenon. She also must, by her faithful testimony, make certain that the authorities are not able to avoid the challenge by obliterating the phenomenon of the Jews. She must therefore proclaim the message of God, who brought both Israel and the Church 'out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage' (Exodus 20, 2). Notwithstanding all the unfaithfulness of those He has elected among both Jews and Gentiles, He remains faithful to his Covenant. The Church thus proclaims to the authorities that only by faith in Jesus Christ can they be delivered from their demonic political 'gospel', which they in their obsession wish to realize, being unrestrained by the law of God. The Church, therefore, must proclaim the commandments concerning our neighbour to the authorities in connection with their attitude to Israel, but also the first commandment concerning their attitude towards God. For the rulers can only exercise their powers rightly by upholding the law rightly, in obedience to the first commandment. <109>

A Public Protest Demanded

The protest of the Church against the persecution of the Jews in Germany thus becomes a specially important example of the witness she is charged to give against all violations of the ten commandments by any power. The Church must warn the State, in the name of God, not with political arguments, as has happened occasionally, that it must 'not oppress the stranger, the fatherless and the widow' (Jeremiah 7, 6). She must remind the State of its duty to maintain public justice in an orderly, legal system based on humane laws; of the commandment to execute punishment in righteousness; of its duty to protect the oppressed and to respect certain basic rights of its citizens, etc. This witness of the Church must be made publicly, either through preaching or by means of a special pronouncement of the Bishop in his function as Shepherd and Watchman. Only thus can the Church fulfil her duty towards all who, either in a legislative or in an executive capacity, participate in this persecution. Also the conscience of the stricken Jews and the Christian community, which is tempted to deny its faith, must be instructed. So far the Church in Germany cannot be said to have made such a witness, for nothing that she has said in public has done justice to her responsibility to preach the truth in this respect. [256]

It is significant that the authors of this letter claimed that as Christians they no longer could tolerate that the Church in Germany should keep silent regarding the persecution of the Jews; that all members of the Church are equally responsible for supporting such preaching (of the true Gospel) and that the protest of the Church must be made publicly. Yet, they themselves refused to sign their own letter.

On January 28 1943, Bishop D. Wurm of Wurttemberg sent a letter to a "Senior State Official" (Ministerial Director Dr. Dill, of the Ministry of Interior). We quote the following:

"… Apart from these matters, ecclesiastical in the limited sense of the word, I would like to raise another delicate and difficult, but unfortunately, unavoidable point. Wide circles, and not only those in the Confessing Church, are unhappy at the manner in which the war against other races and nations is conducted. <110> From soldiers on home leave we learn how Jews and Poles are systematically murdered in the occupied territories. Also those who objected to Jewish predominance in public life (even at a time when the entire press was in favour of the Jews), cannot assume that one nation is entitled to exterminate another through measures applied to individuals irrespective of their personal blame. The putting to death of people without any trial, solely on the basis of their belonging to a different nationality, or on account of their diseased health, clearly contradicts the divine commandments, and therefore also every concept of justice and humanity which is indispensable in a civilised nation. There can be no blessing on such an attitude. It leads one to consider the fact that from the time these measures were adopted, the German forces have not been as successful as they were at the beginning of the war. Many Germans see in these occurrences not only a disaster but also a sign of guilt, which will bring its own vengeance. Their moral burden would be lightened, if a courageous and noble-minded decision were taken by the Government, which would cleanse the besmirched shield of honour of the German nation. The Evangelical Church has not publicly protested before, to avoid embarrassing the German nation in the eyes of foreign countries. But now that new and great sacrifices are being demanded of the German people, it should also be granted relief from its moral burdens." [257]

On July 16, 1943, Bishop Wurm sent a letter to all the Members of the
Government, in which he pleaded for the "so-called privileged non-Aryans".
We quote the following:

"… In the name of God, and for the sake of the German nation, we urgently request that the responsible leaders of the Reich stop the persecution and the annihilation of so many men and women, which under German domination is being carried out without any judicial sentence. Now that non-Aryans under German domination have to a great extent been removed, it is much to be feared that individuals, the so-called privileged non-Aryans, who until now were spared, are now in danger of being treated likewise. In particular we emphatically protest against those measures which threaten to dissolve legal marriages and thus penalize the children born out of these marriages. These aims are, like other actions of annihilation taken against non-Aryans, in flat contradiction to God's commandment, and they violate the foundation of all Western existence and human values in general…" [258] <111> On December 20, 1943, another letter was sent by Bishop Wurm, to the Chief of the Reich Chancellery, Lammers:

"… Not because of any philosemitic sympathies but solely from religious and ethical considerations, I must declare, in accordance with the opinion of all positive Christian circles in Germany, that we as Christians consider the policy of annihilation of the Jews as a terrible injustice, fatal to the German people. Killing without military necessity and without trial is contrary to God's commandments, even though it is ordered by the Goverment. Just as every conscious transgression of God's commandments, it will recoil sooner or later on its perpetrators. Our people in many respects is experiencing sufferings which it has to bear from the air-attacks of the enemy, as if in retribution for what was inflicted upon the Jews…" [259]

A Public Protest, issued not by one Church leader but by the CONFESSING Synod of the Evangelical Church of the Old-Prussian Union, was the "Interpretation of the Fifth Commandment":

14. "The sword is given to the State only that it may execute criminals and for the destruction of enemies in war-time. What it does beyond that, it does arbitrarily and to its own detriment. When life is taken for other reasons than those mentioned, men's confidence in one another is undermined and thus the unity of the people is destroyed. The divine world order knows no such terms as 'to expunge', 'to liquidate' or 'valueless life' with regard to human beings. To slay human beings simply because they are related to criminals, because they are old or mentally afflicted, or because they belong to a different race, is not the use of the sword sanctioned by the Scripture… 17. In our time, especially, elderly people are more than ever before dependent on our help. The same is the case with the incurably ill, the weak-minded and the mentally diseased. We must also not forget those who receive no support - or almost no support - from public funds. In such matters the Christian is not concerned with public opinion. His neighbour is always the one who is helpless and who especially needs him, and he makes no distinction between races, nations or religions. <112> God alone has authority over human life. All life is sacred to him, even that of the people of Israel. Israel has indeed rejected the Christ of God, but neither as human beings nor as Christians are we called upon to pass sentence on their unbelief…" [260]

The publication of the "Interpretation of the Fifth Commandment" was an act of courage but one shudders to read the opinion that "Israel has indeed rejected the Christ of God". It was only after the war that the Kirchentag (1961) declared: "Jews and Christians are insolubly linked with each other: …God hath not cast away his people, which He foreknew". [261] Such declarations were lacking at the time when they were most necessary.

Several leaders of the CONFESSING Church have severely criticized their Church, and themselves. Rev. Martin Niemoeller, who himself was imprisoned from 1937 until the end of the war, stated:

"Nobody wants to take the responsibility for the guilt. Nobody admits to guilt but instead points to his neighbour. Yet the guilt exists, there is no doubt about it. Even if there were no other guilt than that of 6,000,000 clay urns; the ashes of burnt Jews from all over Europe. This guilt weighs heavily on the German people, on the German name, and on all Christendom. These things happened in our world and in our name… I regard myself as guilty as any SS man." [262]

Rev. Grueber, who himself suffered in a concentration camp because of his help rendered to Jews, said:

"In a few meetings of the Confessing Church a call to protest was given. But protests were made by the few, in comparison with the millions who co-operated or kept silent, who, at best, played the ostrich or clenched their fists in their pockets." [263] <113> The following is the opinion of Dr. Freudenberg, who was the Director of the World Council of Churches' Secretariat for Refugees, during the war:

"The attitude of the Christians, also of the adherents of the Confessing Church, towards the national-socialist persecution of the Jews, shows great weakness and uncertainty. The anti-Semitic outcry of the environment made a greater impression than the word of Jesus Christ, the Son of David… But even the apparently feeble witness of the Church demanded great confessional courage in the situation of that time. One wrestled to give many a witness, and one suffered when the right word at the right time was not given… It certainly is not accidental that even the Confessing Church, though offering determined resistance against the introduction of the Arierparagraph within the Church, only very hesitatingly made its stand against the anti-Semitic laws and the persecution of the Jews in the State… The fact that the policy of the State towards the Jews ultimately is the policy of the Church and that persecution of the Jews is persecution of Christ, was not acknowledged in time, and when finally it was made, it was far from adequate. Moreover, this policy was effectively veiled by the national-socialist methods of camouflage. At the beginning of the regime one simply could not believe that the rulers relentlessly pursued a plan for the annihilation of the Jews and the elimination of the Christian Church from public life… If we want to evaluate the documents correctly, we must always consider Hitler's incomprehensible terrorization in the Reich. It may disappoint us that the matter was not raised more often and more forcibly. We should, however, bear in mind under which circumstances speaking or keeping silent took place. We should keep in mind that only now, after all the atrocities have become known, has it become customary to make a categorical condemnation of national-socialism. But this phenomenon was, in general, judged quite differently, that is to say, much more positively, not only by the Germans but everywhere in the world, at the time when (some of) these documents were issued." [264]

The Evangelical Church in Germany herself, after the war, pleaded guilty,
unequivocally and repeatedly. [265]
The verdict seems obvious: even the Protestant group in Germany which
resisted Hitler, totally failed when they should have stood up in the
defence of the Jews. After all this has been said, however, something
should be added.
1. The CONFESSING Church in Germany did speak out against anti-Semitism
in 1936, and, indirectly, also in 1935 and 1938, when already this meant
martyrdom. Churches in other lands, for instance in the Netherlands, did
not speak out in those days. Many Churches outside Germany denounced anti-
Semitism long before 1940, but it cost them little, if anything. <114>
2. The CONFESSING Church, when speaking on behalf of the Jews, spoke against
its own Government and seemingly against national interests. Church
leaders in countries occupied by the Germans also risked their lives when
denouncing German anti-Semitism, but they spoke against the national enemy.
Public declarations of Church leaders in Germany were used by foreign
propaganda media against the Third Reich. [266]
Fortunately, this served to open the eyes of many blind people outside
Germany, but it certainly made things even more difficult for Church
leaders in Germany: many of their compatriots regarded the issue of such
declarations as an act of high-treason.
3. Guenter Lewy, discussing the attitude of the Roman-Catholic Church in
Germany, states:

"The concern of the Gentile populations of these countries (France, the Netherlands and Belgium) for their Jewish fellow citizens was undoubtedly one of the key factors behind the bold public protests of the French, Dutch and Belgian bishops - just as the absence of such solicitude in Germany goes a long way toward explaining the apathy of their German counterparts." [267]

This is also applicable to the leaders of the CONFESSING Church. <115>