From the vast literature that has grown up around these problems [28] we see that side by side with the all-pervasive secularization of life there were also historical and theological factors embedded in Christianity which later turned against Christianity itself. Through further study, we might find in the history of Christianity traditions <XVIII> that originated in the barbarism of the pagan world, turned anti-Christian by that very paganism, then continued as anti-Jewish attitudes and policies on the part of the Christian world - and finally culminating dialectically into a destructive force that was directed not only against Judaism, but through Judaism against Humanity and hence also against Christianity. One of these powerful anti-Jewish elements which rooted in Christianity, and after having been secularized became an effective means used by totalitarianism against the Jews as well as against the Jews as the symbol of non-conformism, as the embodiment of the human quest for a free existence, for the right to be different and yet to be, is the very concept of Collective Guilt. Its origin is the idea of guilt for the crucifixion of God who took on Flesh (Matt. 27. 25; I Thess. 2. 15), a guilt which lies as a heavy yoke on the shoulders of all the Jews till the end of the days.
It was applied to social life by various Church Synods (such as Elvira in 306, Clermont in 535, Orleans in 538, the Lateran Councils of 1179 and 1215) with their succession of repressive measures and harassments directed against the Jews. It culminated under the influence of blood libels in the late Middle Ages (Andreas of Ryn p. 1462, Simon of Trient 1475) [29], and in Modern Times (Tisza-Esslar, Korfu, Xanten, Polna, Konitz) - down to the days of the Third Reich. By using the very pattern of a Collective Guilt, the Christian projected on to the Jew the frailties common to all human beings. This mechanism enabled the Christian to see his own weakness reflected in the Jew so that by persecuting the Jew, moreover by exterminating him, the Christian could obliterate his own image as a sinner, and cleanse his conscience from the burden of guilt. These patterns of thought and conduct, these models of generalization, projection and prejudice that originally were established by Christianity with respect to the Jews - to what extent were they now employed by the Nazi regime against Humanity, as well as against the Church itself whenever the racial antisemites attacked its ethical Judaic basis? <XIX> B. The second group of questions concerns the problems as to whether the survival of the Jews on the one hand, and their ultimate Christianization on the other, are both indispensable to Christianity. Since the promise made to the Jews in the Old Testament (Gen. 22 .18; II Sam. 7. 12; Isaiah 7.14), will be fulfilled or perhaps superseded by those of the New Testament (Rom. 9-11) when the Jews return in penitence and acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, it seems that the Christian concern for the fate of the Jews, even in the days of the holocaust, is unavoidably accompanied by an interest in his salvation. Alas, his salvation is conceived by the Christian in terms that are unacceptable for the Jew as long as he wishes to adhere to Judaism as a religion, a people and an unfulfilled eschatology.
As we study the documents before us in their total historical context including parts not directly relevant to the very protest and therefore not printed in this volume, we are impressed with the following fact; while the Church raised its voice against the persecution of the Jews out of human motives, as well as in the hope of thereby strengthening its own members, the traditional, dogmatic concept of the Jew continued to be dominant. According to this view the persecution of the Jews constitutes an error, not only for reasons of humanity, but mainly because persecution prevents the Jew from seeking redemption among his persecutors. It prevents the Jew from turning to Jesus as the Messiah and from seeking in the New Testament that salvation which not only is promised him, but without which Christianity itself is doomed to remain unfulfilled. From the theological point of view regarding the right of Judaism to exist, the Church in its protest against the Nazis reverted to the original attitude of Luther, as expressed in "Das Jesus Christus eyn geborener Jude sey" of 1523. When Luther protested against the anti-Jewish policy of the Church, claiming that the Church treated the Jews "als waren es hunde", and that under such circumstances he himself would: "…ehe eyn saw geworden denn eyn Christe", this very protest was also not based on an acknowledgment of the right of Judaism to exist as an independent, autonomous religion. The motive that inspired this protest was the hope that Christianity would mitigate the persecution of the Jews and apply to them instead the Christian Commandment of love and tolerance, as written by Luther: <xx> "…Ob etliche halsstarrig sind was ligt daran? Sind wyr doch auch nicht alle gute Christen…". In that case, and only in that case, Christians might be hopeful that the Jews would return in penitence and believe in the salvation brought to them by their own Messiah. Against this historical background [30] it seems that even during the Holocaust, Christianity continued to identify the Jew not in his own, authentic, terms, but according to the classical traditions. The Jew is one who persists in the impenitent rejection of Christ, but must be saved, for it is the Jew who has to complete the eschatological process of the Heilsgeschichte. Therefore Jews, and especially converts, have to be rescued from racial discrimination. Moreover, since Judaism continues to be an integral part of Christianity, the very notion of the Jews as a race can have no basis whatsoever in Christian theology. [31] This has been stated as early as September 1933 by the theological faculty of the University of Marburg in its statement against the "Arierparagraph". Similar statements were issued by theologians such as Rudolf Bultmann and the members of the Bekenntnis der Vaeter und die bekennende Gemeinde (Betheler Bekenntnis), 1934 [32]. Thus, even at the height of Nazi persecution and in times of the extermination of the Jews, the Church would not acknowledge Judaism as a religion in its own right and on its own terms, but insisted that a Jew who became a Christian was merely fulfilling his predestined role; such a Jew did not leave his faith, he returned to his true faith. It is most symptomatic and instructive to note that in the controversy between Heinrich Vogel, one of the leaders in the protests against the persecution of Jews and the author of the "65 Theses of Protest" (March 1933) and Friedrich Gebhart, a spokesman of the "German Christians" and the author of the "Reply to the 65 Theses" (May 1933), <XXI> both sides, despite their theological and political contradictions adhere to the same traditional Christian view that the Jews are in a state of rejection (Verwerfung). One view holds that the Jew can abrogate his old covenant with Jehovah and step over to the side of the Redeemer; the other holds that the derelict Jew is beyond salvation and the redeeming influences of the Church, that Ueberzeuging cannot overcome Zeugung, that the Vollendung of Judaism in Christ should be turned into the Endloesung of Jewish existence. Both, however, despite the far reaching differences and contradictions between them, deny the Jew the right to live on his own terms and according to his own autonomy. This approach to the Jewish question on the part of those who protested against the persecution of the Jews was not confined to the Bekennende Kirche in Germany. Even the Dutch Church, in the early forties, did not deviate from its theological tradition. A typical illustration is to be found in the Pastoral Letter written by the General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church (Sept. 1941), a document that will go down in history as a striking witness to spiritual integrity and moral courage. Although the Letter emphasizes the fact that the New Testament is dependent on the Old Testament (Deut. 6, 4-5; Mark 12, 29-31) and that the love of one's fellowman also applies to the treatment of the Jew (Lev. 19, 18; Matt. 22, 39), it defines Judaism as a religion that is destined to disappear by being redeemed through and in Christianity. Again, this is in keeping with Christian tradition which holds that the metaphysical status of election and the promise of eschatological salvation as given to the Jews in the Old Testament are fulfilled in Jesus who is "…the fulfilment of all God's promises to Israel, the true king of this nation sent by God…" [33] Hence, the document continues, having rejected Jesus as the redeemer, the Jews are still sunk in sin: "…Israel did not recognize Him, but rejected Him… In this way they hardened their hearts against the grace of God… They are no longer Israel in the original sense of the lord, they are 'Jews' now. A Jew is a man of Israel who rejects Jesus Christ, and thus is to us a sign of human hostility to the Gospel…" [34] The Church that protested Jewish persecution by the Nazis with such courage and religious conviction still finds it indispensable to advocate conversion as the only solution to the problem of Jewish stubborn existence, an existence which equals infidelity: <XXII>
"…The true destiny of the Jewish people lies in its Conversion to Christ, by joining the Christian Church. The Jew remains a Jew in the bitter sense which this word has for him first and foremost; the Jew cannot free himself from himself, as long as he does not come to Christ…" [35]
Are there any pronouncements of the Church that offer a Christian-Jewish relationship other than that of conversion? [36] Is there a possibility that the Church may acknowledge the inherent right of self-determination for the Jew, so that he could retain his identity and not seek to "free himself from himself?" This "bitter sense" of the Jew the Church spoke about even when protesting against Nazism, is it indigenous to Judaism or rather the result of the social and political conditions in a Christian world? Similar questions arise when we read the documents in Appendix I which do not deal with the period of the Third Reich but with the period after the Second World War. In these documents we find a number of explicit statements by eminent Christian theologians condemning anti-semitism. But even here we find no acknowledgment of the right of Judaism to exist on its own terms. Nor do we find such acknowledgment in the special declaration of a group of theologians, during the Second Assembly of the World Council of Churches which convened in Evanston in 1954, entitled "Hope of Israel" [37]. In this declaration a systematic attempt is made to renew relations with <XXIII> Judaism since"… to be a member of the Christian Church is to be involved with the Jews… and the people of the New Covenant cannot be separated from the people of the Old Covenant…" [38] Jews, however, are still regarded as candidates for salvation on Christian terms, so that even in this enlightened document - a document which was composed years after the wholesale extermination of the Jews by the Nazis - theologians find no other solution but "…to hope for the conversion of the Jewish people…" [39]. Moreover, when these circles in the Church desire for reasons of conscience and remorse to express "…the grievous guilt of the Christian people towards the Jews throughout the history of the church…", they find no better way to express their deep sorrow than to revert to the "Findings of the pre-Evanston Conference of the American committee on the Christian Approach to the Jews" (Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, August 8-11, 1954) which states that '… the Church cannot rest until the title of Christ to the Kingdom is recognized by His own People according to the flesh…'" [40].
Another typical example of this attitude is the proclamation of the Joint Committee of the World Council of Churches and the International Missionary Council, after its Consultation at the Ecumenical Institute, Bossey, Sept. 12-18, 1956. An attempt was made to elevate the missionary activities of the Church, to seek the salvation of the Jews by the power of the spirit only: "…Our hope for the Jews does not mean that we can calculate the time or define the nature of the coming of Christ in his Kingdom… We may find a further warning against too precise speculation with regard to the Second Coming of Christ…" (Ch. III, par. c, d.). [41] In conclusion, however, the Joint Committee could not help adding a declaration which for the Jew makes any authentic dialogue meaningless if not impossible: "… The Jewish people will not find their true destiny until they return and acknowledge Jesus as Christ and Lord" (Cf. Chap. IV, 6) [42]. <XXIV>
C. The third group of questions that arise from reading the documents and require careful study, deal with the actual situation as it existed during the Nazi regime. Were the protests of the Church effective, in rescuing Jews and then in strengthening the spirit of resistance, or even the religious feelings among Christians? Were the protests raised at the right time and under the proper circumstances, to mitigate the persecution or to postpone the annihilation of the Jews? Was the protest the most useful means of rescuing Jews, or would it have been more helpful for the Church to keep quiet so that it could devote itself more to actual underground activities - but, then, could the Church keep quiet? Was the Church, in its protest, ready to endanger its members as well as their relatives for the sake of an effective anti-Nazi struggle, or did the protest function as a Catharsis, relieving the members of the Church from the burden of moral responsibility towards the persecuted? Did the protests create a new, perhaps even a revolutionary non-conformist stand of the Church over against political power? How was the protest of the Church related to the concept of obedience to the existing regime, as expressed in Paul's Letter to the Romans Ch. 13, and in Luther's "Von weltlicher Obrigkeit wie weit man ihr Gehorsam schuldig ist" 1523? Finally, what was the reaction of the Jews who were persecuted, and especially of those Jews who lived in free countries and who might have been expected to exert themselves to save their brethren? Did they endanger their personal safety to rescue their fellow-Jews and display a deeper sense of responsibility towards them than the Church?
This collection of sources, by concentrating on only one aspect of the entire interrelationship between Christianity and Judaism during the period of the holocaust may confuse the reader in thinking that the Protest was the prime characteristic and policy of the Church regarding anti-semitism, the persecution of the Jews and their extermination. The author of this book, the Rev. Johan M. Snoek, is correct in bringing to our attention that the Protest must be viewed as one and only one aspect of the position of the Church and of the Christian world as a whole during the Nazi regime. A collection of sources on the Protest of the Church does not preclude the fact that there existed other positions among Christians; the position of cooperation with antisemites, whether it was active or passive, direct or indirect, with knowledge of without, whether voluntary or <XXV> through coercion. This volume does not attempt to research the entire and definite historical and theological position of the Church during the Holocaust. Its purpose is to bring light upon one aspect, which until now has not been sufficiently investigated. By having gathered these documents, and by having placed them before us in their historical and geo-political order, a major contribution has been made towards a more balanced and varied understanding of this period.
Uriel Tal
The Hebrew University, Jerusalem
<XXVI>