The Grey Book Part 15

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 a.s.sume that one nation is ent.i.tled 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 att.i.tude. 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 n.o.ble-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 embarra.s.sing 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d's commandments, even though it is ordered by the Goverment. Just as every conscious transgression of G.o.d'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> G.o.d 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 G.o.d, but neither as human beings nor as Christians are we called upon to pa.s.s 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 G.o.d". It was only after the war that the Kirchentag (1961) declared: "Jews and Christians are insolubly linked with each other: ...G.o.d 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:

"n.o.body wants to take the responsibility for the guilt. n.o.body 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 att.i.tude 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 doc.u.ments 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 circ.u.mstances 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 doc.u.ments 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 att.i.tude 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>

THE OCCUPIED COUNTRIES

21 NORWAY

Only 1,700 Jews were living in Norway. In October 1940, the Jews were barred from certain professions. In June 1942, registration was ordered and in October confiscation of Jewish property was decreed.

The Jews received ident.i.ty cards stamped with the letter J; at the same time, arrests of Jews began.

On October 25, 1942, all male Jews of sixteen and over were arrested and interned. On November 25, the women and children were seized. 770 Jews, including 100 refugees from Central Europe, were deported by boat to Stettin and thence to Auschwitz. The majority of Norwegian Jews (930) were smuggled to Sweden. [268]

The Const.i.tution of Norway proclaims: "The Evangelical-Lutheran religion shall remain the official religion of the State". The majority of Government ministers must be members of the Church of Norway.

Quisling had received the t.i.tle of Minister-president on February 1, 1942.

The Bishops of the Church of Norway decided unanimously, on February 24, 1942, to "cease administrative co-operation with a State which practices violence against the Church", although maintaining the right to exercise the spiritual vocation given them by ordination at the Lord's altar.

On April 9, 1942, the Quisling authorities imprisoned Bishop Berggrav and four other Church leaders. Later on Bishop Berggrav returned from the concentration camp in which he was held, but remained under house arrest.

<116> On November 11, 1942, the (Lutheran) Bishops of Norway sent a letter of Protest to the Minister President Quisling. This Protest was also signed by the Baptists, the Methodist Church, the Norwegian Mission a.s.sociation, the Norwegian Mission Alliance, the Sunday School Union and the Salvation Army. Following is the text of the Protest:

"The Minister President's law, announced October 27, 1942, regarding the confiscation of property belonging to Jews have been received by our people with great sorrow, and was deepened by the decree that all Jewish men over 15 years of age were to be arrested.

When now we appeal to the Minister President, it is not to defend whatever wrongs Jews may have committed; if they have committed crimes they should be tried, judged and punished according to Norwegian law, just as all other citizens. But those who have committed no crime should enjoy the protection of our country's justice.

For 91 years Jews have had a legal right to reside and to earn a livelihood in our country. Now they are being deprived of their property without warning; men were being arrested and thus prevented from providing for their property- less wives and children. This not only conflicts with the Christian commandment to 'love thy neighbour', but with the most elemental of legal rights.

Jews have not been charged with transgression of the country's laws, much less convicted of such transgressions by judicial procedure. Nevertheless, they are being punished as severely as the worst criminals are punished. They are being punished because of their racial background, wholly and solely because they are Jews.

This disaffirmation by the authorities of the Jews' worth as human beings is in sharp conflict with the Word of G.o.d which from cover to cover proclaims all racial groups to be of one blood. See particularly Acts 17, 26. There are few references where G.o.d's Word speaks more plainly than here. G.o.d does not differentiate among people. Romans 2, 11.

There is neither Jew nor Greek. Galatians 3, 28. There is no difference.

Romans 3, 22. Above else: When G.o.d through incarnation became man, He allowed Himself to be born in a Jewish home of a Jewish mother.

Thus, according to G.o.d's Word, all people have, in the first instance, the same human worth and thereby the same human rights. Our state authorities are by law obliged to respect this basic view. Paragraph 2 of the Const.i.tution states that the Evangelical Lutheran religion will remain the religion of the State. That is to say, the State cannot enact any law or decree which is in conflict with the Christian faith or the Church's Confession.

When now we appeal to the authorities in this matter we do so because of the deepest dictates of conscience. To remain silent about this legalized injustice against the Jews, would render ourselves co-guilty in this injustice.

If we are to be true to G.o.d's Word and to the Church's Confession we must speak out. <117> Regarding worldly authority, our Confession states that it has nothing to do with the soul but that it shall 'protect the bodies and corporal things against obvious injustice, and keep the people in check in order to maintain civic peace and order'. (Augustana, Article 28). This corresponds with G.o.d's Word which says the authority is of G.o.d and established by him, not as a terror to good works, but to the evil. Romans 13, 3.

If the worldly authority becomes a terror to good works, that is, to the one who does not transgress against the country's laws, then it is the Church's G.o.d-given duty as the conscience of the State to object.

The Church, namely, has G.o.d's call and full authority to proclaim G.o.d's law and G.o.d's gospel. Therefore it cannot remain silent when G.o.d's commandments are being trampled underfoot. One of Christianity's basic values now is being violated: the commandments of G.o.d which are fundamental to all society, namely law and justice.

One cannot dismiss the Church with a charge that it is mixing into politics.

The apostles courageously spoke to the authorities of their day and said: 'We ought to obey G.o.d rather than men'. Acts 5, 29. Luther says: 'The Church does not interfere in worldly matters when it warns the authority to be obedient to the highest authority, which is G.o.d'.

By the right of our calling we therefore warn our people to desist from injustice, violence and hatred. He who lives in hatred and encourages evil invokes G.o.d's judgment upon himself.

The Minister President has on several occasions emphasized that Nasjonal Samling, according to its program, will safeguard the basic values of Christianity. To-day one of these values is in danger. If it is to be protected, it must be protected soon.

We have mentioned it before, but re-emphasize it now in closing: This appeal of ours has nothing to do with politics. Before worldly authority we maintain that obedience in all temporal matters which G.o.d's Word demands." [269]

The close relationship between Church and State in Norway is reflected in the protest: "The State cannot enact any law or decree which is in conflict with the Christian faith or the Church's Confession".