Author Archives: Kyle Jantzen

Review of Beth A. Griech-Polelle, Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust: Language, Rhetoric and the Traditions of Hatred

Contemporary Church History Quarterly

Volume 25, Number 1 (March 2019)

Review of Beth A. Griech-Polelle, Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust: Language, Rhetoric and the Traditions of Hatred (New York: Bloomsbury, 2017). 284 pp. ISBN: 9781472586919.

By Kyle Jantzen, Ambrose University

Beth A. Griech-Polelle’s book enters the market of Holocaust history as a thoroughly accessible and carefully constructed overview of the Shoah, beginning quite properly in the long history of antisemitism that lay behind the mass murder perpetrated by the Nazis and their collaborators. The author states from the outset that she is interested in “the theme of the power of language and how language and rhetoric can result in deadly actions” (1). Drawing on the work of the French political scientist Jacques Semelin, Griech-Polelle notes that a society’s ideological concerns around “identity, purity, and security” can be impacted by “destructive legends, myths, and stereotypes” that generate caricatures which create fears that “enemy outsiders” will “defile, pollute, and destroy … us” (1). In like manner, she uses Thomas Kühne’s work on persecution as community-building and Saul Friedländer’s notion of redemptive antisemitism to argue that “language and rhetoric influenced the construction of ‘the Jew’ as eternal enemy” and that “language led to the violence and annihilation of European Jewry in the Holocaust” (2). Anyone familiar with Alon Confino’s insightful book A World Without Jews: The Nazi Imagination from Persecution to Genocide (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015) will recognize Griech-Polelle’s approach and be reminded of the ways in which language contributed to the creation of a culture—a social imaginary, to invoke Charles Taylor’s term—that made possible the Nazi persecution of the Jews and, ultimately, the Holocaust.

Griech-Polelle begins with the rise of religious antisemitism—rooted in the concept of Jews as “Christ-killers’’—in the biblical accounts of Jesus’ arrest, death, and resurrection. With the emergence of Christianity came the belief that the Early Church was the “New Israel” which replaced the Jews as God’s chosen people (10-11). Tracing the loss of Jewish rights in the late Roman Empire, the author shows how the Codex Theodosianus began to impose restrictions on Jews and to generate the segregating language that would shape the medieval era. Through the period of the crusades and on into the Middle Ages, Griech-Polelle explains important incidents in the history of Jewish persecution, but beyond that, she endeavours to outline the way a particular kind of antisemitic language emerged in, for example, tropes like the Wandering Jew or the blood libel. A short section on Thomas Aquinas shows how he built on Augustine’s notion of the preservation of the Jews as a witness to the truth of both the Hebrew scriptures and the Christian gospels, adding that the Jews were people with souls that needed to be saved. “Somehow, Jews were to be converted voluntarily—despite the persecutions and horrendous depictions of Jews as being in league with the devil, desecrating the Host, and reenacting the crucifixion of Jesus” (20). This chapter on the history of religious antisemitism continues with the medieval expulsions of Jews from various European countries and follows the story through the Renaissance and Reformation, the emergence of a substantial Jewish community in Poland, and the impact of the Enlightenment, French Revolution, modern nationalism, and post-1848 reactionary politics. It closes with the persecution faced by Jews in Tsarist Russia.

I’ve focused closely on this opening chapter (chapter 2 in the book, since the Introduction is chapter 1) to indicate how Griech-Polelle—a scholar both of German Catholicism in the Third Reich and of the Holocaust—handles this important topic of the Christian antisemitic foundation upon which later antisemitisms and (in the end) the Holocaust itself rested. A third chapter follows the story of how cultural and especially political antisemitism developed from the nineteenth century through the First World War and the Weimar era in Germany. Key concepts are the coining of the term antisemitism itself, the notion of “scientific” antisemitism, and “the Jew” as the outsider. What becomes clear is that antisemitism was a tool used by European political parties to spur the growth of nationalism within European mass society.

Other chapters cover the topics one would expect in an introduction to the history of the Holocaust, though in ways that enable Griech-Polelle to highlight her theme of the role of antisemitic language and rhetoric. Chapter four includes everything from the rise of Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers’ Party to Hitler’s views on Jews, the seizure of power and early phase of Nazi rule, and Nazi Jewish policy through 1935. Chapter five is called “Turning Points,” and argues that although Jewish life had been deteriorating from 1933 onwards, the period from 1936-1938 was marked by exclusionary policies which reinforced “the notion that to create the Volksgemeinschaft [national community], anti-Jewish actions were required” (111). Emigration, the growing refugee crisis, expulsion, the Kristallnacht Pogrom, and the beginning of the Second World War are all surveyed here. Chapters six to eight cover the heart of the Holocaust, from “Resettlements, Deportations, and Ghettos” to “Einsatzgruppen, Executions, and ‘Evacuations’ to the East,” to “The Final Solution,” with its emphasis on the death camps in Poland. Throughout, Griech-Polelle treats a host of subtopics briefly but conscientiously, meaning that her history of both antisemitism and the Holocaust comes to only 232 pages of nicely formatted text, making it easy to read.

Two features of the book are worthy of note. First, throughout her work, Griech-Polelle employs material from various volumes of the important new series Documenting Life and Destruction: Holocaust Sources in Context, sponsored by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (Series Editor: Jürgen Matthäus), and in particular the five volumes entitled Jewish Responses to Persecution. The result is that she is able to present the history of antisemitism and the Holocaust from multiple perspectives, incorporating the experiences of Jewish victims along with those of Nazi perpetrators. For instance, in her description of the opening phase of Nazi antisemitic policy, she recounts the reflections of Mally Dienemann, whose diary describes the “unvarying … fate” of the Jews: “now we are [supposedly] harming Germany with fairy tales about atrocities, while in the Middle Ages it was we who were supposed to have poisoned wells, etc…. Could people really do this to each other?” (89, editorial insertion and ellipsis in the original). Likewise, during her account of the Kristallnacht Pogrom, Griech-Polelle uses the testimony of Margaret Czellitzer, whose home was invaded, radio broken, china smashed, beds overturned, mattresses ruined, and valuables stolen (124). In this sense, Griech-Polelle’s introduction to the Holocaust reflects current best practices in the field of Holocaust Studies, which attempt to balance perpetrator accounts with victim voices.

Second, at the close of each chapter, the author includes a short section entitled “For your consideration,” in which she combines short primary source texts with reflection questions. For instance, in chapter 2 on religious antisemitism, she offers biblical texts from Matthew 27 and John 8 and excerpts from Martin Luther’s “Concerning the Jews and Their Lies” (1543). On the gospel texts, questions revolve around the descriptions of Jews, their role in the sentencing of Jesus, the naming of particular groups of Jews, and the link between these depictions and the rise of the myth of deicide. With respect to the Luther text, questions involve Luther’s picture of the Jews, his use of medieval prejudices, and the potential influence his writings might have had. These texts and questions at the close of each chapter would work well for undergraduate classroom discussions or reflection assignments.

Rooted in the history of antisemitism, written in accessible prose which encompasses multiple perspectives on the events of the Holocaust, accompanied by primary texts, reflection questions, suggestions for further reading, and a helpful glossary, Griech-Polelle’s Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust will serve uninitiated laypeople and undergraduate students as a helpful introduction to the events of the Holocaust and the discourse of antisemitism which prepared the way for the annihilation of the Jews.

Share

Letter from the Editors (December 2018)

Contemporary Church History Quarterly

Volume 24, Number 4 (December 2018)

Letter from the Editors (December 2018)

By Kyle Jantzen, Ambrose University

Dear Friends,

The Stiftskirche (Collegiate Church) in Tübingen. Photo by Felix König, Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stiftskirche_T%C3%BCbingen_Januar_2016.jpg

As we enter into Advent 2018, the editors of Contemporary Church History Quarterly are pleased once again to offer a variety of articles, reviews, and notes highlighting research and scholarly activity in the field of twentieth-century German and European religious history.

Manfred Gailus opens this issue with a short article about the silence of German Protestants in the wake of the November 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom–a fitting topic to revisit 80 years after the event. Gailus examines the nature of that silence, linking it to the völkisch theology so prevalent among Protestants, particularly but not exclusively in the German Christian Movement.

Antisemitism and its connection to völkisch theology continues as a theme in the three reviews that follow. Susannah Heschel examines Dirk Schuster’s important study of the Eisenach Institute, situating Schuster’s careful scholarship within the historiography of the topic. Christopher Probst reviews Horst Junginger’s study of The Scientification of the “Jewish Question” in Nazi Germany, which lays out in detail the connections between “Jewish research” at the University of Tübingen (and the Protestant seminary there) was closely connected to the politics of the Nazi state. Not surprisingly, Gerhard Kittel features prominently in Junginger’s book. Finally, Björn Krondorfer assesses Konstantin Hermann and Gerhard Lindemann’s biographical study of Saxon theologians during the Nazi era, which includes various German Christian theologians who “saw no contradiction between Hitler and Luther, between Nazi ideology and church teachings.” Hermann and Lindemann also write on theologians from the moderate “Mitte” group, as well as those connected to the Confessing Church. Importantly, they also examine five churchmen “who were persecuted by the Nazis for political and racial reasons.”

Several shorter notes round out this issue of CCHQ: Lauren Rossi offers a conference report from Lessons and Legacies that reflects on the lack of contributions relating to the history of Christianity and the Holocaust, Christina Matzen adds a conference report on the panel “Religion and Migration: Institutions and Law” from the German Studies Association conference, and David A. R. Clark introduces us to his research on Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s interpretation of the Old Testament.

We trust you’ll enjoy these scholarly offerings, and wish you a restful and meaningful Christmas and holiday season.

On behalf of the other editors,

Kyle Jantzen, Ambrose University

Share

Letter from the Editors (September 2018)

Contemporary Church History Quarterly

Volume 24, Number 3 (September 2018)

Letter from the Editors (September 2018)

By Kyle Jantzen, Ambrose University

Dear Friends,

As summer turns to autumn, and universities begin a new year, the editors of Contemporary Church History Quarterly are pleased to publish a new issue of articles, reviews, and other notes related to the history of religion in twentieth- and twenty-first-century Germany and Europe.

In this issue, we offer new insights into familiar figures, but also consider ways in which religion impacts more recent events. For instance, we are pleased to reprint a thoughtful interview from Bearings Online, a publication of the Collegeville Institute, with Bonhoeffer scholar (and CCHQ editor) Victoria Barnett, who reflects on the publication of Bonhoeffer’s After Ten Years and its import for today. As well, Heath Spencer reviews a new book on the mixed relationship between the right-wing political party Alternative for Germany (AfD) and religion.

Ludwig Isenbeck’s sculpture “Christus segnet die Gemeinde,” c. 1930, on the main facade of the Jesus Christus Kirche, Berlin Dahlem.
Source: Axel Mauruszat, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4574323

Also this quarter, Victoria Barnett contributes two reviews. The first is the biography of Reformed pastor Wilhelm Wibbeling of Hesse, a left-learning First World War veteran who pastored churches in socialist communities during and beyond the Third Reich. The second is on an updated version of Katrin Rudolph’s research on Franz Kaufmann, the key figure in a resistance circle in Martin Niemöller’s Dahlem Parish. Kaufmann and others produced forged documents for Jews, helping them survive in Nazi Berlin, until Kaufmann and others were arrested in 1943 (and, in Kaufmann’s case, murdered in Sachsenhausen in 1944).

We round out this latest issue of CCHQ with a review of a new volume of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s sermons, and a note about a recent article on the complicated nature (and legacy) of Orthodox missions in Nazi-occupied Russia.

We hope you enjoy this issue of Contemporary Church History Quarterly. If you know of books or articles you think we should review, or conferences that our readers should know about, please feel free to write to me at kjantzen@ambrose.edu.

On behalf of the editors,

Kyle Jantzen, Ambrose University

Share

Review of Victoria J. Barnett, ed., The Collected Sermons of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Volume 2

Contemporary Church History Quarterly

Volume 24, Number 3 (September 2018)

Review of Victoria J. Barnett, ed., The Collected Sermons of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Volume 2 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2017). Pp. xvi + 253. ISBN: 978-1-5064-3336-3.

By Kyle Jantzen, Ambrose University

Victoria Barnett, general editor of the Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, English edition, has ably selected, edited, and introduced 28 Bonhoeffer messages in this the second volume of his collected sermons. Bonhoeffer’s martyrdom has made him famous as a theologian and member of the German Resistance, but as Barnett points out, he was educated for careers in both academia and ministry. Indeed, one of the consistent features of Bonhoeffer’s “fragmentary life” was the writing and preaching of sermons (xi-xii). This collection of sermons and meditations, written between 1926 and 1944, certainly touch on many of the theological themes for which he is known in works like Discipleship, Life Together, Ethics, and Letters and Papers from Prison. More importantly, however, they demonstrate Bonhoeffer’s warm pastoral heart and deep personal piety. As Barnett observes, Bonhoeffer followed the lectionary, convinced that “Scripture, preached correctly, revealed the word of God to the listener” (xiii). At the same time, he believed that preaching should speak to the contemporary world. What is perhaps most interesting, though, is the way that these sermons open up a window into Bonhoeffer’s own inner life.

Three themes run through these sermons: the seriousness of Bonhoeffer’s Christianity, the insight of his responses to the social and political crises of the late Weimar and Nazi eras, and the resolution of his engagement in the Kirchenkampf (German Church Struggle).

From the beginning of his preaching career, Bonhoeffer proclaimed an uncompromising brand of Christianity. In “A Sermon for His Contemporaries” (1926), he describes God as “absolute holiness and absolute duty,” and declares that “God’s word always commands the fulfilling of this absolute duty” (5). Indeed, God’s authority overshadowed all others: “When we do not recognize all earthly authorities as being dependent on that one authority, we make them our idols, be they state, church, reason, or genius” (6). Paradoxically, it is in obedience to God that the Christian finds freedom: “when you are bound to God in obedience, then you have become truly free. You are free from everything from which you should be free; free from people and powers, because you are bound to God” (8).

The authority of Christ is echoed in “Seeing the World through the Eyes of Christ” (1927/8), in which Bonhoeffer pronounces:

Jesus Christ is looking for lodging. He is looking for entrance into our spirits and our hearts. Do we really understand what this means? Jesus Christ is a controlling, willful guest. He wants our hearts completely. He will not tolerate competition, even if the competition only wants to dispute Jesus’s right to the least bit of his possession. Jesus Christ is a discomforting, imperious guest. He will rule whoever invites him in, and whoever invites Jesus in must serve him. (19-20)

Typical of the “both-and” way of Bonhoeffer’s thinking, however, he goes on to proclaim that Jesus comes not to destroy but to comfort, promising to give sight and to bring love into the life of the Christian. In the end, all these ideas come together: “The act of Christian love is to manifest Jesus not as a religious genius, an ethical thinker, or a philosopher, but as the Lord of death and of life; as the Word of God made flesh, for whom command and promise are the same” (22).

Dependence on God’s grace emerges time and again in Bonhoeffer’s preaching. In “The Human Yearning for God,” he asserts that the way to God is through purity of heart, even though it is impossible to attain:

The most distressing realization in the life of every Christian is that we cannot remain pure, that day by day we fall down anew and night by night must cry out to God anew: Lord, I cannot do it alone; if you make me pure, then I am pure. May God create in me a pure heart. I want so much to be pure. I want so much to behold God. (46)

Bonhoeffer’s piety manifests itself once more in “Approaching the Day in Faith: Morning Devotions” (1935), written as a reflection on his experience with his Finkenwalde seminary students. “Each new morning,” he begins, “is a new beginning for our lives. … It is long enough to find or to lose God, to keep faith or to fall into sin and disgrace” (154). Each day is created by God. Each day is an opportunity to find new mercy. In each day, we require our daily bread. Bonhoeffer goes on to describe the practice of the Finkenwalde community—their habit of beginning each day with private and communal devotions. As Bonhoeffer put it, “One hour must be put aside each morning for quiet prayer and worship together. Truly, this is not wasted time. How else are we to face the tasks, tribulations, and temptations of the day?” (155).

The seriousness of Bonhoeffer’s Christianity is matched by the thoughtfulness of his responses to the rapid social change and political turbulence of his day. In this, his preaching is a model of pastoral care in times of trial. For example, “The Soul’s Silence before God” (1928) asks hard questions which speak not only to Bonhoeffer’s day but to ours:

Is there still something like the soul in an age such as ours, an age of machines, of economic competition, of the dominance of fashion and sports; is this nothing more than a cherished childhood memory, like so much else? It just sounds so strange and peculiar amid the confusion and loud voices extolling themselves, this little word “soul.” It speaks such a gentle, quiet language that we hardly hear it anymore amid the tumult and chaos inside us. Yet it speaks a language full of the greatest responsibility and of profound seriousness: you, human being, have a soul; beware, lest you lose it, lest you awaken one day amid the frenzy of life—in both work and private life—and find that inwardly you have become empty, a plaything of events, a leaf before the wind, driven to and fro and blown away—that you have lost your soul. (33)

His answer is to cultivate silence: “My soul becomes silent before God, who helps me. God’s hours are hours of succor and comfort. God has an answer for every distress of our soul, and this answer is always one and the same … the enticing words: I love you” (35-36).

Other sermons illustrate Bonhoeffer’s ability to take the long view in the midst of upheaval. In “At the Turning Point: Waiting for God” (1931), he references the instability and chaos of the late Weimar era. In an age of clashing world views, the popular expectation is that the human being should “hold his own,” “remain master of the world, master of the future” (61). Bonhoeffer notes the way in which the Bible sets out a different response to the future—a posture of waiting on God. The sermon closes with a prayer: “God, come into our waiting. God, we are waiting for your salvation, your judgment, for your love and your peace” (66). Similarly, in “Following Christ through the World to the Cross” (1932), Bonhoeffer explains how Christ rejected the temptation to be king of the world, forsaking worldly power in obedience to God. Christ’s path was the path of love for humans, the path of the cross. “And we walk with him, as individuals and also as the church. We are the church under the cross … our kingdom is not of this world” (70). Perhaps the most powerful sermon in this vein is “Staying Grounded in Turbulent Times” (1932). In the midst of (again) instability and competing world views, Bonhoeffer takes up the prayer of 2 Chronicles 20:12: “We do not know what to do, but our eyes are on you” (74). As is so often the case, Bonhoeffer’s preaching points to the mercy of God expressed in Christ’s saving death on the cross.

One of the surprising elements of these sermons is Bonhoeffer’s ability to find hope in the midst of trial. For instance, in a Christmas meditation written in 1940, Bonhoeffer explores the jubilant prophecy in Isaiah 9, detailing the wisdom, power, authority, love, and justice of Jesus and his kingdom. Concluding with the words of Isaiah: “The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this,” Bonhoeffer proclaims:

The holy zeal of God for this divine kingdom guarantees that this kingdom will remain for eternity and will reach its final fulfillment despite all human guilt, all resistance. It will not depend on whether we participate. God brings his plans to fruition with or despite us. But God desires for us to be with him. Not for God’s own sake but for our sake. God with us—Immanuel—Jesus—that is the mystery of this Holy Night. But we cry out with joy: “For a child has been born for us, a son given to us.” I believe that Jesus Christ—a true human being, born of the Virgin Mary, and true God, begotten of the Father in eternity—is my Lord. (208)

A few of the sermons in this volume reference more directly the state and church politics of the late 1920s and early 1930s. The most forceful of these is “… In the Eleventh Hour of Our Church” (1932), which Bonhoeffer preached in Trinity Church, Berlin, on Reformation Sunday, just after the November 1932 Reich election. Here Bonhoeffer contrasts the triumphal celebration of the Protestant Reformation and the noisy invocation of Luther with the actual state of the church, which he argues is losing its way.

We … keep saying over and over those same self-confident words with all their pathos, “Here I stand—I can do no other.” We fail to see that this is no longer Luther’s church, that Luther was distressed and agitated, pushed all the way to the wall by the devil and in fear of God when he said, “Here I stand,” and that these are hardly suitable words for us to speak. It is simply untruthful, or unforgivable heedlessness and arrogance, for us to take refuge behind these words. (93)

Again and again in the sermon, Bonhoeffer repeats the words of the Scripture text from Revelation chapter 2: “But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first” (92). As he unmasks the crisis of German Protestantism, he declares:

Let us lay the dead Luther to rest at long last, and instead listen to the gospel, reading his Bible, hearing God’s own word in it. At the last judgment God is certainly going to ask us not, “Have you celebrated Reformation Day properly?” but rather, “Have you heard my world and kept it?” (95).

Bonhoeffer dissects the lack of prayer, love, grace, and devotion in his church, calling on his hearers to repent. His closing words?

And now, when you leave the church, don’t think about whether this was a fine or a poor Reformation service, but let us go soberly and do the works that came first. God be our help. Amen” (100).

Two sermons bring together these three themes of serious Christianity, timely advice for troubled times, and decisive engagement with the political and church-political issues of his day.

The first of these is “Of Priests and Prophets in the New Germany” (May 1933). In the context of the dismantling of democracy, the rise of the pro-Nazi German Christian Movement, and the early signs of what would develop into the Church Struggle, Bonhoeffer preached a sermon based on Exodus 32, the story of the High Priest Aaron and the impatient Israelites building the Golden Calf—an idol—rather than waiting for their prophetic leader Moses to return from his meeting with God on Mount Sinai. Applying the text to his own day, Bonhoeffer complains that “The church of the world, the church of the priests, wants something it can see. It doesn’t want to wait any longer. It wants to go ahead and do something itself, take action itself, since God and the prophet aren’t doing so” (110). Later, Bonhoeffer describes this “worldly church” as a church,

which doesn’t want to wait, which doesn’t want to live by something unseen; as a church that makes its own gods, that wants to have a god that pleases it rather than asking itself whether or not it is itself pleasing to God; as a church that is ready to make any sacrifice for the sake of idolatry, the glorification of human ideas and values—as a church that presumes divine authority for itself through its priesthood—it is as such a church that we come again and again to worship. And it is a church whose idol lies shattered to pieces on the floor, as a church that has to hear anew, “I am the Lord your God.” (112-113)

The cross, Bonhoeffer declares, will put an end to all idolatry. We encounter the God who will tolerate no other gods, but also the God who meets us “in boundless forgiveness” (113).

The second, and the last sermon examined in this review, is “The Peace of God in Affliction” (1938), printed and sent out to the now scattered Finkenwalde seminary students for their encouragement. Based on Romans chapter 5 and the Apostle Paul’s message of peace with God through Jesus Christ, the sermon contains Bonhoeffer’s reflections on suffering: “Whether we have truly found the peace of God will be proven by the way we deal with the afflictions that come upon us” (188). He continues:

Whoever hates affliction, renunciation, crisis, slander, and imprisonment in his life might otherwise talk about the cross with big words, but nonetheless he hates the cross of Jesus and has no peace with God. But whoever loves the cross of Jesus Christ, whoever has found peace in his cross, also begins to love the affliction in his life. And finally he will be able to speak with Scripture: “but we also boast in our afflictions.” (189)

For Bonhoeffer, “Affliction produces patience, then experience, then hope. Whoever avoids affliction discards along with that God’s greatest gifts for his creatures” (190). Through affliction comes hope, and the love of God “poured into our heart” (192).

The sermons and meditations chosen by Victoria Barnett for The Collected Sermons of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Volume 2 ably demonstrate both the pastoral heart and spiritual depth of Bonhoeffer in ways that readers of his more famous works would do well to discover.

Share

Letter from the Editors (June 2018)

Contemporary Church History Quarterly

Volume 24, Number 2 (June 2018)

Letter from the Editors (June 2018)

By Kyle Jantzen, Ambrose University

Dear Friends,

As summer begins, the editors are pleased to publish a new issue of Contemporary Church History Quarterly. This issue contains an insightful article by Manfred Gailus and a combination of powerful book and film reviews, article notes, and conference reports assessing new research in German and European religious history.

Church Bells at the Potsdam Garrison Church. Bundesarchiv, Bild 170-123 / Max Baur / CC-BY-SA 3.0. Source: Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_170-123,_Potsdam,_Glockenspiel_der_Garnisonkirche.jpg.

Gailus writes about the ongoing issue of Nazi-era church bells in German parish churches. Controversy has emerged in a number of locations (and perhaps should emerge in others) over church bells dedicated to Adolf Hitler and/or emblazoned with swastikas. Gailus explains the current state of the issue.

Robert P. Ericksen has contributed a detailed review of a new study by Manfred Gailus and Clemens Vollnhals, containing sixteen examples of German Protestant theologians who promoted an “an artgemäss theology, claiming the necessity of certain racial and cultural qualities for any Germans claiming faith in Jesus and the Christian God.” This review lays out the depth and breadth of Protestant theological participation in Nazi racial ideology.

Doris L. Bergen praises Matthias Grünzig’s new book on the ongoing saga of the Potsdam Garrison Church–the church used by Hitler to open his first parliament and symbolically launch his government. Already a centre of Nazi activity in the Weimar era, the church served as a hotbed of Nazi Christianity in the Third Reich, and its rebuilding today reopens the controversy surrounding its place in the Christian collaboration with Nazism.

Other reviews in this issue include Dirk Schuster’s assessment of Joachim Krause’s documentation of the roots of the German Christian Church Movement in the parishes of the Wieratal, and Kyle Jantzen’s reviews of the powerful new edition of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s “After Ten Years” essay, with an introduction by Victoria J. Barnett, and of a new film about Bonhoeffer entitled Come Before Winter.

Finally, Doris Bergen writes a fascinating conference report about a recent Bethel College conference on Mennonites and the Holocaust, and Rebecca Carter-Chand highlights a new article on the 1975 West German Catholic post-Holocaust statement “Our Hope: A Confession of Faith for Our Time.”

We trust you will find these contributions interesting and enlightening, and we wish you a fine summer ahead.

On behalf of the editors,

Kyle Jantzen, Ambrose University

Share

Review of Victoria J. Barnett, ed., “After Ten Years”: Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Our Times

Contemporary Church History Quarterly

Volume 24, Number 2 (June 2018)

Review of Victoria J. Barnett, ed., “After Ten Years”: Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Our Times (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2017). Pp. 48. ISBN: 9781506433387.

By Kyle Jantzen, Ambrose University

In this slim volume, Victoria J. Barnett, general editor (2004-2014) of the celebrated Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works English Edition (DBWE), has contextualized one of Bonhoeffer’s most famous writings and applied it to our tumultuous contemporary political environment. The book is comprised of two parts: Barnett’s introduction, entitled “Reading Bonhoeffer’s ‘After Ten Years’ in Our Times,” and the English translation of Bonhoeffer’s “After Ten Years: An Account at the Turn of the Year 1942-1943” produced by Martin and Barbara Rumscheidt for the DBWE Letters and Papers from Prison, published in 2009 (to which Barnett has introduced a few slight revisions).

In her introductory chapter, Barnett begins with three italicized paragraphs in which she locates her reading of Bonhoeffer’s “After Ten Years.” On the one hand, she notes, “one must be cautious about drawing simplistic historical analogies,” especially with respect to Hitler, Nazism, and the Holocaust. “Nationalism, antisemitism, ethnocentrism, and populism have played a role in different historical periods and national contexts” (1). The grievances and resentments associated with these political movements always emerge out of specific social and cultural contexts. What is left unwritten is that the United States—indeed, the wider Western world—is currently threatened by the resurgence of just these sorts of antagonisms. Barnett continues, noting how important it is that citizens and institutions respond to such threats. Toleration of or compromise with ideologies of hatred will undermine and even destroy Western liberal political cultures. She suggests that this is a very real danger, given the fragility of ethical veneers and social conventions. Living in a time when accepted values and political norms are upended creates crises for individuals, religious bodies, and institutions of civil society, all of which struggle to adapt to or resist to these challenges. Barnett explains that these are the themes Bonhoeffer was addressing in his famous essay. As she writes, “his observations about what happens to human decency and courage when a political culture disintegrates continue to resonate around the world today” (2). This “introduction to the introduction” is very important, because it connects Bonhoeffer’s reflections about Nazi Germany to the upheaval of contemporary politics in the Age of Trump, even as it recognizes that this connection must take place in thoughtful, nuanced ways.

The balance of the introductory chapter considers the historical context of “After Ten Years,” Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s own history, and the main ideas of his important essay. Here Barnett brings her considerable expertise to bear, writing efficiently about Bonhoeffer’s family influences, his early criticisms of the Nazi regime, his experiences in England and the United States, his return to Germany in 1939 and his connection to leading members of the German Resistance. She explains how Bonhoeffer wrote “After Ten Years” to his brother-in-law, Hans Dohnanyi, his close friend Eberhard Bethge, and his military associate in the Resistance, Major General Hans Oster, as a synthesis of themes he had been thinking and talking about for some time, during a period in which the Nazi conduct of war was growing increasingly destructive and prospects for an overthrow of Hitler were becoming increasingly bleak. “After Ten Years,” Barnett notes, “was not so much an assessment of where they stood in 1942 but of how they had gotten there” (5).

She then delves more deeply into Bonhoeffer’s responses to Nazism, beginning with his February 1933 essay “The Führer and the Individual in the Younger Generation” and his April 1933 essay “The Church and the Jewish Question.” Bonhoeffer was quickly critical of the Nazi regime, not least because of its persecution of Jews. Even as Bonhoeffer urged the church to stand with persecuted Jews, however, he maintained elements of the theological anti-Judaism of his day and age. And when it came to the question of what to do about the moral and political crisis created by Nazi rule, Bonhoeffer was actually quite cautious. He participated in the Confessing Church struggle against the nazification of the churches, but did not speak out against the regime—even after the November 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom. This equivocation is captured in “After Ten Years.” As Barnett notes, “even Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Hans von Dohnanyi, and Eberhard Bethge—men of conscience who had seen through National Socialism from the beginning—could not completely extricate themselves from what was unfolding around them” (9). This is a key point that many general readers of Bonhoeffer miss: his insistence that he and his society were in various ways complicit with the Hitler regime under which they lived, not morally pure opponents completely set apart from National Socialism. The resistance that led to Bonhoeffer’s imprisonment and eventual execution emerged only after 1939.

Barnett describes “After Ten Years” as “a series of seventeen aphorisms and meditations that build upon each other” (11). She explains the way Bonhoeffer drew on his writing in Ethics to explore the extent to which “National Socialism had subverted traditional moral and ethical standards” (11). Even as he called for more individual responsibility, he explained how civil courage had declined, how National Socialism had seduced Germans, and how a widespread collective “stupidity” had taken hold. In response, he encouraged a kind of inner liberation, worried about the growth of contempt in German society, believed in the guarantee of eventual divine justice, and advocated a kind of nobility that grew out of the traditions of the Christian humanist culture in which he had been raised. He closed with a call to restore trust and sympathy among the opponents of Nazism and the recognition of the impact of suffering, the search for a responsibility towards the future, and the admission of weakness and vulnerability—even the possibility of death.

Barnett is careful to note that Bonhoeffer was not writing out of a confidence in an approaching victory of goodness or out of his own heroism. Rather, he “was reflecting on what happens to good people, what happens to the soul, the human sense of morality and responsibility, when evil has become so embedded in a political culture that it is part of the very fabric of daily life, and it becomes impossible even for good people to remain untouched by it” (14-15). All of this, she explains, arose out of his Christian faith, “characterized by personal faith and prayer, a commitment to the community of the church, and a deep responsibility toward others” (15). In this way, Bonhoeffer’s “After Ten Years” speaks to fundamental issues:

the human capacity in all ages for decency, for courage, and for an engagement in political culture that affirms these values and honors human integrity. In whatever particular historical moment we find ourselves, we are summoned to determine what our place in history will be, to think and act beyond our self-interest for the sake of a common good: not just the common good of the moment, our particular political group, or even our society, but of our times—to act, as Bonhoeffer put it, on behalf of history itself and for the sake of future generations and the kind of society we would wish for them. (16)

Rereading “After Ten Years” itself, one is struck by the power of Bonhoeffer’s analysis of his compromised position—conclusions he reached after living for a decade under Hitler’s rule. He began by noting the difficulty of the situation in which he and his friends and colleagues found themselves—decent Christians and Germans living under Nazism: “Have there ever been people in history who in their time, like us, had so little ground under their feet, people to whom every possible alternative open to them at the time appeared equally unbearable, senseless, and contrary to life?” (18). Bonhoeffer was grappling with the moral and ethical upheaval of his society—unsure where it might lead but aware of its evil and of the inability of reason, principles, conscience, freedom, or virtue to serve as a basis from which to respond to it. “Only the one who is prepared to sacrifice all of these when, in faith and in relationship to God alone, he is called to obedient and responsible action. Such a person is the responsible one, whose life is to be nothing but a response to God’s question and call” (20).

Bonhoeffer went on to describe the lack of civil courage among Germans, particularly in light of the problem they now faced: that political success had been achieved by evil means. Here the question Bonhoeffer faced was how to react to these conditions out of a sense of responsibility to future generations who would inherit these conditions. In an especially powerful section, he noted how people could easily become collectively stupid under the influence—the pressure—of an upsurge of power:

It seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances. … In conversation with [the stupid person], one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. (23)

It is not hard to see how Bonhoeffer became so gripped with the importance of achieving a kind of inner liberation—an independent sense of responsibility towards the world and the future. At this point, Bonhoeffer turned to address issues like the growing contempt for humanity, the uncertainty of immanent justice, and the certainty of an eventual setting right of things, as the abiding, God-given laws of human communal life “strike dead” those who try to establish some alternative, aberrant order of society (25).

The essay then shifts, as Bonhoeffer affirms his belief “that God can and will let good come out of everything, even the greatest evil” (25). But for that to happen, God would need good people ready to live in faith and trust in God. To that end, Bonhoeffer wrote about the importance of establishing trust between people, of pursuing a genuine spirit of nobility of character, of cultivating sympathy for the suffering of others, and of embracing suffering, should it come to them. There would be no certainty about the future. “To think and to act with an eye on the coming generation and to be ready to move on without fear and worry—that is the course that has, in practice, been forced upon us. To hold it courageously is not easy but necessary” (29). Genuine optimism means working for a better future until that becomes impossible. As he considered both the uncertainty of the future and the necessity of responsible action in the world, Bonhoeffer pondered the potential of death, noting of it that “deep down we seem to feel that we are his already and that each new day is a miracle” (29).

It was here that Bonhoeffer penned his most famous question: “Are we still of any use?” (30). Could he and others around him become the kind of simple, uncomplicated, honest people living out of the inner strength which would make resistance possible? Key to this, he believed, was their experience of becoming marginalized—cast out and oppressed. Looking beyond these conditions, Bonhoeffer concluded “After Ten Years” with a call to live “out of a higher satisfaction … grounded beyond what is below and above” and thus to “do justice to life in all its dimensions and in this way to affirm it” (31).

Together, this stand-alone publication of “After Ten Years” and Barnett’s thoughtful introduction make for a powerful reminder of Bonhoeffer’s ongoing relevance as a theological and political thinker. This volume will serve well as a companion text in many university and seminary courses, and as a reading to serve as the basis for discussion among Christians and others keen to understand how to live in our contemporary political and cultural environment.

Share

Review of Come Before Winter: Dietrich Bonhoeffer and His Companions in the Dying Gasps of the Third Reich

Contemporary Church History Quarterly

Volume 24, Number 2 (June 2018)

Review of Come Before Winter: Dietrich Bonhoeffer and His Companions in the Dying Gasps of the Third Reich, directed by Kevin Ekvall (Woodbury, MN: Stories That Glow Collectors, 2016).

By Kyle Jantzen, Ambrose University

This film aims to tackle two stories in one: the life and thought of German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer during his time in captivity leading up to his execution by the Hitler regime and the “fake news” black propaganda operation of the British journalist Sefton Delmer, assisted by Bonhoeffer family friend Otto John, Berlin-born actress Agness Bernelle, and later James Bond novelist Ian Fleming. It employs a combination of dramatic re-enactment, narration over still and moving images, and explanations from various experts, most notably sociologist Ekkehard Klausa from the Research Centre of Resistance History, ethicist Larry Rasmussen from Union Seminary, pastor John Matthews of the International Bonhoeffer Society, theologian and church official Ferdinand Schlingensiepen of the International Bonhoeffer Society, and Baptist minister and scholar Keith W. Clements, Past General Secretary of the Conference of European Churches, Geneva.

Come Before Winter begins by acknowledging the memoirs and writings of Sefton Delmer, Otto John, Sigismund Payne Best, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer as sources. It then asserts that “one of the tragedies of World War II was the refusal of President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill to acknowledge the existence of a German resistance,” introducing the failed ­assassination attempt of July 20, 1944. From there viewers are introduced to Sefton Delmer, the British journalist (born and raised in Berlin) who operated several so-called black propaganda operations, broadcasting disinformation into Nazi Germany. The operation covered by the film was the German short-wave broadcast “Atlantic,” which used a powerful transmitter to broadcast jazz, invented personal announcements, and fake news throughout Germany and also to U-boats in the Atlantic during the later war years. Delmer’s goal was to demoralize German troops and to turn the German public against the Nazis. At several points in the film, broadcasts written by Delmer and Fleming (with information from Otto John) and read by Bernelle are re-enacted, in order to depict Delmer’s determined effort to use propaganda to defeat Germany. These scenes also serve as a vehicle for Otto John, a member of the July 20 assassination plot who had escaped to England, to explain the various efforts of the German Resistance to assassinate Adolf Hitler, along with Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s principled participation in the Resistance and his consequent arrest and detention in Tegel prison.

This section of the film contains interesting statements from several of the Bonhoeffer experts about the quest to kill Hitler. Schlingensiepen argues that Bonhoeffer’s extended conversation with German jurist, intelligence officer, and anti-Nazi Helmuth James von Moltke in April 1942 on the island of Rügen revolved around the theologian’s ethical justification for killing Hitler (23:40). When the head of state orders the death of thousands day by day, the only way to stop him is to kill him. Bonhoeffer believed that God left members of the Resistance free to do that, just as God left his son Jesus free to heal the sick on the Sabbath (24:44). Clements notes the difficulty of describing Bonhoeffer as either pacifist or assassin, given the complexity of his situation. Bonhoeffer deeply respected pacifism and knew the costs of war, but was it possible to preserve one’s innocence by doing nothing? (24:10).  Rather than dogmatic militarism or pacifism, Bonhoeffer argued people must face their duty to God, and that they determine that duty based on the question of what the consequences will be for other people. This was also the basis for his counsel to other members of the Resistance (25:23). Ethicist Reggie Williams of McCormick Theological Seminary adds that Bonhoeffer acted out of faith, asking what Christ calls us to do in the crisis (25:43), while religion scholar Lori Brandt Hale of Augsburg College notes that Bonhoeffer’s choice to enter the Resistance wasn’t really a choice; he knew that it was necessary and that so few others understood (26:02).

As the dramatized scenes in the film continue, Sefton Delmer and his black propaganda unit continue their work, Otto John laments the destruction of Berlin, and Bonhoeffer sits in Tegel prison. The film details his transfer to the Prinz-Albrecht-Strasse SS headquarters, then on to Buchenwald and the Schönberg schoolhouse in rural Bavaria, until his eventual final imprisonment in Flossenburg concentration camp. Along the way, we’re introduced to an eclectic mix of fellow inmates who encountered Bonhoeffer, including the British intelligence officer Sigismund Payne Best, the German mother Fey von Hassell, the Russian atheist Vassily Korokin, and the German cabaret singer Isa Vermehren. Bonhoeffer’s final sermon, preached to these prisoners before his summons to Flossenburg, included a scripture passage from Isaiah 53 on the suffering servant and a text from 1 Peter 1 on the Christian’s living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This and the singing of “A Mighty Fortress” are dramatized, along with Bonhoeffer’s famous parting words to Payne Best: “This is the end, but for me the beginning of life” (54:15).

Here Ferdinand Schlingensiepen provides a bold theological interpretation of Bonhoeffer’s execution: “Terrible as this story is, it was not without God’s commands. And Bonhoeffer knew that himself. He says, ‘Hitler cannot kill me. The hour of my death will be prescribed by the living God himself.’ And he almost escaped in Schönberg, with the others. But God allowed him to become a martyr, which made him a much more important figure for future times” (54:35).

Keith Clements explains that Bonhoeffer’s court-martial was a sham, a hasty process not meeting proper judicial standards. As the film dramatizes Bonhoeffer’s final moments, including his shaming by an SS officer and his hanging, the film shows only his feet, while cross-cutting to a typewriter tapping out the death section of Bonhoeffer’s “Stages of Freedom” poem. Clements then reflects thoughtfully on Bonhoeffer’s execution: “When the tyrant executes the martyr, the tyrant’s power ends, because he can’t do any more than that. But the power of the martyr begins, because his witness goes on forever. … [These resisters] were the people who won the battle of faith and courage and conviction and human dignity. And it’s to them that we now look today” (59:40).

The film ends with a dramatization of the memorial service for Bonhoeffer and Bishop George Bell’s sermon, including the section in which Bell makes meaning of the German theologian’s martyrdom: “He represents both the resistance of the believing soul, in the name of God, to the assault of evil, and also the moral and political revolt of the human conscience against injustice and cruelty” (1:04:10).

While the film seems to question the results of Delmer’s black propaganda (including the execution of German civilians who listened to the broadcasts and the creation of the myth of the good German soldier), it sums up Bonhoeffer by noting that, “In death, as in life, Bonhoeffer has remained on the edge of controversy. Nonetheless, his writings and life have gradually been embraced by millions and many scholars have marveled at the breadth of his theological and philosophical appeal” (1:06:36). Short descriptions of the fate of other main characters are also provided at the close of the film.

On the whole, the film does well where it dramatizes the events of Bonhoeffer’s final years using his own words or those of other key figures who knew him. The contributions of Schlingensiepen and Clements are also informative and thought-provoking. Less coherent is the story of Sefton Delmer’s black propaganda unit, which oscillates between humour and pathos. The film interprets it both as vitally important to Allied victory and as a misguided effort.

Whether these two stories—that of Delmer’s black propaganda unit and of the final stages of Bonhoeffer’s life—actually belong in the same film is probably up for debate. The person of Otto John is the link between the two, but he plays only a minor part in the film. While Come Before Winter captures something of the power of Bonhoeffer’s martyrdom, in terms of an introduction to the German Resistance, I would still recommend Hava Kohav Beller’s fine documentary The Restless Conscience: Resistance to Hitler in Nazi Germany (docurama films, 1991), and for an introduction to Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the significance of his life, thought, and death, I would turn to the Martin Doblmeier documentary Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Pacifist, Nazi Resister (First Run Features, 2003).

 

 

Share

Letter from the Editors (March 2018)

Contemporary Church History Quarterly

Volume 24, Number 1 (March 2018)

Letter from the Editors (March 2018)

By Kyle Jantzen, Ambrose University

Dear Friends,

With spring drawing slowly nearer, the editors are pleased to publish a new issue of Contemporary Church History Quarterly. This issue contains an eclectic mix of book reviews, article notes, and conference reports assessing new research in German and European religious history.

St. Hedwig’s Cathedral, Berlin, where Bernhard Lichtenberg was provost. Lichtenberg aided Catholics of Jewish descent during the Nazi era, and spoke out against the persecution of the Jews after the Kristallnacht Pogrom.
Source: Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=659751

Lauren Faulkner Rossi reviews Martin Röw’s substantial study of Catholic military chaplains, while Manfred Gailus examines Thomas Martin Schneider’s book on the Confessing Church’s Barmen Declaration and its longer-term impact. Dirk Schuster assesses Elizabeth Lorenz’s book on the German Christian attempt to create a nazified translation of the Bible and Andrew Chandler reviews an interesting edited volume on the British military chaplain Geoffrey Studdert Kennedy.

Beth A. Griech-Polelle and Kyle Jantzen report on journal articles and book chapters about the Vatican’s efforts to combat communism in the 1930s and 1940s, about church politics in Thuringia during the Third Reich, and about Protestants, Catholics, and Christmas in Nazi Germany. (The authors of these works include CCHQ editors Heath Spencer, Christopher Probst, and Kevin Spicer.)

Finally, Griech-Polelle and Matthew Hockenos supply conference reports from the Powell-Heller Conference for Holocaust Education at Pacific Lutheran University and from the German Studies Association, informing us about papers which consider the role of Catholicism in the Holocaust and interactions between international Protestants during the Nazi period.

We hope you continue to find Contemporary Church History Quarterly a useful addition to your reading about the history of religion in Germany and Europe.

On behalf of the editors,

Kyle Jantzen, Ambrose University

Share

Book Note: “Religion” in Lisa Pine, ed., Life and Times in Nazi Germany

Contemporary Church History Quarterly

Volume 24, Number 1 (March 2018)

Book Note: “Religion” in Lisa Pine, ed., Life and Times in Nazi Germany (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2016). Pp. xv + 307. ISBN: 9781474217927 (Paperback).

By Kyle Jantzen, Ambrose University

Lisa Pine’s Life and Times in Nazi Germany brings together an interesting set of contributions on “the history of everyday life” in the Third Reich. With three sections—“Food and Health,” “Lifestyle,” and “Religion”—she aims to assess “the extent to which a regime with totalitarian aims and ambitions succeeded in permeating different areas of social and cultural life in Germany” (15/357; all references are to the pdf electronic edition). Pine provides a thorough historiographical overview of the social history of Nazi Germany, then turns things over to her contributors. The section on “Religion” is the chief concern of this note, and is comprised of three chapters on Protestantism, Catholicism, and Christmas.

In his chapter “Protestantism in Nazi Germany: A View from the Margins,” Christopher Probst draws on church sources (newsletters, conference papers, ecclesiastical correspondence, and published works) to consider how Protestants responded to the Nazi regime and living in Nazi Germany produced profound religious divisions among Protestants. Probst begins with the issue of antisemitism, noting that “many, perhaps most, German Protestant ministers and theologians had decidedly deprecating views of Jews and Judaism,” and that most were “deeply nationalistic” (244/357). He goes on to ask three main questions: “What tack did Protestant pastors and theologians take towards the Nazi regime? How did the pressures and strictures of living in the Nazi state help to fracture the Protestant church into competing factions with distinct views on myriad issues? How did Protestant clergy and theologians confront the so-called ‘Jewish Question’?” (244/357)

Probst argues that most Protestants supported the Nazi state, whether eagerly or with mixed emotions, and that well before 1933, Protestantism was permeated with antisemitism and anti-Judaism. He develops these ideas through an overview of German Protestantism in the Third Reich and then a comparison of the views of two opposing Protestants towards Jews: Theodor Pauls, a historian and professor of religious studies who celebrated Luther’s antipathy towards Jews (adding a layer of Nazi racial antisemitism to the views of the reformer) and who worked to de-Judaize Christianity; and Heidelberg pastor Hermann Maas, a member of the Confessing Church and an ardent defender of “non-Aryan Christians” and Jews against anti-Judaism and Nazi persecution. Along the way, he draws on the work of Alon Confino (A World Without Jews: The Nazi Imagination from Persecution to Genocide) to establish the ubiquity of antisemitic sentiment among Germans, including Protestants, as the context within which clergy and theologians lived and worked. Overall, Probst focuses on explicating the range of Protestant opinions on Jews and Judaism, but says little about Protestant responses to Nazism or the pressures which split Protestantism into the competing factions of the Confessing Church and German Christian Movement, generating the church-political struggles that dominated Protestant life in the Third Reich.

Kevin P. Spicer’s chapter, “Catholic Life under Hitler,” traces the difficult choices faced by German Catholics over four phases of their relationship with National Socialism: “(1) 1930-1933, when German bishops publicly opposed National Socialism; (2) 1933-1934, when the German bishops jointly reversed their stance towards National Socialism, while holding on to the delusion that they could work with the state; (3) 1934-1939, when the state directly attacked the Church’s value system and worked to remove it from the life of the Volksgemeinschaft (‘national community’); (4) 1939-1945, when the state, while threatening to blot out the Church as a matter of policy, engaged in an annihilative war that simultaneously carried out the murder of thousands of physically handicapped and mentally ill people, as well as the deportation and murder of millions of European Jews” (273/357).

With memories of the nineteenth-century Kulturkampf in mind, Catholics worried about the danger of marginalizing themselves from the political mainstream through a rejection of Nazism. And besides, both Hitler’s promise that the churches would be foundational to his rule and the emerging economic recovery made the Nazi regime popular. The Centre Party’s support for the March 1933 Enabling Act and the July 1933 Concordat between the German state and the Vatican only seemed to confirm the belief that Hitler and his government might well form an effective partnership with the Catholic Church.  After all, both Catholics and Nazis rejected the cultural modernity of the Weimar era, promoted traditional gender roles and forms of family life, opposed Bolshevism, and expressed antipathy towards Jews. Though Catholic religious antisemitism differed from Nazi racial antisemitism, in practice these were mutually reinforcing, as clergy rarely differentiated clearly between the two.

Spicer demonstrates how easily clerical attempts to protect the Church from state attacks could lead to accusations of political subversion against Catholic clergy. Indeed, “one-third of Germany’s diocesan priests came into conflict with the Gestapo or other police agencies” (272/357). Few of these would have understood themselves as opponents of the regime. They were merely attempting to fulfill their liturgical, educational, and associational roles. On the side of the laity, over half attended services faithfully and almost all who married within the faith did so in Catholic churches (274/357). By the middle 1930s, however, tensions were rising as Nazis and Catholics sparred over access to Germany’s youth. Hermann Goering forbad all non-spiritual youth activity (including the popular hiking and camping trips taken by church youth groups), in violation of the Concordat. Over time, simultaneous membership in Catholic and Nazi youth groups was forbidden and eventually Catholic youth groups themselves were disbanded, while the Hitler Youth was made mandatory (281/357). Many priests and Catholic religious instructors faced Gestapo investigation or incarceration for their continuing engagement in youth work. Similar battles were fought over the continuing existence of Catholic schools in the Third Reich.

Spicer explains how Pope Pius XI and Vatican officials wrote well over 350 pages of correspondence to the German government over various church-state conflicts, following those private complaints with the papal encyclical Mit brennender Sorge (‘With Burning Concern’) in 1937.  The German state responded with an increase in the judicial persecution of Catholic clergy by means of the so-called “morality trials,” to which the bishops responded with pastoral letters critical of state attacks on the Church. While the number of Catholics exiting the Church increased somewhat in the later 1930s, all in all, the Church was able to maintain the loyalty of most Catholics and maintain its church taxation system.

Finally, during the war, Spicer argues that Catholics were “disturbingly silent” in response to the Kristallnacht Pogrom, with the exception of Monsignor Bernhard Lichtenberg. More notable was Münster Bishop Clemens von Galen’s public protest against the Nazi euthanasia campaign, which “became the central topic of conversation among the Catholics of Münster and far beyond” (287-288/357). In the end, though, Spicer maintains that Catholic resistance was normally limited to blocking state interference with traditional church practices. Similarly, Catholic lay people—perhaps especially in the countryside—were able to accommodate the everyday practice of their faith to their patriotism and loyalty towards the Hitler regime.

Finally, Joe Perry’s chapter, “Christmas as Nazi Holiday: Colonising the Christmas Mood,” demonstrates how “Nazi functionaries cast Christmas as a celebration of the German Volk that had deep roots in the solstice worship of pre-Christian Germanic tribes.” Decorations, family celebrations, carol singing, Christmas markets, and Christmas trees “were stripped of their Christian content and were reworked to insert Nazi ideology into popular festivity” (31/357). Perry draws on the history of emotions to assess the extent to which Hitler and his movement successfully co-opted the traditional Christian holiday and the “‘Christmas mood’, which turned on moving feelings of Gemütlichkeit (comfort, cosiness), Innerlichkeit (inner warmth, soulfulness), family love and deeply felt spirituality” (301/357). As Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels put it in 1935, Christmas was “the most German of all holidays. It is a Christian celebration,” but “also in the truest sense of the words a National Socialist holiday. Because, when we consider the great ideals of community that bind together the entire German Volk, the commandment ‘love thy neighbour’ has gained a new and surprising significance for us all” (303/357).

Perry traces the nazification of Christmas through three stages: (1) attempts to reshape the holiday along völkisch lines in the 1920s, (2) the campaign to popularize the Volksweihnachten (‘People’s Christmas’) between 1933 and 1939, and (3) the promotion of a Kriegsweihnachten (‘War Christmas’) during the Second World War. Often, December 21—winter solstice—was emphasized over December 25 as the time to celebrate, and public celebrations outshone family holidays.

An important part of this Nazi colonization of Christmas was the National Socialist People’s Welfare (NS-Volkswohlfahrt) charity initiative carried out by the Winter Relief Agency (Winterhilfswerk). Heavy advertising and aggressive collection campaigns focused on promoting charity because, as Goebbels stated, “we must possess a healthy Volk so that we can assert ourselves in the world” (313/357). The Hitler Youth played a large role in the collection of Winter Relief, giving out badges to those who had donated and shaming those who hadn’t. As “the human face of an inhuman regime” (Herbert Vorländer), the Winter Relief generated large sums of money which went to holiday gift packages and Christmas trees to those in need (314/357).

Similarly, other Nazi organizations such as the Hitler Youth, National Socialist Women’s League, and German Labour Front, along with the German Army, also sponsored significant Christmas celebrations. All of these events were designed to celebrate and strengthen the Volksgemeinschaft, or racial community. Perry also mentions the role of the pro-Nazi German Christian Movement in fostering this nazified version of Christmas. German Christians attempted to strip the story of Jesus’ nativity of its “Jewish-Christian accretions.” Indeed, German Christian pastor Wilhelm Bauer’s Celebrations for German Christians (1935) described the rising of a “morning star” on December 25, but left out any mention of Bethlehem, Mary and Joseph, or even Jesus, and renamed Jerusalem “the heavenly abode” (307/357). Nazi party presses produced a wide array of similar publications with instructions for celebrating Christmas, many of them directed to women, boys, and girls. The Ministry of Propaganda also produced many Christmas-themed radio programs and newsreels, while the National Socialist Teachers’ League produced curriculum material emphasizing the “blood and soil” aspects of the holiday, including the winter solstice, Nordic rituals, and female fertility (312/357).

Other Nazi writers worked to reshape even family celebrations of Christmas, by emphasizing primordial Germanic Christmas customs and rewriting Christmas carols along völkisch-racial lines. Here too, German Christians played significant roles. They replaced the lyrics “Rejoice, Rejoice, O Christianity” with “Rejoice, rejoice to be the German Type,” and added the lines, “Christmas! Blood and soil awake! Volk, from God’s light and power; your honour and heroism come” to another Christmas song (318/357).

During the war, Christmas took on new meaning, linked to suffering and sacrifice. “Light oaths” to the sun, mother love, Hitler, the Fatherland, and the German army mixed with “Bringing Home the Fire,” a ceremony where lit candles would be taken from the public, Nazi celebrations into the family home. More ominously, “Heroes’ Remembrance” ceremonies were designed to comfort grieving families at Christmastime (323/357).

Though the nazification of Christmas had its limits—the dechristianization of the holiday was particularly unpopular, and “National Socialist attempts to colonise Christmas and the Christmas mood turned the holiday into a site of cultural-political conflict” (326/357)—Perry effectively demonstrates how it was one means among many through which National Socialists worked to reconstruct social solidarity and national identity along racial lines.

 

Share

Article Note: Heath A. Spencer, “From Liberal Theology to Völkisch Christianity?: Heinrich Weinel, the Volkskirchenbund, and the Church Struggle in Thuringia”

Contemporary Church History Quarterly

Volume 24, Number 1 (March 2018)

Article Note: Heath A. Spencer, “From Liberal Theology to Völkisch Christianity?: Heinrich Weinel, the Volkskirchenbund, and the Church Struggle in Thuringia,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies 30, no. 2 (Fall 2016): 328-350.

By Kyle Jantzen, Ambrose University

In this interesting article, Heath A. Spencer explains how Heinrich Weinel, professor of New Testament and systematic theology at Jena University from 1904 until his death in 1936, could combine “theological liberalism, progressive politics, and humanitarian ideals” (328) with support for the pro-Nazi German Christian Movement in Thuringia. As Spencer notes, in many respects, Weinel was something of a conundrum. He defended “Protestant freedom” against conservative theology, but supported the idea of a Protestant Volkskirche (people’s church). He strove for peace and disapproved of the “national religion” of the First World War era, yet volunteered for military service and promoted “total mobilization” towards the end of the war. During the Weimar period, he was one of the minority of Protestant clergy who supported the new republic, but as the völkisch movement grew stronger through the later 1920s, he called on his fellow religious liberals to work with those on the right (328-329).

Spencer argues that Weinel’s story helps us understand how not only ideology but also “situational factors” drew German Protestants towards völkisch Christianity. Further, it reveals the motives, decision-making processes, and hopes of Protestants (especially in 1933), while illustrating the importance of local and regional factors in the history of the German churches under Hitler (330).

Weinel believed in German exceptionalism and Germany’s cultural mission in the world, and in the importance of Christianity to both. Indeed, it was his fear of losing the völkisch movement to organized religion—just as the educated elites and the industrial working classes had been lost—that drove him to want “to combine Christianity and the völkisch movement together in the right way” (335).

As Spencer explains Weinel’s journey through the war, the Weimar era, and the early years of the Third Reich, what emerges so clearly is Weinel’s tolerance for and desire to understand and even work with those of differing religious and political inclinations. Though he criticized aspects of Nazism, he approved of Hitler’s “national renewal.” Similarly, though he disapproved of the German Christians’ antisemitism and elevation of German-ness over the Gospel, he chose to set aside his long participation in the Thuringian Volkskirchenbund and to support the German Christians in the 1933 Protestant church election. His rationale was that the German Christians were a dynamic force that was winning the hearts of the masses and that they were the party that could establish a centralized Protestant Reich Church, a cause Weinel championed but knew that religious liberals could not accomplish (339).

In the final section of the article, Spencer explains how Weinel’s support for the German Christians entangled him in the antisemitic politics of Nazi Germany. Though Weinel had positive things to say about historic Judaism and though he criticized the antisemitism of the völkisch movement, he also favoured ethnic segregation, celebrated the nation as a creation of God, and failed to speak in defense of Jews and Jewish Christians who were suffering under Nazi political rule and German Christian ecclesiastical rule. Ultimately, though Spencer argues that Weinel’s support for the German Christian Movement was largely a tactical decision born of “frustration and desperation,” he also concludes that “Weinel’s story is a depressing reminder that intelligent, devout, compassionate people can make disastrous political and moral choices” (344).

Share

Letter from the Editors (December 2017)

Contemporary Church History Quarterly

Volume 23, Number 4 (December 2017)

Letter from the Editors (December 2017)

By Kyle Jantzen, Ambrose University

Dear Friends,

As the Advent season is once again upon us, the editors are pleased to publish a new issue of Contemporary Church History Quarterly. For many of us—editors and readers—the encounter between German Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant, and Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist regime is the defining event of the twentieth-century history of Christianity. As usual, this subject stands at the centre of our work at the journal. What strikes me as interesting are the ways in which the reviews and notes in this issue expand the boundaries of that story—chronologically, thematically, and geographically.

The Cecilienstift in Halberstadt, which hosted a recent workshop on Protestant institutions in the Third Reich.
Image courtesy of FrankBothe (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.

Mark Edward Ruff’s new book, The Battle for the Catholic Past in Germany, 1945-1980, reviewed by Robert P. Ericksen, asks why Catholic Christians came under scrutiny for their behaviour during the Third Reich long before Protestants, whose record was ultimately more troubling. It serves as the springboard for an expansive study of Catholic controversies about the Church in the Nazi era, from early triumphalist interpretations through various legal struggles, the uproar over Rolf Hochhuth’s treatment of Pope Pius XII, and on to cross-confessional debates between Klaus Scholder and Konrad Repgen in the 1970s and 1980s.

Heath Spencer then reviews Joachim Negel and Karl Pinggéra’s Urkatastrophe. Die Erfahrung des Krieges 1914-1918 im Spiegel zeitgenössischer Theologie. This survey of a broadly European (with a nod to global) array of theological responses to the cataclysms of the First World War, spanning from justifications of the conflict to Christian pacifist rejections of violence. What emerges is a picture of the extent to which the war provoked theological crises, some of which led to renewal and others of which continued to play out in encounters with totalitarianism, war, and Holocaust.

Lee B. Spitzer has written a detailed account of US Baptist responses to Jews and Jewish persecution and annihilation in the Hitler era, showing how events in Germany preoccupied North American Christians as well. As expected, Spitzer finds a mixture of responses—some ambivalent, others sympathetic, though none practically effective in ameliorating the crisis faced by European Jews.

Beth Griech-Polelle reviews The Evil that Surrounds Us: The WWII Memoir of Erna Becker-Kohen. Kohen, a Jewish-German who married a Catholic and subsequently converted, wrote of her day-to-day experiences in Nazi Germany. Her account, edited and translated by Kevin Spicer and Martina Cucchiara, reveals the sharp limits and high costs of the “protected status” of Jewish Germans married to “Aryans.” Though filled with disappointments and struggles, her memoir also reveals the potential of faith to sustain hope.

The shorter notes which follow these reviews continue to expand the story of Christianity’s encounter with Nazism and the Holocaust, assessing Protestant responses to Allied occupation, Romanian Catholic conversion of Jews, and Protestant institutional life in the Third Reich. Finally and most broadly, Mark Edward Ruff reports on recent scholarly engagements around questions of nineteenth- and twentieth-century Christian revivalism in Germany.

We hope you find these contributions interesting, and we appreciate your continued readership.

With best wishes, on behalf of the editorial team,

Kyle Jantzen

Share

Review of Lee B. Spitzer, Baptists, Jews, and the Holocaust: The Hand of Sincere Friendship

Contemporary Church History Quarterly

Volume 23, Number 4 (December 2017)

Review of Lee B. Spitzer, Baptists, Jews, and the Holocaust: The Hand of Sincere Friendship (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 2017). Pg. xiv + 482. ISBN: 9780817017828.

By Kyle Jantzen, Ambrose University

Lee B. Spitzer, General Secretary of American Baptist Churches, USA, has written a comprehensive study of the relationship between Baptists, Jews, and the Holocaust. Long curious about Baptist attitudes and responses during that time on account of his own secular Jewish background and his relatives’ reluctance to discuss their Holocaust experiences, Spitzer traces Northern, Southern, and African American Baptist engagement with both US and European Jews, the latter under threat of annihilation by Hitler’s Nazi regime. The book’s subtitle comes from a 1935 London speech by Dr. J.H. Rushbrooke, President of the Baptist World Alliance, in which he reaffirmed a declaration against racial persecution issued by the 1934 Baptist World Congress in Berlin. Quoting the declaration’s condemnation of “the placing of a stamp of inferiority upon an entire race” and “every form of oppression or unfair discrimination towards the Jew” as “a violation of God the Heavenly Father,” Rushbrooke lamented the suffering of European Jews. “To my Jewish brothers and sisters under such conditions I extend the hand of sincere friendship,” he avowed (3).

Despite the initial impression that the author’s ecclesiastical position and the book’s subtitle might suggest, Baptists, Jews, and the Holocaust is no simple glorification of Baptist-Jewish history. Rather, it is a thoroughly researched analysis of diverse Baptist responses to the plight of Jews during the Nazi era. Spitzer’s sources include a wide array of archival material: annual convention or conference books of Northern, Southern, Swedish, Regular, African American, and Seventh Day Baptists; minutes and correspondence from the Baptist World Alliance; papers from various Baptist boards, societies, and personnel; and several dozen national and regional Baptist periodicals. This is complemented by three main Jewish sources—The Jewish Chronicle, The American Hebrew, and The American Jewish Yearbook—and a solid collection of relevant secondary sources. Surveying the existing accounts of scholars like William E. Nawyn, E. Earl Joiner, and Robert W. Ross, Spitzer finds only brief, negative assessments of the two large, national, and white Baptist conventions. Omitted are the African American and the regional, state, and local facets of the history.

Convinced of the need for a fresh assessment, the author begins by considering historic Baptist commitments to both democracy and religious toleration, then turning to Baptist-Jewish encounters during times of Jewish immigration in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Here we find fears of immigrant criminality from “this European sewer” but also compassion for “God’s own people” (22, 24). This background is useful, because it contextualizes the unruly mixture of Baptist concerns and responses to Jews later, in the 1930s and 1940s.

For example, Northern Baptists provided relief at Ellis Island, funded city missions to convert Jews, and developed “the Christian Americanization movement organized by the Women’s Baptist Home Mission Society” (34). In the 1920s, they also passed resolutions against war and condemned the Turkish genocide against Armenian Christians. As the Committee on Interracial Relationships put it in 1928:

In racial prejudices and false nationalism are to be found the sources of such curses of the human race as wars, oppressions, and the exploitations by the stronger races of the weaker. … Only in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and in the common Fatherhood of God and the Universal Brotherhood of man which he reveals, is there a remedy for race antagonisms. (48)

Statements like these simultaneously asserted racial difference—even hierarchy—affirmed a Baptist commitment to the primacy of Christianity, and expressed a desire to live in peace and harmony with other peoples.

As for Southern Baptists, already in the nineteenth century they “recognized the role of the Jews as the Old Testament people of God, acknowledged a missionary call toward them, demonstrated ambivalence toward the restoration of Israel as a nation, and imagined a responsibility for mission work among Arabs as well” (55). Like their northern counterparts, Southern Baptists expressed fear that the immigration of “Roman Catholics, Jews and heathen,” who were “enemies of the evangelical faith,” would flood American cities and threaten both American and Christian institutions (59). More surprisingly, Southern Baptists called for an international conference in 1919 to alleviate Jewish suffering and emphasized a core Baptist commitment to religious liberty (60-61).

With respect to the Nazi era, Spitzer asks three questions that form the basis of his study: “was the Baptist offer of friendship to Jews really sincere? Did Baptists throughout the United States reach out to Nazi victims through individual and corporate expressions of caring and compassion? Were Baptists in the United States truly concerned, or were they apathetic in the face of the persecution and attempted extermination of the Jewish people?” (5). He formulates his answers in sections covering Baptist periodicals and then Northern, Southern, and African American Baptists, each in their turn, before turning to the Baptist World Alliance towards the end of the book.

As Spitzer examines reports and editorials on the plight of the European Jews, he expands on Robert W. Ross’ research on the Protestant church press by scrutinizing a wide variety of Baptist publications, most importantly Missions and The Watchman-Examiner. The latter reported extensively on Nazi antisemitic campaigns, Jewish emigration, attacks on eastern European Jews, deportations, camps, and the scale of the killing in the Holocaust. Also important were the editors’ interest in Zionism and Jewish migration to Palestine (in light of biblical eschatology) and numerous condemnations of Nazism and antisemitism (139). Complementing this examination of the Baptist church press was a chapter on The American Hebrew, which covered the 1934 Baptist World Congress, considered Christian-Jewish relations, and praised Baptist and other Protestant expressions of sympathy, only growing more critical after 1943, when it censured both Christian antisemitism and Baptist suggestions that Jews convert (135).

Having concluded that Baptists were well-informed about Jewish suffering, Spitzer moves into the heart of his study, seeking to determine whether Baptists responded to the Holocaust and, if so, how. He finds that Northern Baptists, who were used to addressing domestic and international social and political issues, repeatedly issued national statements condemning Nazism and sympathizing with persecuted Jews. In 1939, for instance, the Committee on Race Relations denounced American antisemitism, while the Resolutions Committee affirmed that “God hath made of one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and that we are His offspring” (152). The committee then condemned prejudice against African Americans, Asian Americans, and Jews. Various regional and state assemblies did likewise, though none of these sentiments were translated into personal, practical aid.

In contrast, the Southern Baptist Convention made much less of Jewish persecution, in part because some of the key leaders, like President M.E. Dodd and missionary leader Everett Gill, were antisemitic or racist, but also because “Southern Baptist complicity in Jim Crow culture opened them up to charges of hypocrisy” (439). Indeed, its Social Service Commission described the race problem quite unsympathetically in 1940:

Whenever two races live along side each other or come into necessary contact with each other there is, as always in the history of the world, a race problem. Sometimes it is the Aryan and the Jew; sometimes it is the Arab and the Jew; sometimes it is the White man and the Negro, but always wherever two races have to deal with each other you have a race problem…. (276)

Spitzer explains how Southern Baptists criticized the Nazi regime primarily for its attempt to overthrow “all the things for which men have fought, bled and died for” since the time Christ preached the Sermon on the Mount, namely the “idea of the worth and dignity of the individual, which is the basis of democracy” (277). Still, Southern Baptists did support the racism resolution at the 1934 Baptist World Congress, as well as its reiteration in 1939. At the state level, apart from Missouri, Southern Baptist Conventions did not express sympathy for persecuted Jews until after the Kristallnacht Pogrom of November 1938. Then, however, six state conventions were outspoken in their denunciations of Nazism and their support for Jews, and two others expressed some sympathy (303-324). Overall, though, the author concludes that Southern Baptists were more concerned to convert Jews than to work for justice for them (343).

One of the strengths of Baptists, Jews, and the Holocaust is the attention Spitzer gives to African American Baptists, who, he writes, “experienced a competitive friendship with the Jewish community” (440). African American Baptists identified with Jews for two reasons. They saw them as fellow victims of prejudice and marginalization within American society, and they identified strongly with the biblical account of Israel’s exodus from slavery in Egypt. Still, there were perhaps stronger reasons for rivalry: Jewish immigrants were far more likely to prosper economically than African Americans; Jews were often landlords where African Americans were tenants, as in Harlem; and international sympathy for the persecuted Jews of Europe stood in marked contrast to the absence of compassion for the plight of African Americans. As Nannie Helen Burroughs of the Women’s Auxiliary put it:

… we confess that our sympathy is mixed with sadness, fear and suspicion. We wonder if when the Czech and the Pole and the Jew, of all nations, eventually achieve freedom from fear, they will join the rest of the white world in appropriating and reserving for themselves this freedom for which black men, too, have fought, bled and died? Freedom for all men, everywhere, is the only thing worth fighting for (363-364).

Internationally, Spitzer argues, the responses of the Baptist World Alliance to the Nazi persecution and murder of Jews were an amalgam of all of these diverse Baptist perspectives. “While passing resolutions that voiced Baptist opposition to Nazism, the persecution of Jews, and anti-Semitism, the BWA never developed a strategy for assisting Jewish victims of Nazism or resettling Jewish exiles in the aftermath of the Holocaust” (441).

In the end, Spitzer’s analysis uncovers the good, the bad, and the ugly about Baptist responses to the Holocaust. Writing for his coreligionists, he concludes that “the hand of sincere friendship” was not really offered by Baptists towards Jews. He makes the appropriate judgment that “Baptists felt solidarity with Jews because of their status as a persecuted minority and not because they were involved in caring relationships with Jewish neighbors. … Baptist recognition of Jewish victimhood did not compel comprehensive, concerted, or practical action on their behalf, which friends might expect from friends” (455). We can only hope, with the author, that his thorough analysis of this history bears fruit in contemporary Baptist and wider Christian responses to antisemitism in the twenty-first century.

Share

Letter from the Editors (September 2017)

Contemporary Church History Quarterly

Volume 23, Number 3 (September 2017)

Letter from the Editors (September 2017)

By Kyle Jantzen, Ambrose University

Dear Friends,

Martin Luther statue in front of Dresden’s restored Frauenkirche

The editors of Contemporary Church History Quarterly are delighted to present a new issue of articles, reviews, news, and notes. Three themes dominate this issue. First and foremost, we want to take time to remember and to commemorate the life and work of John S. Conway, the founding editor of what became the CCHQ. John, who passed away this past June, was a great mentor and friend to us, and two of our senior colleagues–Doris Bergen and Robert Ericksen–have captured John’s legacy in moving articles.

Second, in this year of the 500th anniversary of the beginning of the Lutheran Reformation, we want to attend to one of the more controversial issues in recent Luther scholarship: the relationship of Luther to antisemitism and the Holocaust. To that end, Manfred Gailus offers an article considering Luther’s reception in the Third Reich, while Christopher Probst reviews a work on the influence of Luther’s “Jewish Writings” in the modern era and guest contributor Dirk Schuster reviews the catalogue from the new Topography of Terror (Berlin) exhibition “‘Überall Luthers Worte …’ – Martin Luther im Nationalsozialismus / ‘Luther’s Words are everywhere …’ – Martin Luther in Nazi Germany.”

Finally, there’s a good deal of attention these days on the history of Mennonites in the Third Reich. On that topic, we have a review of Benjamin W. Goossen’s Chosen Nation: Mennonites and Germany in a Global Era, as well as a report on a recent meeting held at the University of Toronto, together with information on an upcoming conference in Kansas.

We trust that these and other offerings in this issue will prove to be stimulating and informative. We want to thank you for your continued interest in the Contemporary Church History Quarterly, and wish you all the best for the autumn season.

On behalf of the editors,

Kyle Jantzen, Ambrose University

Share

Review of Benjamin W. Goossen, Chosen Nation: Mennonites and Germany in a Global Era

Contemporary Church History Quarterly

Volume 23, Number 3 (September 2017)

Review of Benjamin W. Goossen, Chosen Nation: Mennonites and Germany in a Global Era ( Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017), 266 + xiv Pp., ISBN: 978-0-691-17428-0.

By Kyle Jantzen, Ambrose University

From the outside, the Christian tradition of Anabaptism, of which Mennonites are the largest branch, is often known simply for its German ethnicity and its pacifist theology. In Chosen Nation: Mennonites and Germany in a Global Era, Benjamin W. Goossen employs post-structuralist history to carefully and thoroughly dismantle these notions. “If Mennonite theologians could both justify and oppose pacifism, if Mennonite nationalists could both embrace and reject Germanness, it makes little sense to think of either category as coherent, limited, or unchanging” (4). Rejecting traditional definitions of religion and nationality, Goossen depicts Mennonites as a socially constructed and historically situated collectivity forged through processes of contestation, their identities continually (re)negotiated in response to the course of modern German history. Needless to say, his differentiated portrayal of Mennonites unsettles several cherished myths: that Mennonites were thoroughly German (their Dutch roots notwithstanding), that Mennonites were marked by pacifism, or that Mennonites were apolitical. It also asks hard questions, such as whether Mennonitism was or is based on heredity or belief? The result is a thought-provoking examination of Mennonite identity centred on Mennonites’ fluid relationship with Germany from the time of nineteenth-century nationalism and political unification to the present.

Chosen Nation argues that “Mennonitism should not be understood as a single group—or even as an amalgamation of many smaller groups.” Rather, the book seeks to uncover “what the idea of Mennonitism has meant for various observers” and “how and why interpretations have developed over time” (7). Goossen’s transnational history argues that Mennonites appropriated German nationalism when it was in their interest to do so and suppressed or abandoned it when it became problematic. Into the 1800s, Mennonites had commonly understood themselves to be a global confessional community. As the century wore on, however, they began to portray themselves as “archetypical Germans” (13). As Emil Händiges, the long-time chairman of the progressive Union of Mennonite Congregations in the German Empire (established in 1886), put it, “Do not almost all Mennonites … wherever they may live—in Russia, in Switzerland, in Alsace-Lorraine, Galicia, Pomerania, in the United States and Canada, in Mexico and Paraguay, yes even in Asiatic Siberia and Turkestan—speak the same German mother tongue? Are not the Mennonites, wherever they go, also the pioneers of German language, customs, and culture?” (13). Whether the Mennonites in these far-flung locales—or even in conservative congregations in the new German Empire—understood themselves as the promoters of German culture was another matter entirely.

For Goossen, the free-for-all of Mennonite identity-building (“collectivism”) was “constrained by the situations in which they found themselves” (16). Over the course of seven rich chapters, he guides us along the twisted road of Mennonite identity formation. Initially, around the time of the formation of the German Empire in 1871, Mennonite activists like Hinrich van der Smissen (despite his Dutch name!) developed “a common narrative based on German nationality” (19). They drew together Mennonites from three non-German regions—north German Mennonites with roots in the Netherlands, South German Mennonites with connections to coreligionists in Switzerland and Eastern France, and Prussian Mennonites living in former Polish and Lithuanian territory—who had been loosely connected by migration, commerce, marriage, and a long memory of religious persecution (fostered by the influential Martyr’s Mirror). This nascent German identity was fostered by print publications, by participation in political and military activity, and by improved communications—not least through congregational address books linking churches throughout the unified German territory (31). During these early years of Imperial Germany, there were three important developments: German replaced Dutch as the language of Mennonitism; the notion of a Mennonite diaspora was invented (further entrenching the notion of Germany as the movement’s homeland); and Mennonites became closely associated with agriculture and traditionalism (never mind the urban modernity of many of their intellectual leaders).

One key point of conflict, and the reason many Mennonites resisted this narrative of Germanness, was the notion that pacifistic Mennonites should enter military service in Imperial Germany. Whether in fighting or in noncombatant roles, military service was a means to improve Mennonite standing in the new Germany and attaining full civil liberties for their congregations. Many Mennonites rejected this political transaction, however, and emigrated. (Russian Mennonites faced a similar quandary after the passage of a draft law in 1874, and about 18,000, or one-third, emigrated to North America.)

The 1886 German Mennonite Union was slow to develop. At first, only 17 of 71 congregations joined, and most of them were progressive urban congregations in northwest Germany (71). Claiming to speak for all Mennonites, progressives portrayed conservatives who shunned the Union (and, with it, participation in modern Germany) as both nationally and religiously indifferent, and invoked fears of mixed marriages and Mennonite population decline to coerce reluctant conservatives from the South and Northeast to join the Union. In this, they achieved a measure of success. By 1914, 70 percent of Mennonites were members of the Union, and rural Mennonites even outnumbered their urban coreligionists (94).

The culmination of this Mennonite entrance into the national life of Germany came during the First World War. For Mennonites in Germany, war offered them the fullest opportunity to participate in national life, by fighting and dying for the Fatherland. Of the roughly 2,000 German Mennonites who entered military service, only one-third chose noncombatant roles. Abroad, Mennonites had little interest in supporting German war aims, but failed to convince their neighbours. Their Germanness and their refusal to fight against Germany (not out of love for Germany, but because most were pacifists) made them persecuted outsiders in Russia, the United States, and Canada. In Russia, about 6,000 Mennonite men did enter the non-combatant forestry service, while another 6,000 served in the medical corps. Many rejected any German identity, claiming that “not a drop of German blood flows in our veins” (103)!

The Bolshevik revolution of 1917 mobilized Mennonites in Europe and North America to try to rescue about 100,000 of their coreligionists from the violence of the Russian civil war (97). After 1918, Russian Mennonites subject to anti-German reprisals and marauding brigands formed self-defence militias. Suffering under persecution and famine, many sought to emigrate. To do so, they adopted the language of national self-determination and of race to present themselves both as oppressed minorities and as white agriculturalists worthy of resettlement in North and South America. Goossen describes this as the embracing of “a Zionist-like form of religious nationalism” (16). “Between 1923 and 1926, 20,000 settlers—one-fifth of all Mennonites in the Bolshevik empire—relocated to Canada” (115). About 4,000 more established a “Mennonite state” in the Chaco, in Paraguay, primarily because it afforded them cultural isolation and refuge from persecution (119). Though there was still much debate about whether Mennonites constituted a “cohesive trans-state identity,” the experience of the First World War and its aftermath “consolidated the idea of a global Mennonite community” (120).

After Hitler and his National Socialists came to power and led Germany into a racialized conquest of Eastern Europe, discourses of Mennonitism shifted once more, as pro-Nazi Mennonites formulated the notion of “a four-hundred-year-old ‘racial church’—an Aryan version of the Jewish ‘antirace’—entitled to a share of the Führer’s spoils” (16). Indeed, German scientists had begun racial research in Mennonite communities already in the Weimar era, with the consent and often support of Mennonite leaders. In the Third Reich, Mennonites proved to be “more Aryan than the average German,” according to Nazi researchers, in large part because of their cultural resistance to intermarriage. They were, in a sense, racial nationalists before the fact, and not a few tried to work their way towards the Führer by campaigning for a centralized, united, hierarchical Mennonite Union in the image of National Socialism. While many Mennonites were critical of the pro-Nazi “German Christian Movement” for attacking the Old Testament and some questioned whether one could be both a Christian and a National Socialist, most were content to enter into inner emigration, focusing on the purely spiritual activities of church services and abandoning education and youth work to the Nazis (125-126). Most Mennonite officials swore oaths, and most Mennonite men abandoned non-resistance, which they viewed as a dangerous relic of the past. Mennonites adopted racial discourse, encouraged Nazi racial research which depicted them as pure Aryans (“anti-Jews”) and even adopted aspects of antisemitism, complaining about the Judeo-Bolshevik persecution of Russian Mennonites in the Soviet Union (140). Goossen notes the ways in which Mennonite intellectuals produced their own Aryanism, striving to prove their Germanness by contrasting themselves to Russians and Jews. Hundreds of articles were written to make this point in the middle 1930s (143).

Goossen argues Mennonites were implicated in the Holocaust, in part by fashioning narratives of Aryanism that justified antisemitic laws and “implicated the confession in policies of internment, expropriation, and genocide’ (123). SS Chief Heinrich Himmler met extensively with Mennonite leader Benjamin Unruh, and established an SS Special Command R to comb the Ukrainian countryside for Mennonites to resettle in Wartheland, even as SS Einsatzgruppen were combing the Ukrainian countryside for Jews to round up and kill. As ethnic Germans, Mennonites were rewarded with social services and material goods, such as the clothes, shoes, and homes of murdered Jews. As Goossen puts it, “welfare and mass murder were two sides of the same coin” (149). In the Nazi vision for Lebensraum in Eastern Europe, pure-blood Mennonites were the ideal German settlers who could colonize (for them, resettle) Ukraine. SS leaders singled out Mennonite settlements like Chortitza and Molotschna as model German towns. Alfred Rosenberg described his visit to the former as “the most moving moment of the entire trip” he made through occupied Ukraine in 1942 (152). For these Mennonites, the war served to spark a religious and political revival, in which they gained status and power in the occupied territory. They complied with and at times participated in the Holocaust, occasionally as killers but more often as the inheritors of land expropriated from Jews among whom they lived (164).

As the war turned against Germany, Mennonites in the East were evacuated en masse. From fall 1943 to spring 1944, 200,000 German colonists (including 35,000 Mennonites) made their way on foot, horseback, wagon, and train westward into occupied Poland, swelling the German population in Wartheland. Here, too, Mennonites participated in the racial categorization underway, as the Nazis sought to identify ideal German settlers (169). Ultimately, though, as the Nazi empire collapsed, 45,000 Mennonites ended up fleeing from Ukrainian, Polish, and East Prussian territory into Germany.

After 1945, as Allied officials began sorting out the tangle of displaced persons and refugees, Mennonites faced a dilemma. If they identified as Ukrainians or Russians, they risked deportation to the USSR. If they identified as Germans, they risked the charge of collaboration and made themselves ineligible for aid. At first, some tried to identify themselves as Dutch, and a few made it to the Netherlands. Others began to claim Mennonitism as an alternative to German or Russian ethnic identity, not because of an awakening of religious nationalism but as a “temporary response to historical contingencies” (175). Though the International Refugee Organization was skeptical, about 15,000 Mennonites were nonetheless allowed to immigrate to Canada in the 1950s, mostly because they were white, Christian, anti-communist, agrarian settlers (179, 181).

In recent decades, Mennonite identity has remained fluid and contested. Mission work and the establishment of new Mennonite churches in the non-Western world has prompted questions about the relationship between Germanness and Mennonitism. Ironically, while the Mennonite migration from the collapsing Soviet Union to the newly unified Germany was predicated on Mennonite claims to German citizenship, questions remain about their Germanness.

In the end, Benjamin W. Goossen’s Chosen Nation demonstrates that, over the past two centuries, Mennonite ethnic and religious identity has been anything but stable and self-evident over the past two centuries; rather, it has been constructed, controversial, and changeable.

Share

Letter from the Editors (June 2017)

Contemporary Church History Quarterly

Volume 23, Number 1/2 (June 2017)

Letter from the Editors (June 2017)

By Kyle Jantzen, Ambrose University

Dear Friends,

While the editors of Contemporary Church History Quarterly are pleased to release our newest issue, we are also deeply saddened to announce the passing of our founding editor, John S. Conway, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of British Columbia. As most readers will know, CCHQ began as John’s monthly e-mail newsletter, which ran from 1995, when he entered mandatory retirement, until 2009. Like clockwork, John would send his newsletter of book reviews and other notes relating (for the most part) to the history of the German churches in the Third Reich to over 500 recipients from universities and religious communities around the globe. When he was about to turn 80 years old, he engaged various members of the current editorial team in a discussion about the future of his newsletter–a discussion which resulted in the founding of this journal. John was gracious in allowing us to transform his monthly e-mail newsletter into an online quarterly, and remained our most active contributor up until the last six months of his life.

I had the privilege of visiting John and his wife Ann one last time in mid-June. As we talked about work, family, and faith, John was at his most energetic when chiding me and my fellow editors for the times when we failed to release the new issue of CCHQ at the beginning of the month. As ever, John combined generous support and high scholarly expectations, something many of us benefitted from and greatly admired. Indeed, until now, John has been the driving force behind CCHQ. The editors will have more to say about John Conway’s scholarly legacy in future issues. For now, we will mourn his loss, give thanks for his life and work, and pray for his family.

On behalf of my fellow editors,

Kyle Jantzen, Ambrose University

Share