Author Archives: John S. Conway

Article Note: Malgorzata Rajtar, “Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eastern Germany: Reconfiguration of Identity”

ACCH Quarterly Vol. 17, No. 1, March 2011

Article Note: Malgorzata Rajtar, “Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eastern
Germany: Reconfiguration of Identity,” Religion, State and Society
38 no. 4 (December 2010): 401-416.

By John S. Conway, University of British Columbia

The Jehovah’s Witnesses suffered extensive persecution during the Third Reich. But the same stubborn refusal to bow down to the state authorities led to them being banned by the Communist rulers of East Germany in 1950, as a dissident and disloyal group, or alternatively as agents of “American monopolism”. Nevertheless the Witnesses maintained their close-knit structures, despite a further escalation of conflict over the resumption in 1962 of compulsory military service, which Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse. Most young male Witnesses suffered twenty months imprisonment. The consequent hardships for their families were however compensated for by other members, and their sense of victimization only strengthened the community. The adults refused to allow their children to join socialist youth groups, which led to further tensions. The Stasi attempted to infiltrate informers but with little success. Group solidarity was too strong.

By the 1980s, the state persecution relaxed, and after 1990 was abolished. Throughout the communist years, the Jehovah’s Witnesses had managed to maintain their numbers, but after unification, the community faced new problems in refashioning their identity. After several years of legal battles, they successfully managed to gain recognition as a public corporation in German law, but the wider issue of public acceptance still remains. The media still reflect a general disapprobation, aided by an active hostility by some of the more established church groups against the proselytizing undertaken by Jehovah’s Witnesses. They can no longer seek sympathy as the victims of political persecution, but have yet to be granted a social standing comparable to other religious groups. The search for a new identity in the new Germany for the Jehovah’s Witnesses still continues.

 

Share

Review of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Berlin: 1932 – 1933: Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, Volume 12

ACCH Quarterly Vol. 16, No. 4, December 2010

Review of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Berlin: 1932 – 1933: Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, Volume 12, ed. Larry L. Rasmussen, trans. Isabel Best, David Higgins, and Douglas W. Stott (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), 680 pp. ISBN 978-0-8006-8312-2.

By John S. Conway, University of British Columbia

The twelve months from November 1932 to October 1933 covered in this, the twelfth volume of Bonhoeffer’s collected writings, were to be of crucial significance, not just for the career of this young theologian, but for his nation as well. The political and social turmoil, which had resulted in violent clashes between rival gangs of Communists and Nazis in many of Germany’s major cities, culminated in the seizure of power by the National Socialists, led by Adolf Hitler, on January 30, 1933. It was the beginning of what Bonhoeffer, within a few days, was to describe as “a terrible barbarization of our culture”, the onset of what he later called “the masquerade of evil”. This insight was eventually to lead to Bonhoeffer’s involvement in the conspiracy to overthrow Hitler’s dictatorship and to his execution for high treason in April 1945. This period is therefore notable as marking the beginnings of his opposition to the Nazis’ imposition of totalitarian measures that were to have such fateful consequences.

This volume brings together the surviving letters, articles, papers and sermons from this short turning point in Bonhoeffer’s life. As before, the translation of the German original is excellent, and the editorial footnotes very helpful. In addition we are given a chronology of these months, a very full index of names, giving the positions held by those mentioned, as well as an exhaustive subject index. This volume’s value is enhanced by having not only Larry Rasmussen’s introduction, but also the translation of the afterword provided by the German editors. In addition, certain materials have been added since the original German edition was published. On the other hand, in contrast to the preceding volume 10, which covered Bonhoeffer’s stay abroad, this volume is less revealing. During these months in Berlin, Bonhoeffer was in close contact with his friends and family, so clearly most of the significant discussions and debates about his ideas and conduct were undertaken verbally and were not committed to paper or have not survived. Nevertheless, the remarkable number of his extant communications provides us with major clues, which of course were more fully explored in Eberhard Bethge’s full biography, first published in 1966.

If this volume contains only small items not hitherto known, it is still an impressive piece of scholarship. The centrepiece of this volume is the controversy over the future of the German Evangelical Church. This dispute greatly escalated after the Nazis came to power and particularly after the passage in April 1933 of the Law ordering the removal of people of Jewish origins from official positions. On the one side, the vociferous faction known as the German Christians sought to align the church as closely as possible with the new political regime. They supported Hitler’s goals for a renewed powerful Germany, and saw in him a leader who would restore the nation’s strength by boldly and forcefully attacking those they considered to be the national enemies, particularly Communists and Jews. By such a stance, they believed, the church would regain its popularity and demonstrate its loyalty to the state. On the other side were those whose conservative rootedness deplored such innovative departures from traditional Lutheran doctrines. From the beginning, as these documents make clear, Bonhoeffer championed this adherence to orthodoxy, and became, at the age of 27, one of the most vocal critics of the German Christians and their deplorable and false doctrines. He was thus caught up, as is clear from his correspondence and papers, in the turmoil and fluidity that assailed the churches. What is remarkable is the sense of foreboding reflected in his words from the early months of Nazi rule. He refused to share the widespread enthusiasm that swept through many sections of German conservative society, including the Evangelical Church. As early as February 1933, he was expressing his view that authoritarian leadership and ecstatic patriotism were dangerously misleading traits. Most particularly he now began to take issue with the German Christians’ attempts to introduce the state’s anti-Jewish regulations into the church by banning anyone of Jewish origin from holding offices in the church, and even by calling for their expulsion altogether. This led to his being invited in June 1933 to be one of a team drawing up a firm statement of orthodox belief, known from its place of origin as the Bethel Confession. Unfortunately the church leaders delayed its publication, and asked for revisions, so that eventually Bonhoeffer felt it had been watered down and dissociated himself. It was one of the factors that led him to decide to leave Germany and take over pastoring two German parishes in London in October 1933, which is where this volume ends.

We are not yet provided with a full account of the struggles that Bonhoeffer must have gone through to reach this decision. But it clearly meant leaving the two jobs he held, first the lectureship in systematic theology at Berlin’s university, and second a chaplaincy at the Technical College. The latter appointment was clearly a mistake since few students wanted counselling, and none appeared at his office hours. By contrast his students at the university were enthralled, even though Bonhoeffer lectured at 8 in the morning on Saturdays and Wednesdays! Fortunately several students preserved their notes from which a partial text has been reconstituted, which is included in this volume. But it is notable that Bonhoeffer carefully avoided any reference to current political events. Nor were the students consulted about his sudden career change.

No less striking is the material on Bonhoeffer’s extra-curricular engagements. In these months he diligently coached a confirmation class for young lads in a north Berlin slum district, and even moved there so that they could call on him in the evenings. No less significant was his involvement with the wider European ecumenical movement, particularly through the World Alliance for Promoting International Friendship through the Churches. Bonhoeffer had been appointed the World Alliance’s Youth Secretary for central Europe shortly after his return from America in 1931, and was responsible for organizing youth conferences designed to overcome national barriers and hatreds. But much to the regret of his mentors in this work, Superintendent Diestel and Professor Friedrich Siegmund-Schultze, Bonhoeffer was too preoccupied with his other responsibilities to give much time to the World Alliance. His most significant action was to travel to a conference in Sofia,Bulgaria, in September 1933, where he urged the World Alliance leaders to adopt a resolution deploring the German state’s measures against the Jews and protesting against the German church’s readiness to adopt the so-called “Aryan paragraph” discriminating against anyone of Jewish origin. At this point, Bonhoeffer felt that his outspokenness on this subject might well land him in a concentration camp if he returned to Germany. His decision to accept his next ministerial assignment in England was therefore a judicious move.

But the World Alliance continued to mean much to Bonhoeffer. This was the period when he was wholeheartedly persuaded of the need for world peace. In this cause he was a pupil of Siegmund-Schultze, the leading pacifist of the German Evangelical Church. But Siegmund-Schultze was to be forcibly expelled from Germany by the Gestapo in June 1933, which must have been a great shock and bitter blow to Bonhoeffer and his friends. It was not until the following year, at the World Alliance’s conference in Denmark, that Bonhoeffer’s most significant contribution to the issue of world peace was expressed. This volume, however, only hints at his developing ideas.

Karl Barth, whom Bonhoeffer greatly admired, was opposed to his leaving Germany, and the letters between the two reveal Barth’s strong regret and Bonhoeffer’s apologetic tone. But certainly we can be sure that Bonhoeffer’s steadfast denunciations of the false doctrines of the German Christians, as expressed in the Bethel Confession, were to pay a role in May 1934, when Barth composed the equally stringent rejection of false doctrines in the Barmen Declaration.

Equally notable is the text of Bonhoeffer’s often misunderstood statement on “The Church and the Jewish Question” of June 1933. This undoubtedly reflects the Lutheran theological tradition about these “outcast” people, and calls for their eventual conversion. But it also challenges the church to oppose the harsh measures taken by the state, and if necessary to bring the apparatus of the unjust and illegitimate state to a halt. He then goes on to proclaim the necessity of not allowing the state to prescribe who can be a member of the church. In reality, the church consists of Germans and Jews standing together under God’s Word. Racial characteristics have nothing to do with membership in the church. Unfortunately Bonhoeffer left this vital topic unfinished and rarely returned to it in subsequent years.

Our thanks are due to the editors and translators for their excellent work in maintaining the standard of previous volumes. It is to be hoped that the whole series will soon be completed for English-speaking readers. For as Vicki Barnett, the General Editor, rightly notes: “These volumes are a significant contribution to twentieth century theological literature, church history and the history of the Nazi era”. They afford us a detailed view of “Bonhoeffer’s historical context and its great challenges for the churches and for all people of conscience.”

 

Share

Review of Emmy Barth, An Embassy Besieged: The Story of a Christian Community in Nazi Germany

ACCH Quarterly Vol. 16, No. 4, December 2010

Review of Emmy Barth, An Embassy Besieged: The Story of a Christian Community in Nazi Germany (Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, Plough Publishing, 2010), 306 pp. ISBN 13: 978-1-60899-879-1.

 By John S. Conway, University of British Columbia

The Bruderhof was the name given to a small Christian experimental community established in 1919 by Eberhard Arnold, a charismatic teacher and preacher, as a protest against the militarism and nationalism which had led to Germany’s recent defeat. He sought to recreate a community based on the ideas of the radical Reformer, Jakob Hutter, whose disciples had long since been banished from Europe and survived only in small groups in the Dakotas and western Canada. They aimed to follow Tolstoy’s lead in living a communal life without individual property, but witnessing in unity to their common piety and pacifism. In the 1920s this group settled on a dilapidated farm in a remote corner of Hessen near Fulda and began to propagate their idealistic vision as best they could. At first, this alternative life-style attracted a number of young people both from Germany and from other parts of Europe, drawn together in fervent discipleship of brotherly love according to the Sermon on the Mount. By 1933, the community had grown to over 100 persons.

The advent of the Nazi Party to power drastically altered the Bruderhof’s fortunes. Eberhard Arnold was quite clear about the incompatibility of his vision with Nazi ideology. It was not long before the local authorities began to harass the community, making use of allegations that they were a bunch of crypto-communists or even drug users. Already in November 1933, the farm was raided by armed policemen who openly declared that the Bruderhof had no place in Hitler’s Germany. The Bruderhof’s charitable status was revoked, their fostering of children at risk was suspended, and various sanctions damaged the profitability of their farming operations. In early 1934, they were forbidden to operate a separate Christian school, so that the school-age children had to be evacuated to Switzerland. In the following year, the introduction of military conscription led to the emigration of all their young men, whose pacifist beliefs prevented them from joining any military force. At first, a refuge was found on a remote hillside farm in Lichtenstein, until the authorities there bowed to Nazi pressure. Another section of the community then went to England in 1936, where they were befriended by Quakers and relocated to a farm in the Cotswolds. Unfortunately Eberhard Arnold died of a botched operation in November 1935, but even without his inspiring leadership the group managed to maintain their spiritual integrity. However, this was not enough to alter the Nazis’ resolute determination to get rid of them all. In April 1937, the police again raided the Bruderhof in force, declared its property to be confiscated, and ordered the community’s immediate disbandment. Three of the leaders were imprisoned for nearly three months, but were eventually released. The survivors emigrated from Germany to England and began to reorganize their witness once again.

This whole sad story is excellently told by Emmy Barth, one of Eberhard Arnold’s descendants, who is the community’s archivist in what is now their main centre in upper New York State. She has skillfully woven together and translated the surviving material of Arnold’s sermons, speeches and letters, and has been able to discover in Berlin the relevant documents in the records of the Reich Ministry of Church Affairs for 1936-37. While this book is entirely written from the point of view of those affected and tells us little that is new about the Nazi persecution of these minor sects, nevertheless her story is a valuable illustration of self-reliant spiritual strength refusing to capitulate in the face of ruthless and unfeeling paranoia.. Thanks to Eberhard Arnold’s prophetic vision, the Bruderhof movement continues to survive and indeed flourish. Emmy Barth’s sequel to this book, No Lasting Home: A Year in the Paraguayan Wilderness, continuing the story of their subsequent wartime flight from England to Paraguay, was reviewed in our March 2010 issue (Vol. 16, No. 1).

Share

Article Note: Caitlin Carenen, “The American Christian Palestine Committee, the Holocaust, and Mainstream Protestant Zionism, 1938-1948”

ACCH Quarterly Vol. 16, No. 4, December 2010

Article Note: Caitlin Carenen, “The American Christian Palestine Committee, the Holocaust, and Mainstream Protestant Zionism, 1938-1948,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies 24 no. 2 (Fall 2010): 273-296.

By John S. Conway, University of British Columbia

Caitlin Carenen’s article describes the activities of a small but influential committee of American churchmen, the American Christian Palestine Committee (ACPC), established after the November 1938 pogrom in Germanyand comprised mainly of liberal Protestants. Its purpose was to mobilize support in American churches for the persecuted victims of Nazism and in particular to urge their resettlement in Palestine, along the lines advocated by Jewish and Zionist supporters. Carenen shows that this was a politically well-connected and effective lobby, motivated by the horrors of the Holocaust and sincerely dedicated to the idea of Zionism. At the time, the majority opinion among American Protestants was strongly isolationist and even pacifist, as reflected in their principal journal: The Christian Century. Events inEurope brought about a reluctant change.

One of the strong advocates forAmerica’s involvement in world events was Professor Reinhold Niebuhr ofNew York’sUnion TheologicalCollege. His ideas are well examined here. Thanks to his efforts and those of more than 300 leading political figures, support for the Zionist cause was advocated as a Christian duty, on humanitarian and pragmatic grounds, but also as an overdue response to the long history of Christian antisemitism.

This ACPC found itself allied to the much older Christian Zionism favoured largely by fundamentalists and biblical literalists, but studiously avoided any appeal to missionary ambitions, arguing instead that the return of Jews to their ancient home in Palestine would create a potentially democratic ally for American policy-makers in the Middle East. Considerable political pressure was mobilized by the ACPC against the restrictive policies of the British Mandate, which only increased after the Nazi defeat. Strong support was given to the 1945 Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry which advocated allowing 100,000 Jews to immigrate toPalestine. The British Government’s refusal to accept this policy was deplored, and subsequently the ACPC urged President Truman to throw his support behind the plans for the establishment ofIsraelas a state. His immediate recognition of this state’s existence in May 1948 can be seen as a vindication of the ACPC’s views. In subsequent histories, the contribution of these Protestants has been ignored or downplayed. This article provides a valuable corrective.

 

Share

Article Note: R. Gribble, “Cooperation and Conflict between Church and State: The Russian Famine of 1921-1923”

ACCH Quarterly Vol. 16, No. 4, December 2010

Article Note: R. Gribble, “Cooperation and Conflict between Church and State: The Russian Famine of 1921-1923,” Journal of Church and State 51 no. 4 (Autumn 2009): 634-662.

By John S. Conway, University of British Columbia

Richard Gribble’s article describes the unprecedented and unrepeated international and interdenominational efforts made to relieve the severe and widespread famine inRussiain 1921 to 1923. Brought about largely because of the mismanagement and misallocation of food resources by the newly-established Communist regime in theSoviet Union, this famine cost millions of lives. The enforced requisition of food grains from the peasants to feed the Red Army’s soldiers was a political decision which had catastrophic consequences. It was only when Lenin realized that not only his prestige but even the future of his regime was at stake that he accepted offers of help from outsiders. However, it was only on condition that no criticism or disruption of the Communist political control was undertaken. Complications and political difficulties abounded, but by early 1922 the American Relief Administration (ARA) under Herbert Hoover was able to bring in grain supplies to feed the starving population of millions.

Similarly, the Papal Relief Mission gathered up help from Catholic agencies in Europe and, along with the US National Catholic Welfare Council, coordinated its activities with the ARA, establishing numerous feeding centres, especially in the southernUkraineand theCrimea. Both Pope Benedict XV and his successor Pius XI saw this assistance as an opportunity to demonstrate theVatican’s commitment to compassion and charity even in a non-Catholic milieu. Pius XI donated 2 million Lire to the fund.

But none of this changed the Soviet Government’s hostility to Christianity and its clergy. Despite the Orthodox Church’s readiness to help feed the starving people, Communist repression of the church was stepped up. Leading clergy were put on trial. Church wealth was confiscated. The last significant bastions of the old regime were eliminated. The Russian famine did however demonstrate that international cooperation between church and state was possible. Even when the political and logistical circumstances were so adverse, millions of people were saved from certain starvation.

 

Share

Review of Dyron Daughrity, The Changing World of Christianity

ACCH Quarterly Vol. 15, No. 3, September 2010

Review of Dyron Daughrity, The Changing World of Christianity (New York, Oxford: Peter Lang, 2010), 290 pp. ISBN 978-14331-0452-7.

By John S. Conway, University of British Columbia

Dyron Daughrity teaches World Christianity at Pepperdine University in southern California. He rightly believes that such a course should now be taught from a global perspective and no longer with the earlier emphases on Europe or North America. Today there are far more Christians in Africa than in Western Europe or North America. The region of Latin America and the Caribbean is easily the most Christianized part of the world. These facts represent a changing of the guard. So this new text book reflects these new positions and stresses not only the geographical spread of Christianity, but also the fact that it is the most global, most diverse and perhaps the most influential religion in history. Such a comprehensive survey in the space of less than three hundred pages requires not only a skilful absorption of secondary sources, but also an ecumenical and eirenic disposition and an ability to adopt a judicious balance between the various components of such a study. It is good to say that Daughrity admirably displays these characteristics. While there is no complete bibliography, each chapter has extensive footnotes for the sources used, as well as questions appended for analysis which are designed to prompt further discussion. Despite some passages which call for greater precision and depth, Daughrity’s lucid style makes for easy undergraduate reading.

Daughrity’s approach is geographical, dividing the world into eight regions, but beginning with the historical evolution from the Middle East and ending in Oceania, suitably for the world’s largest faith. Following the lead of such current scholars as Lammin Sanneh and Philip Jenkins, Daughrity traces the shift in numbers from the northern hemisphere to the south, when he sees the tipping point as occurring around 1980. The reception of the Christian message as brought by earlier northern missionaries made all the difference, and demography will maintain the momentum. While he warns that religious growth is uncontrollable and unpredictable, he is clearly optimistic for the future of Christianity, especially in its more free-flowing Pentecostal forms.

His survey of each region begins with a general description of the political and social background, followed by a section on the background of Christianity in this area. He then moves to an examination of present-day Christianity, followed by a short piece on each country. This allows him to make interesting and sometimes provocative comparisons. For instance, he suggests that the present weakness of Christianity in the Middle East can be traced back to the divisions in Christian ranks at the time of the Muslim conquests. The solidarity of Islam and its tighter control over its adherents has prevented any Christian resurgence. By contrast, the defeat of Muslim forces in Spain in the late Middle Ages can be attributed to the solidarity – fanaticism? – shown by the Catholics of that region. He even suggests that, had Ferdinand and Isabella failed, then the whole exploration of the New World might well have been undertaken by Muslims.

In Eastern Europe, Daughrity of course welcomes the overthrow of Communist rule with its attendant persecution of the churches, but suggests that in Russia, the residue of the Soviet oppression of faith is like a cultural mist which does not evaporate instantaneously. In Hungary, however, the overthrow of Communist rule has revived freedom of religion and made that country a leading example of religious pluralism.

Turning to Western Europe, Daughrity explores the reasons why this region, which was Christianity’s heartland for so many centuries, is presently experiencing a period of increased scepticism and secularism. Europe for so long provided the leadership corps, widened the theological and scholarly horizons and mobilized the missionary forces which carried Christianity to all corners of the globe. But in recent decades a widespread disillusionment with “organized religion” has been notable. In part, the political changes of the last two centuries have almost everywhere broken the ties between Church and State which were increasingly seen as barriers to individual freedom, or to some at least a hindrance to spiritual growth. Furthermore the rapid changes in immigration and demographic patterns have led to a pluralisation of religious allegiances in Europe. Many people now fear that Islam may become the predominant religion in twenty-first century Europe. The “De-Christianization of Europe” is already being discussed. At the same time, the two major wars of the last century undoubtedly challenged all authority patterns. Dietrich Bonhoeffer provocatively argued in favour of a religionless Christianity, one where Christian social ethics would be practised without the burden of authority or doctrine. Daughrity supports the view taken by Grace Davie that Western Europeans are in a phase of “believing but not belonging”. When humanitarian movements strikingly follow Christianity’s prophetic voice, one could argue that, in this sense, Christianity is being reinvented.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, despite the brutal even genocidal manner of Christianity’s introduction five centuries ago, this region nevertheless now encompasses the heartland of Christianity. Paradoxically, this legacy imposed by the European conquerors is now vibrant and indigenized. But it still contains overtones of injustice, especially towards the original native peoples. Predominantly Catholic,Latin America nevertheless has seen an explosive growth of Protestantism, especially Pentecostalism. This community has the advantage of a much more flexible church polity and is free from the regrettable burden of Catholic history.

In his account of Christianity inNorth America, Daughrity lays stress on the darker side of the impact on native peoples and the long support for slavery. Nevertheless, its ethos is very different from that found inEurope. The absence of any politically dominant state church led to an amazing plurality of Christian endeavours, particularly in revivals, which have continued to the present. This resilient tradition, he hopes, will be enough to counter the corrupting influence of acquisitive capitalism.

The remarkable fact about Asiais that Christianity, as brought by European colonialists, has expanded rapidly now that the imperial era is finished. The successful indigenization of this originally Asian faith has seemingly been able to avoid the kind of syncretism which has weakened Christian witness elsewhere. Yet Asiais still riven by religious conflicts, especially in Muslim majority areas, and the future of Christianity remains problematic.

Africa is now second to Latin America in having the most Christians in a cultural block. Again, this growth has accelerated after decolonization. While Ethiopiacan boast of a continuous Christian adherence without European intervention since the early centuries, most of the continent’s Christians resulted from the nineteenth century missionaries’ activities, both Protestants and Catholics, of such well-known figures as David Livingstone. Today,Africa as a whole struggles to find political and social models of its own. The lack of success may perhaps be attributed to past colonialism, or to the effect of the slave trade, or to the indigenous poverty which hampers the kind of developments seen in Asia. Nevertheless, the faith thrives. Daughrity’s survey of the background of African Independent Churches is very helpful. His conclusion that Africa is suffused with religion seems well documented.

Finally there is Oceania, where a multiplicity of Christian influences has spread across the many archipelagos, making Christianity the most universally accepted and integrated cultural force. But this process is severely understudied, due to the marginalization of Christian missionary work by anthropologists who concentrated on tribal indigenous cultures. Daughrity pleads for a more balanced account of Christianity’s contribution to this fascinating and far-flung area.

One hundred years ago, Protestant missionaries were calling for the “evangelization of the world in this generation”. Daughrity claims that this goal has now been achieved in that every part of the globe has heard the call of Christ and the responses are still reverberating. Christianity, in its various and sometimes conflicting forms, affects virtually every country and society. Daughrity’s survey of the various factors involved in this world-wide process will be appreciated by students as a valuable guide for further and deeper investigation.

 

 

Share

Book Note: Victims of Nazism: Bonhoeffer and Jägerstätter

ACCH Quarterly Vol. 15, No. 2, June 2010

Book Note: Victims of Nazism: Bonhoeffer and Jägerstätter

By John S. Conway, University of British Columbia

Keith Clements, The SPCK Introduction to Bonhoeffer (London: SPCK, 2010), 106 pp. ISBN: 978-0-281-06086-3.

Jeffrey C. Pugh, Religionless Christianity. Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Troubled Times (London and New York: T & T Clark International, 2008), 171 pp. ISBN: 0567032590.

Franz Jägerstätter, Letters and Writings from Prison, edited by Erna Putz, translated with commentary by Robert A. Krieg (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2009), 252 pp. ISBN: 1570758263.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was executed on April 9th, 1945, less than a month before the Nazi regime was overthrown, for his involvement with the plot to assassinate Hitler. His tragic death, along with his provocative writings from prison, made him a significant figure in the post-1945 years, when he became Germany’s best-known theologian of recent times. The account of his life, written by his friend Eberhard Bethge, and more recently translated into English by Victoria Barnett, is probably one of the twentieth century’s outstanding biographies. But it is compendious. Hence the need for more concise introductions for newer audiences.

The English author, Keith Clements, and the American scholar, Jeffrey Pugh, have recently supplied us with the latest useful additions to this genre, following in the steps of the Australian John Moses, whose book The Reluctant Revolutionary was reviewed here last year (see Vol. XV, no. 7/8, July/August 2009). Clements, a leading figure inEurope’s ecumenical fraternity, is keen to stress the young Bonhoeffer’s early enthusiasm for the movement which eventually culminated in the World Council of Churches. In those early days, Bonhoeffer felt a strong attraction towards pacifism. His biographers have therefore had to explain why he later came to advocate the forcible overthrow of the Nazi totalitarian system and the murder of Hitler. Clements believes this was because he came to realize that his hopes for a universal Ecumenical Council proclaiming peace to the world was simply unrealistic. Pugh leaves the issue open but points to a change in orientation after 1935 with Bonhoeffer’s greater emphasis on the personal appropriation of faith through the Sermon on the Mount.

Similarly all his recent biographers have felt a need to include a chapter on Bonhoeffer and the Jews. Difficulties arise from the fact that Bonhoeffer’s most significant writing on this subject dates from early 1933, and contains a highly traditional Lutheran view of “reprobate” Judaism and the need for conversion. There are only minor utterances in later years and no references at all to Judaism in his Letters and Papers from Prison. But Moses asserts that Bonhoeffer, along with Karl Barth, led the way in repudiating Christian anti-Judaism and embraced Jews as Jews. On the other hand, Stephen Haynes (see review here Vol. XII, no. 9, September 2006) is sceptical of any claims making Bonhoeffer out to be a precursor of post-Holocaust Christian theology. Clements sits on the fence, but has to admit that such a novel stance can only be inferred, in the absence of any sustained treatment.

Clements seeks to avoid hagiography, but points out that both in his theology and in his participation in the anti-Nazi Resistance, Bonhoeffer transcended the cultural and political limitations of his generation. In his final chapter he describes how Bonhoeffer’s radical demands have continued to provoke churches and ecumenical communities to renounce their traditional attitudes. Bonhoeffer’s theology, he concludes, will continue to be relevant, because it deals so centrally with the nature of human existence.

Pugh equally deplores hagiography on the matter of Bonhoeffer’s legacy in more recent American political controversies. But he also draws parallels, and much of his book seeks to warn his countrymen of the dangers of capitulation to or complicity with the military and political goals of their governing structures of power. The German churches’ attitudes in the 1930s, he asserts, constituted one of Western Christianity’s greatest failures. Bonhoeffer’s prophetic witness and resistance are therefore still significant for us today.

Pugh’s chief emphasis is on Bonhoeffer’s more radical theological challenges as found in his prison letters from the last months of his life. His critique of the religious subculture of his day is one which Pugh seeks to correlate not only to today’s politically obedient churches but also to the current secular states and their ideologies of power. In a world come of age, he asks, where can the individual find guidelines for his own or his community’s behaviour? How can Christianity and Scripture be interpreted in a non-religious sense? We have, he suggests, to respond first to the sufferings created by those who so ruthlessly wield power in the world. The answer lies not in any theology of power, but in the theology of the cross, in “watching with Christ inGethsemane”.

For Pugh, identification with the suffering and oppressed peoples of the world justifies, both for Bonhoeffer and for us, the need to confront the powers of domination, after so many centuries when the church has so often allowed itself to be compromised. In a world come of age, Christians urgently need to find a new relationship to the power structures so often bent on destructive paths. This is the heart of Pugh’s message, and he sees Bonhoeffer as his mentor in this process. Religionless Christianity bars us from allegiance to any particular church structure or political order, but instead calls us to the discipline of peace and reconciliation so that we may witness to God’s reconciling and healing.

Franz Jägerstätter was executed on August 9, 1943 for refusing to serve in a combatant unit of the Nazi Wehrmacht. He was a largely self-taught peasant farmer, living in a small village on the western border ofAustria, and a very devout Catholic. Since Nazi Germany had no tolerance for conscientious objectors, his refusal to serve led to his imprisonment, transfer to Berlin, court-martial, and finally to the guillotine. But sixty years later, in 2007, his resolute witness was recognized by theVatican which approved his beatification in an impressive ceremony attended by his 94-year old widow and descendants. To mark this occasion, an edition of his surviving letters and writings was published, which has been skilfully edited and translated by Robert Krieg, and now made available to the English-speaking audience by the publishing arm of the Maryknoll Fathers inNew YorkState.

Krieg’s useful edition and commentary clearly owes a debt to Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Letters and Papers from Prison. By a remarkable coincidence, both men were held in Tegel prison inBerlin during several months from May to August 1943, though there is no record that they actually met.

Jägerstätter’s heroic resistance was first known to the wider world some forty-five years ago when an American pacifist professor, Gordon Zahn, discovered his story in the Austrian church archives, and published his seminal account In Solitary Witness: The Life and Death of Franz Jägerstätter (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1964). Zahn’s book contained long extracts from the surviving letters and testimony. But the present work is more comprehensive, is chronologically arranged, and includes numerous letters to the prisoner from his wife. The picture however remains the same. So does the unresolved enigma of why this peasant farmer should have resolved to adopt this dedicated and costly stance. He was one of only a handful of Catholic conscientious objectors who suffered the same fate. He was not politically engaged, as was Bonhoeffer, nor does he seem to have had contacts with any anti-war or anti-Nazi groups. His was very much a lone decision. The suggestion remains unproven that he had been influenced by Jehovah’s Witnesses, of whom some two hundred were executed during these years for refusing to take up arms or join the army.

What comes through in his letters is his absolute confidence in his Catholic beliefs, strengthened by an intimate knowledge of the Bible. All the more notable is therefore his unwillingness to agree to any compromise, despite the earnest pleas not only of his family and friends, but also of his priest and bishop. His reflections on “What Every Christian Should Know” and his “Last Thoughts” are moving testimonies of faith, conveying both his passion and his pain, but also his stubborn determination not to take the military oath of obedience to his Führer because the call of Christ came first.

Zahn’s book appeared at the time of the Second Vatican Council where Jägerstätter’s intransigent and unwavering stand received much acclaim. The respectful acknowledgement of his sacrifice may have assisted in bringing about changes in Catholic attitudes towards the morality of war. Subsequent history has reinforced the recognition that Christians have a duty to resist evil even at the cost of their lives. And it is notable that the twentieth century has brought forth more Christian martyrs than ever before. Jägerstätter’s witness is therefore both a voice from the past and a call for similar obedience in the future.

 

 

Share

Review Article: The Death of Christian Britain Reconsidered

ACCH Quarterly Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2010

Review Article: The Death of Christian Britain Reconsidered.

By John S. Conway, University of British Columbia

Callum Brown, The Death of Christian Britain, Understanding secularisation 1800-2000, 2nd edition. London: Routledge, 2009. IBSN 13: 978-0-415-74134-3.

Jane Garnett et al., eds., Redefining Christian Britain: Post-1945 Perspectives. London: SCM Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0-334-04092-7.

Keith Robbins, England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales. The Christian Church 1900-2000. Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-826371-5.

Ten years ago, Callum Brown, who is Professor of Religious and Cultural History at Glasgow’s second university, Strathclyde, published his controversial book The Death of Christian Britain. It has now been republished in a second edition, with an additional chapter taking issue with some of Brown’s critics. This is not an ecclesiastical history. It has little to do with the churches as institutions or their theologies. Rather it is an impressionistic exposition about what Brown calls the Christian discourse amongst the British population in the period from 1800 to the present. He seeks to show that for the first 150 years, this discourse, particularly as seen in the writings and preaching of the evangelical sections of the various churches, provided an identity, a mental structure, and a moral code of behaviour for the majority of the population. This generally-held discourse, he believes, is what made Britain a Christian country. But this is no longer the case. “The culture of Christianity has gone in the Britain of the new millennium. Britain is showing the world how religion as it has known it can die.”

The impact of these challenging views was only made more strident by his claim that this ‘death’ could be precisely dated to the 1960s, i.e. had already happened, and by his assertion that the principal cause lay in the decision-making of young women. Their abandonment of the habits and thought-forms of their mothers and grandmothers, who had for so long sustained both the moral forms and the institutional life of the churches, was the key factor. In the remarkably short period of the 1960s all this was to be eroded. It was a sudden and drastic process which Brown described as the de-pietisation of femininity and the de-feminisation of piety.

These provocative assertions were part of his sub-title’s Understanding Secularisation 1800-2000. But secularisation is both a complex as well as an emotive term. There have been at least two rival and opposed assessments. On the one hand, almost all church-goers including the professional clergy and their supporters, have deplored the loss of faith, the decline in church attendance, the erosion of social and personal values, and the abandonment of the so-called Christian identity of the nation. These developments were often associated with the growth or urbanisation and modernisation so that the myth of ‘the unholy city’ with its dark satanic mills could be contrasted with the simple purity of rural life centred around the parish church or chapel on the village green.

On the other side, the champions of secularisation saw this as a revolutionary advance into the modern age, when the individual is liberated from superstition or the shackles of clericalism. Secularisation is a salute to reason, to intellect and to progress. By the mid-twentieth century, virtually all British intellectuals subscribed to this ideology. Yet it took the impetus of a social revolution in the 1960s, which freed British popular culture from what Brown believes was the misery of a restrictive Christian discourse, often backed by the state. For at least a century this discourse had governed all aspects of self-identity and expression, community-regulated leisure and domestic life. Its repressive features, in the name of adherence of Christian morality, had imposed great suffering on minorities and miscreants, such as homosexuals. It had strictly limited the range of opportunities especially for women. It was the rejection of these bulwarks of Christian piety, so Brown believes, which so rapidly led to the death of this kind of Christian culture in Britain.

Brown’s critics were quick to attack him for his reductionism and for his mono-causal explanation for the demise of the Christian discourse. But it is noteworthy that Brown also took issue with much of the methodology employed by many sociologists of religion. Particularly he disputed the widespread teleological theory whereby religious decline was seen as the inevitable and linear obverse of the rise of rationality and science. Brown disputed this time line by pointing to the undeniable revival of religious life in Britain in the immediate post-1945 years. So too he challenged the views taken by many left-wing social scientists who drew their analysis from Marxist theory. According to this paradigm, Christianity’s hold was largely class-based, and would and should disappear once the class struggle was overcome and modernisation ensued. But the subsequent discrediting of Marxism and its theories of modernisation now requires now requires new coherent explanations for the apparent changes in Britain’s religious adherence.

Redefining Christian Britain. Post-1945 Perspectives is the product of an Oxford conference whose contributors sought to escape from the ideologically-based theories or the sociologically-based statistics of the proponents of secularisation. Instead they sought to stress Christianity’s continuing influence on culture through literature, art and architecture. As well, they found Christian moral ideas as forming the background for many economic developments, as well as in protest movements. Above all they seek to claim the continued relevance of Christian values in Britain’s national identity. Christian Britain is not dead, they assert. There is no corpse in the Library. Rather, these essays contain countless examples of how Christianity has continued to infuse public culture, though the authors admit that the cultural strength of religion must be separated from its institutional strength or decline. By rejecting any teleological approach, they argue for a wide variety of positive adjustments in British religious life, pointing particularly to the number of sub-cultures brought in by recent immigrants.

There is considerable mention of “transformations” in the chapters of this book. Many of the contributors rightly point out that the 1960s were indeed years of change and challenge in Britain. The national identity, and with it the many religious associations it held, were transformed in more ways than allowed by Callum Brown. The loss of empire, the spectre of nuclear annihilation, the awareness of world poverty, and the wholly new relationship with Europe, all posed questions which included a religious dimension. Above all, these were years in which religious certainty faded, to be replaced by a far more questioning discourse. It was not surprising that Bishop John Robinson’s Honest to God should prove to be the best-selling theological work of the century. The abandonment of the ideal of authority, and the disappearance of a deferential society, both clearly affected the position of the clergy. So too the rise in the general standards of education meant that many more individuals than before claimed an independence of mind which no longer looked for paternalistic guidance from the churches or their ministers. There was in fact a process of spiritual fragmentation when the institutional church, with its rituals and dogmas, no longer received automatic assent. This development proved to be far more corrosive of belief patterns than the alleged impetus of women’s sexual liberation.

There were indeed, as Mark Chapman points out, many churchmen who welcomed a transformation of their spirituality, and who looked for more relevant forms of Christian witness, stripped of the Victorian trappings of religion. Some were to welcome the abandonment of dogmatic theologizing, and were to cultivate a vaguer religion of love and service of fellow men and women. But others still recognized the need to maintain the importance of the transcendent in both personal and public life. They were to argue that the churches should continue to have a prophetic and critical role over against all idealistic political or social proposals. If the churches limited themselves to being agents of social reform, they would have lost a dimension of incomparable worth. Transformation should be achieved without sacrificing the essence of the Judaeo-Christian heritage. And institutional diminution was not necessarily a pointer to social relevance. In the view of these authors, the wishful thinking of doomsayers, predicting religious and moral decline, has to be challenged. Little evidence exists that the national standards of personal morality have declined, even when the churches’ previous emphasis on puritan-style sexual ethics has been overtaken. Instead, newer issues such as nuclear armaments, climate change, or world poverty are clearly able to arouse strong moral reactions, derived certainly from Christian roots. The discursive Christianity of the British nation still continues in a variety of different ways. A transformed view of the sacred, and an ardent desire for genuine spiritual experience, still persists, even if bearing little resemblance to the master-narrative of former years. The authors’ conclusion is that Christianity in Britain has been better able to respond to changed circumstances than grand narratives of decline or death have allowed. The picture they uncover is one of innovation and exploration not of atrophy or paralysis. In short they believe that Christian Britain is not dead but that it will continue to be reshaped and redefined in the years ahead.

How Christianity interacted with broader social and political movements in the twentieth century is the focus of Keith Robbins’ magisterial study of the Christian Church in the four countries which form part of the British Isles. Robbins is a distinguished scholar of church history, and a former university president. He is very much aware that England,Scotland,Wales and Ireland all have a long history of dialogue between Christianity and its surrounding culture. The varieties and the peculiarities of this relationship lie at the heart of his book. Christianity has been embedded in Britain for over sixteen hundred years, during which it has been shaped by numerous, frequently conflicting impulses. The dialectic between past and present has produced radically different situations and seemingly incompatible belief-systems. Yet Robbins seeks to write transnationally and transdenominationally since he believes he can see the unity in this diversity.

This is no ordinary textbook. The reader should be warned not to expect any systematic delivery of names, dates, places or statistics. Instead, it is a large-scale portrait, or rather a series of large-scale portraits in chronological order, bringing in aspects from each of the national church settings. Robbins paints with a variety of multi-coloured brush strokes, each drawn from his immense fund of knowledge and reading. His style is allusive, following in the footsteps of G.M. Young and Owen Chadwick. Readers are therefore expected to have considerable knowledge already in order to appreciate his nicely-pointed comments.

Robbins naturally takes issue with Callum Brown`s over-simplistic assessment. Rather, he believes, the churches have always lived in an ambiguous and often awkward symbiosis with their environment. The issue is how this relationship can be fully described given the complexity of the churches’ institutional life and the variety of ways in which the different sections of the population both contribute to and are drawn from the church communities. A ‘typical’ church, he believes, is elusive, but he seeks to integrate, in a comprehensive and ecumenical whole, the various strands, both from within and outside, as well as from above and below.

His task has been complicated by the fact that most church histories have been written from the perspective of one or other denomination to confirm their legitimacy and authority, and to impugn the claims of others. Robbins seeks to rise above this fray and adopts an even-handed ecumenism. He is ready to understand, though not necessarily to endorse, those viewpoints which he sees as narrowing down the Christian message because of a particular theological or social slant. All have, he believes, to be accommodated as part of Christian Britain, even when discordantly opposed to each other, as for example in twentieth-century Ireland. So his volume is irenic and suitably comprehensive, and his wide-ranging sympathies can open new horizons of insight.

For the first half of the century, the question of how the churches related to concepts of Britain’s national identity and to its military and political fortunes was a constant preoccupation. In England the established church had little debate about where its duty lay, but increasingly more about the ethical values such nationalism propagated. In Ireland, the Catholic faith had no such priority. It saw itself as the church of the victimized population, creating barriers against unwanted and alien onslaughts. But both sides saw their stance as upholding their Christian witness. The bitter divisions in doctrine and practice which had accrued since the Reformation still prevented unity. But increasingly all churches faced parallel challenges confronting what came to be known as the tide of secularisation.

Yet in 1914 all the churches in England,Wales and Scotland, and in some parts of Ireland, especially the north, enthusiastically backed the war effort including its appeal to nationalism, militarism, even jingoism. Only a tiny handful saw pacifism as the true Christian discipleship. But the subsequent mass slaughter on the battlefields thereafter was to cause a major and irreversible crisis in the credibility of the Christian witness and to lead to long-lasting disillusionment with its institutions and personnel – and not only in Britain. To many observers, myself included, this post-war disenchantment marked the onset of the death of Christian Britain.

But Robbins rightly points out that the churches were too closely integrated into their host societies to be able to develop alternative theologies or practices. The clergy particularly could not escape the role of being public cheerleaders for the war effort. But the price was fateful. During the Second World War, most church leaders were more cautious. Bishop George Bell urged the government to ensure that the war was waged in a Christian fashion on behalf of the Universal Christian Church, and not just for the advance of national interests. The Pope, in the impartiality of the Vatican, upheld the cause of peace, despite being under relentless pressure to join one side or the other. No German church leader ever opposed the regime or its wars of racial annihilation. Attempts to justify such events as Auschwitz or Hiroshima merely discredited those who tried. Such horrendous crimes only revealed the Christians’ impotence and their creeds’ irrelevance.

But, as both Brown and Robbins show, in the post-1945 period, the desire to rebuild Britain on the basis of Christian family values brought about a revival in many denominations. The more critical questions were subdued or postponed. The churches existed in a widespread state of cognitive dissonance. Only in the 1960s did these issues become insistent. Many younger people, of both sexes, then found they could no longer support the supposedly hypocritical and compromised churches, which should be left to die out. Secular scepticism was more honest.

There was, however, one part of the British Isles, in the last half of the century, where Christianity and the churches were of crucial significance, though hardly in any laudatory sense. Robbins’ treatment of the ‘troubles’ in Northern Ireland is brief but succinct. Undeniably, the situation in Ulster reinforced his main contentions. The province’s deep-seated religious factions and rivalries were inextricably interwoven in the political and social fabric. The conflicting religious traditions were not just a propagandistic cover for more vital economic or political struggles. Rather the intensely-held folk memories of each side’s religious traditions gave the conflict its enduring and intractable quality. Cromwell mattered.

Even more significantly the conflict continued even though the church leaders on both sides came to deplore the violence and bloodshed. But they were not heard. The clergy’s authority was one of the casualties of this un-Christian fratricidal strife.

All this was part of a wider process. In the latter part of the century authority figures in both church and state were rejected. As prosperity grew, so did the notion of self-help spirituality. Britain became a market-place for competing yet negotiating moralities. Many church leaders recognized that they had been improperly coercive in the past. And while the Pope still called for obedience in matters of personal, especially sexual, morality, he increasingly called in vain and could no longer seen as the voice of Christendom.

The final years of the century were therefore years of institutional and ethical unsettlement. Questions were increasingly posed about the identity and viability of churches, but not severely enough to overthrow the historical divisions embedded since the Reformation. The failure of church unity plans meant that the churches remained rooted, for better or for worse, in their cultural inheritances. And their discordant voices meant that they lost more of their moral authority, along with their disappearing membership. Britons became much more pluralistic in their religious views and spiritual searching.

Thus Robbins finds himself at least in partial agreement with the more guarded of Callum Brown’s assessments. “This was a period which witnessed the increasing marginalisation of religion from British public life, intellectualism and popular culture.” And yet, a wide survey conducted at the turn of the century found that 77% of the population reported themselves as having a religious affiliation, the majority of whom declared they were Christians. This was perhaps based on a diffuse understanding of what Christianity meant and entailed.. But it could indicate that the notion of the death of Christian Britain had been overstated. Christianity could still be regarded as a significant contributor to national life, even if its institutional expressions were fragile. The secular state cannot be regarded, in Robbins’ view, as the desirable terminal conclusion of two thousand years of Christian presence on Britain’s soil. The pluralistic spiritual patterns which currently prevail may yet hold out other possibilities.

 

 

Share

Review of Raymond Cohen, Saving the Holy Sepulchre

ACCH Quarterly Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2010

Review of Raymond Cohen, Saving the Holy Sepulchre. Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 0195189663.

By John S. Conway, University of British Columbia

The most venerated church in Christendom is surely the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, or as it is sometimes known, the Church of the Resurrection. Christian pilgrims have been coming to this shrine for over seventeen hundred years. It was near this spot that the Roman Emperor Constantine’s mother, Helena, in the early years of the fourth century is reputed to have identified the hill of Calvary where Jesus was crucified. Not far away she also believed she could locate the site of His burial in the tomb, and hence the site of His Resurrection. Unfortunately both were located under a second century Roman temple dedicated to Venus. But with imperial backing, this heathen building was cleared away, and an impressive Christian basilica began to be built. From its floor, steps led to a crypt and then down to a chapel where St Helena is said to have discovered the relics of the True Cross. The chapel survives to this day.

The original Byzantine structure was replaced centuries later by an even more magnificent cathedral built when the Crusaders conquered the land. This brought under one roof – actually a huge dome – the various shrines such as the rock of Calvary, the tomb or Edicule, and numerous chapels around the ambulatory, or processional corridor around the apse, But inevitably, age and climate took their toll, as did the constant wear and tear of so many thousands of pilgrims. In 1808 a devastating fire did heavy damage, and in 1927 an unprecedented earthquake in Jerusalem alerted the authorities to the fact that repairs were urgently needed.

Unfortunately, despite the basilica being so venerated, or more probably because of it, the various church communities who, over the centuries, had claimed the right to worship in the building, had never been able to agree with each other as to how this historic building should be maintained or repaired. These quarrels had been so intense that in 1757 the Turkish Sultan who ruled Jerusalem as part of the Ottoman Empire had imposed a law stating that none of the communities was to be allowed to change anything in the structure or in its furnishings and decoration. This Status Quo edict, as it was called, was enforced rigorously, so that all attempts by one or other community to undertake repairs were prohibited. The result was benign neglect, so that by the end of the nineteenth century, many observers were predicting that the building would soon collapse. But luckily in the twentieth century, it was saved, as is excellently and informatively described in a recently-published book by Raymond Cohen.

The obstacles were enormous. In the first place, over the past hundred years,Jerusalem has come under the control of four competing and incompatible political regimes. Each had its own ideas as to how to deal with the Christian Holy Places, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in particular. The four centuries of Turkish rule came to end in 1917 when the Protestant British General Allen by rode into Jerusalem, and raised great fears amongst the Catholics and the Orthodox that the heresies of the Reformation would be imposed on them. In fact the British instead established Palestine as a Mandate of the League of Nations, and were sedulously careful to uphold the now ancient Status Quo settlement. But in 1948, Jerusalem’s Old City was occupied by the Jordanian army, and for nineteen years an international boundary ran along its battlements, only a few yards from the sacred precincts of the Holy Sepulchre. In 1967, during the Six Days’ War, Israeli forces succeeded in evicting the Jordanians, luckily without any serious damage to historic monuments. Israel immediately announced its determination to protect the Holy Places and to make them open to all comers. The possibility of an international outcry at the time, and later the desire to encourage Christian tourists, has led successive Israeli governments to adopt a strict hands-off policy. But in contrast to the Jordanians, they see no reason to become involved with the fractious problems of the Holy Sepulchre’s repairs.

The initiative was therefore left to the Christian communities themselves. But it took a great many years before the age-old suspicions and rivalries could be overcome between the six groups who all claimed the right to worship in the Holy Sepulchre. The principal actors have been the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, the Latin or Roman Catholic custodians of the sanctuary also with their own Patriarch, and the Armenian Church, asserting that it was the oldest continuous community. Lesser, but often noisy, claims were maintained by the Syrian Orthodox Church, the Copts and the Abyssinians. Over the centuries each of these had sought to obtain ownership, or at least use, of particular portions of the basilica, or had established rights to use parts of the building for its processions and services, even where ownership was disputed. Since there were hardly any surviving written records, in effect the 18th century Status Quo arrangement froze matters indissolubly.

Any suggestion by one community that repairs should be undertaken was often fiercely contested – sometimes for years. Each community also suspected that, with any changes, their age-long rights might be eroded. Naturally each demanded, for reasons of prestige, that it should appoint its own chief architect. Getting these men to agree proved extremely arduous and led to many delays.

In any case there was strong disagreement as to what they were undertaking. The French Catholics sought to restore as much as possible of the mediaeval masterpiece. The Armenians, on the other hand, wanted a reconstruction in a more modern style, which could include Armenian paintings and frescoes. Compromise was exceedingly difficult. Furthermore, even when agreement on each detail was reached, it all had to be approved by the respective ecclesiastical patriarchs, who in turn had to ensure support from their homelands.

But finally, over the past fifty years, compromise agreements were reached on the need for urgent and constructive repairs on the now dilapidated basilica. Little by little, the unsightly mass of wooden scaffolding which had blocked out the great dome for decades, was removed. The interior regained its ancient splendour, and the dome was decorated anew with an ecumenical, if abstract, design. Largely due to the unprecedented co-operation of the local church leaders, the architects were encouraged to recruit skilled masons who could handle the delicate tasks of restoring the brickwork, the stone surrounds, the pilasters, and the paintings. Their work had to be carried out, of course, while below in the main body of the church, the daily services, processions and pilgrimages were conducted without ever ceasing. The result was that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which had been in real danger of collapse, was saved for posterity.

This remarkable rescue effort has now been skilfully described in Raymond Cohen’s book, using as many of the surviving records as could be found, as well as his personal knowledge of the site and his many visits to see how the rebuilding project was progressing.

Of course, as Cohen points out, this great achievement cannot be taken as evidence of any desire for closer Christian unity. Inter-church reconciliation is not on the agenda in Jerusalem. The weight of history and theological controversy still dominate ecumenical relations. These age-long conflicts have not been resolved. But, for this magnificent restoration project, co-operation and compromise prevailed and the adversaries came together in a common cause. Had they not done so, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre would today be a ruin. But now, it stands, as it has done for so many centuries, as the most venerable and sought-after pilgrimage site in all Christendom. We should indeed be grateful for the blessings bestowed on us by this unexpected and momentous restoration, and also thank Raymond Cohen for his perceptive record of how this achievement was finally brought about.

 

Share

Review of Emmy Barth, No Lasting Home. A Year in the Paraguayan Wilderness

ACCH Quarterly Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2010

Review of Emmy Barth, No Lasting Home. A Year in the Paraguayan Wilderness. Rifton, NY: Plough Publishing House, 2009. ISBN 978-0-87486-945-3

By John S. Conway, University of British Columbia

In 1920 a Christian commune of pacifists was founded in Germany under the leadership of Eberhard Arnold, dedicated to the Anabaptist teachings of piety and non-violence, and repudiating the militarism and bloodshed which had so recently engulfed Europe. But this Brotherhood’s experiment aroused considerable opposition, which turned virulent under the Nazis. In 1937 the Gestapo expelled the community and forced them to flee to England.

They were helped to re-establish by the Quakers, and joined by a number of English pacifists who had obtained conscientious objector status. Nevertheless, after the outbreak of war in 1939, their situation became more difficult. The Brotherhood was convinced that part of their witness, both for German and English community members, was to remain together, living in love and harmony even when their two countries were at war. But as enemy aliens and pacifists they were no longer welcome. Curfews and travel restrictions were imposed. Debates as to whether the community should be allowed to exist were raised in Parliament. Late in 1940 they decided that they should all move again and seek refuge elsewhere. Since neither Canada nor the United States would accept them, they went instead to the only place which offered asylum, Paraguay. This short but vibrant reportage, drawn from the Brotherhood’s own records, is the story of their first year in the wilds of Latin America.

Emmy Barth, who is herself a descendant of these exiles, gives a wholly sympathetic picture of their experiences and the hardships they encountered in the harsh semi-tropical conditions of Paraguay. The Paraguayan government wanted more settlers in the remote and barren district of Chaco, and was prepared to offer the same privilege of exemption from military service, which had been extended to a group of German Mennonites who had moved to the Chaco some years earlier. In turn, the American Mennonite Central Committee offered the Brotherhood its support and some start-up costs.

But for these European refugees, trying to establish themselves as the guests of another tight-knit community, in the midsummer heat, and without any housing of their own, proved to be a real test of their faith. Worse still, they found, in these Mennonite communities, a considerable number of sympathisers with Hitler’s Germany, which was believed to have rescued Mennonites from the grip of Soviet Communism. The dark side of Nazi Germany was simply discounted by several leading members of the Chaco Mennonite community. So despite the close similarity of these communities’ origins and their Reformation faith, in fact tensions were constantly present. They were only resolved when the Brotherhood moved to a different and more pleasant part of Paraguay.

But the conditions were rigorous. Their numerous small children fell sick and several died. The men had to build their houses and meeting places from scratch, while the women were fully engaged in child care. Despite death and deprivation, however, the joy of building a new community in a new land was never entirely quenched. Through all the hardships, their faith in each other and in their witness was maintained. The numerous surviving photographs printed in this book, showing these home-made villages and their community activities, give a vivid portrait of this rural exile existence. Their main objective was the survival of the Brotherhood, and in this they succeeded. Twenty years later, when conditions improved, the Brotherhood emigrated to the United States where it still upholds its ideals today.

Emmy Barth is to be commended for her compassionate account of this short episode, which captures the courage and faithfulness of the community, and conveys something of the spirit which inspired and still inspires them.

 

 

Share

Article Note: Heath A. Spencer, “Kulturprotestantismus and ‘Positive Christianity’: A Case for Discontinuity”

ACCH Quarterly Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2010

Article Note: Heath A. Spencer, “Kulturprotestantismus and ‘Positive Christianity’: A Case for Discontinuity.” Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte, Heft 2/2009: 519-549.

By John S. Conway, University of British Columbia

The latest issue of Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte commemorates a number of significant anniversaries in the life of Germany’s church and state, and is entitled  “2009 – A Year of Commemoration and Jubilee”.  The articles however cover a wider range of topics in recent European and American church history.  Only two are in English.  Most notable is the contribution of ACCH member Heath Spencer of the Department of History, University of Seattle.   His article discusses “Kulturprotestantismus and ‘Positive Christianity’: A Case for Discontinuity”.   In this essay he refutes the opinion advanced by Richard Steigmann-Gall in his book The Holy Reich, in which he claimed that German liberal Protestantism had a striking resemblance to Nazi conceptions of Christianity. Steigmann-Gall also believed that the pro-Nazi Protestants who so loudly acclaimed Hitler in 1933 derived their views from their predecessors in the ranks of liberal Protestantism. Spencer, while acknowledging that there were some overlapping similarities, shows that Steigmann-Gall downplayed the differences between these two groups.  Most liberal Protestants, for instance, were put off by the virulence of Nazi racism and appalled by the totalitarian appeal of Nazism.  They did not reject the Old Testament as a Jewish document, like the pro-Nazi “German Christians”, but saw it as a valuable source of historical knowledge. In short, liberal Protestantism contained a wide variety of opinions. Rather than these proto-Nazis inspiring or turning into pro-Nazis, the situation was much more complex.  This leads Spencer to claim that the discontinuities proved to be more significant than the similarities.

 

Share

Article Note: Ulrike Ehret, “Catholicism and Judaism in the Catholic Defence against Alfred Rosenberg, 1934-1938: Anti-Jewish Images in an Age of Race Science”

ACCH Quarterly Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2010

Article Note: Ulrike Ehret, “Catholicism and Judaism in the Catholic Defence against Alfred Rosenberg, 1934-1938: Anti-Jewish Images in an Age of Race Science.” European History Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 1 (2010): 35-56.

By John S. Conway, University of British Columbia

This article examines the images of Jews and Judaism in the popular Catholic defence against Alfred Rosenberg’s anticlericalism and ‘neo-paganism’ between 1934 and 1938. It contributes to the debate on Catholic attitudes to Jews, and National Socialist anti-Semitism and racism during the Third Reich. Looking at the grassroots level of this defence, the article demonstrates how the hierarchy communicated traditional religious views on Jews and Judaism to a Catholic public, taking into account the restrictions imposed by a dictatorial regime as well as long-held anti-Jewish attitudes in German Catholicism. The article suggests that the popular literature clung to traditional creeds and values of the Catholic Church and defended biblical Jewry. Yet, at the same time, the defence was clad in the language of the time and consequently used images of Jews closer to National Socialist racial rhetoric. Taking the restrictions of the dictatorship into account, the article argues that this is to a considerable extent the result of the authors of the popular Church literature and the German bishops who failed to acknowledge that it was no longer possible to distinguish between a ‘good’ Jew and a ‘degenerate’ Jew in the face of the Third Reich’s sweeping anti-Semitism and its core ideology that made no distinction between racial and religious Jewishness.

 

Share

December 2009 Newsletter

Association of Contemporary Church Historians

(Arbeitsgemeinschaft kirchlicher Zeitgeschichtler)

John S. Conway, Editor. University of British Columbia

December 2009 — Vol. XV, no. 12

 Dear Friends,

Contents:

Book Reviews:

a) R. Franzen, Ruth Rouse among students.
b) H. Arning, Die Macht des Heils und das Unheil der Macht, ed. T. Brechenmacher, Das Reichskonkordat 1933
c) I. Linden, Global Catholicism
d) E. Harder, A Kroeger, Russian Mennonites come to Canada

1a) Ruth Franzen, Ruth Rouse among students. Global, missiological and ecumenical perspectives.
(Studia missionalia svecana CV). Uppsala: Swedish Institute of Mission Research 2008. 428 Pp ISBN 978-91-977128-0-4

This well-researched biography of Ruth Rouse, a British woman missionary, who became the first woman to work on a world-wide basis as a travelling secretary to (women) students, provides a valuable record of the early twentieth century missionary efforts among university students, and as such is a contribution to the literature on the early stages of the ecumenical movement among the Christian churches. It is also a partial reparation for the lack of studies, either in general or in church history, of the role of women in this pioneering cause. These endeavours, the Scandinavian scholar Dr Franzen believes, have often, only because of persistent gender bias, been written out of the history of which Ruth Rouse was both a pathfinder and a pace-setter.

Ruth Rouse’s framework for her work among students was the newly-founded World’s Student Christian Federation in the years before and after the First World War. For many years she travelled widely to promote the message of Christian evangelism and ecumenical encounter in universities around the world. A hundred years later, her personal impact has inevitably been largely forgotten, but she fully deserves this tribute describing in full detail her small but significant role.

In part, her contributions have been overshadowed by those of her colleague, the General Secretary of the W.S.C.F., the charismatic and flamboyant American evangelist John R.Mott. Mott was in charge of the Federation from its founding in 1895 (in which he had been much involved) until 1920, and was subsequently Chairman of its Board until 1928. He was in fact far more of a General than a Secretary. Ruth Rouse was to prove to be a highly competent and loyal aide-de-camp. e was in fact far more of a General than a Secreyary She shared and fostered the enthusiasms of the late nineteenth-century missionary movement, as she and Mott criss-crossed the globe, inviting students everywhere to take part in the “evangelization of the world in this generation”. But this could only be done if the churches set aside their long-held doctrinal differences and engaged in an ecumenical witness of compelling power. As the future leaders of the churches, the commitment of students, especially theological students, was therefore crucial. Ruth Rouse’s contribution did much to encourage the desirable and inspiring momentum for this work.

Particularly the W.S.C.F’s frequent and heart-warming conferences on different continents or national settings provided an opportunity for students, both men and women, to realize the dimensions of their calling to be the ambassadors of Christ to the world’s “unchurched” populations, especially in the ever-expanding university world. This biography takes a special interest in Ruth Rouse’s impact on the women students of her generation.

Ruth Rouse came from a well-to-do London family, which encouraged the higher education of girls. In 1891 she joined the second generation of students at Girton College, Cambridge, and there encountered the intensely earnest climate of evangelical piety in the Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions. This group had attracted considerable attention several years before when seven leading Cambridge graduates had publicly pledged to go to China as missionaries. Their example was encouraged and maintained in subsequent years. This impulse was further fostered by those who participated in the British Evangelicals’ summer gatherings at Keswick in the Lake District for “the promotion of personal holiness”.

In 1891, as she was about to graduate from Girton, Ruth Rouse attended her first Keswick Convention, which proved to be a momentous experience, especially because of the prevailing atmosphere of prayer. It was here that she first met John R.Mott. As a result she was asked to work for the Student Volunteer Movement, and a year later did so, first editing its magazine The Student Volunteer. In the following year, she became a full-time travelling secretary, visiting some sixty colleges in Britain, supporting existing Christian Unions or establishing new ones, and concentrating of the urgency and opportunities of the missionary task. She herself resolved to go to India.

At the same time, similar enthusiasms were being felt in other countries, particularly in Scandinavia. The desirability of having an international organization linking these endeavours was clear. In 1895 the World’s Student Christian Federation was established in Sweden. The appointment of Mott as the first executive officer was propitious. His vision, energy and readiness to travel gave the new structure an immediate impetus. The aim was to promote international Christian work for students by students. At first, the WSCF was not committed to being open to women. Nevertheless, in 1897 Ruth Rouse, as the travelling secretary of the British movement, was asked to visit the Scandinavian universities, thus making her first foreign tour to stimulate Christian work among women students. The ambience was still strongly pietistic. The emphasis was on the formation of bible-reading circles and on preparations for missionary work abroad.

Evidently Ruth Rouse’s first tour was regarded with satisfaction. Almost immediately she was personally invited by Mott to go to America for similar visits to women students, in collaboration with the YWCA. She could not fail to be impressed by the size of the country and of the student audiences. Already there were more than 800 student Christian associations to be visited, and the national conferences held every summer were exciting and memorable occasions.

Her resolve to go to India had to be postponed until 1899, but her dedication to missionary service was unchanged in her many addresses and conversations. Unlike many upper-class English visitors, she was not disdainful of American society, but rather soaked up the enthusiasm and progressive attitudes she found in student circles. She managed to combine both the spirit of evangelical revivalism with a newer emphasis on informed scientific knowledge and enquiry especially about the intended mission fields. Like so many others, she was confident that the evangelization of the world could be achieved in that generation.

However, when she at last arrived in India at the end of 1899, that confidence was badly shaken. For one thing, the whole cultural climate was so different. Evangelical Protestants were so few as to be invisible amongst the multitudes of other faiths. Educated Christian women students were even fewer. The resources provided for her mission were exiguous, but she was supposed to cover the whole country. Moreover she was not immune from the prevailing British imperial ideology about India, which, at best, combined a sense of paternalistic guardianship over less fortunate peoples with, at worst, a sense of racial superiority. Such feelings made it almost impossible to establish the kind of friendships with students which she had enjoyed in America and Europe. She must at times have doubted the possibility of success in this or indeed any future generation. During her two years in India she often fell ill, and was therefore compelled to return to Europe in 1902.

After recovering her health, she returned to her chosen mission field among women students, at first in Europe and later in other countries. But in many cases, she found a very difficult climate. Having won the right to study by means of a hard struggle against the prejudices of both society and the churches, many women students now adopted more radical stances, including, as for example in Berlin, a strongly anti-Christian militancy. Gaining a foothold among them was a remarkable achievement.

When Ruth Rouse began to work in partnership with John Mott, the position of women in the Federation was “delicate”. Also in some national movements and local Christian unions women students were treated with reserve and not given any positions of leadership; nor were their own initiatives encouraged. Many male leaders were unsure how to handle this clearly competent travelling secretary with her friendly manner and warm endorsement of the Federation’s ideals. Gradually her appeals on behalf of Mott’s vision and her capable organization of meetings and conferences gained her support. Particularly among women, she stressed the need for intensive bible study and commitment to future missionary work. She was clearly no social butterfly but instead gave the impression of a rather austere English personality whose call for service to Christ led her to be taken seriously. During these years she became an internationally widely respected ecumenical leader with growing influence among both women and men.

In 1910 the World Missionary Conference was held at Edinburgh, which many regard as the founding event for the church’s ecumenical movement. It was to be a milestone in Christian history and also for both Mott and Rouse. Because of his unsurpassed knowledge of the whole mission field, Mott was chosen to be the Conference Chairman. His public command of the subjects, his skilled organization and his far-sighted vision turned him into the leading ecumenical statesmen of his generation. In particular, Mott called for the abandonment of the narrow horizons, sectarian or dogmatic rigidity and national separateness, which characterized so many missionary societies. In addressing his audience, consisting mainly of the officials of these societies, he appealed for a united and more inclusive vision, which would be commensurate to the vast opportunities which the evangelization of the world required.

Ruth Rouse ably supported these ideals and henceforth was a devoted disciple of the cause of Christian unity. These were the years in which the missionary movement expanded rapidly, and the Federation also expanded to become an experimental laboratory of ecumenism.
The future seemed to be one of great promise.

But this unquenched optimism was to be irrevocably shattered by the outbreak of war in August 1914. What was worse was the fact that these supporters of the ecumenical and missionary movements were obliged to recognize that their fervent belief in Christ’s power to unite and reconcile all peoples was ineffective against the virulent national rivalries and hatreds which the war brought to the surface. No less deplorable was the readiness of a number of Christian leaders, on both sides, to claim that God was on their side and would give them imminent victory over their God-forsaken enemies. Worst of all, the cataclysms of war led all too soon to the slaughter of the battlefields. The mounting casualty lists, particularly from the western front, showed the disastrous toll of the whole cohort of young men who had provided the Federation with its leaders.

Mott, as an American, was still able to travel between the warring countries. But even he was obliged to change his tune. Ruth Rouse, being resident in London, was able to carry on her evangelistic task but on a more limited scale. But when she did go abroad, for instance to Scandinavia and South America, she sedulously avoided political references in her numerous speaking engagements. Hers was a Christian message of consolation and encouragement but on a personal basis. During the second part of the war she volunteered for war service, and devoted her time to looking after hospital casualties and refugees behind the lines.

At the end of the war, the Federation endeavoured to rebuild. Its national structures had remained intact, as had its older generation of leaders such as Mott. But their spirit of unity and reconciliation was still overlaid by the resentments and hostilities cased by the war. Not until 1920 was it possible to convene the first international and ecumenical meetings and then only on neutral ground in Holland or Switzerland. Mott`s leadership was challenged, and he felt obliged to resign as General Secretary. Particularly the Germans felt he had been too involved with President Wilson`s war aims in Russia. They also strongly resented the seizure of German missions in Africa and the Pacific, and they shared the rampant hostility of all German conservatives against the terms of the Versailles Treaty. The task of rebuilding relationships was a delicate and difficult one.

No less challenging was the need to support Europe`s students in their physical distress. In early 1920 Ruth Rouse visited Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland and found students in a deplorable condition. These were mainly returning veterans, usually penniless. Their universities also needed much help. Dr Franzen discounts the Federation legend that Ruth Rouse responded to this drastic situation by cabling Mott: ‘Send million dollars’”. But in fact this huge sum was eventually received through collections and fund-raising drives fervently undertaken by many of the WSCF’s member movements. Her contribution to European Student Relief and the book she wrote about these efforts was seen as part of her Christian witness, and served to act as a unifying factor among the former enemies. What was supposed to be an emergency measure in the end became a permanent feature of inter-university cooperation, and still exists, undertaken by the World University Service. Something of Ruth Rouse`s dedicated idealism still survives.

The 1920s proved to be difficult years. The post-war traumas were far from resolved. The ‘war guilt’ question was still the source of German resentments. The cause of pacifism made little headway in such circles. But the younger generation in the Federation looked for a new and more positive beginning. Mott’s autocratic handling of business and fund-raising caused numerous tensions. He seemed unappreciative of his female colleagues. In 1924 Ruth Rouse decided to resign from the WSCF’s staff. Her goal of seeking equality of representation for women and non-western students had been largely achieved. But the emphasis was no longer on the evangelization of the world, let alone in this generation. And the difficulties of the Federation’s financial situation had only compounded the impression of ineffectiveness. Her frustrations were evident. And, as Franzen remarks, a 52 year old female student leader did not fit. Her time had passed, as indeed had Mott’s, though neither of them quite realized the fact. They belonged to the Federation’s past, not to its future.

From 1925 until her official retirement in 1938, Ruth Rouse served as Education Secretary to the Church of England Mission Board. But Franzen rightly sees this as a postlude to her career. Although she remained deeply committed to the missionary endeavour, the atmosphere had changed. The pious enthusiasm and devoted commitment of thirty years earlier was no longer there. And with the economic crises of the late 1920s and the ideological and political conflicts of the 1930s, the situation was inimical to an elderly woman Christian worker.

Given her wealth of ecumenical experience and her proven ability to write scores of reports and magazine articles, it was only natural that, in her retirement, she should be pressed to undertake larger works of history writing. During the second world war, she was able to travel to Yale University and consulted the significant holding of the Divinity School Library deposited by Mott, and from them composed an extremely interesting record of the WSCF’s first fifty years, which was published shortly after the war ended. She then went on to undertake her final great achievement, the writing and editing of the first history of the Ecumenical Movement, which provided the background for the newly-established World Council of Churches. For this work she spent some years in Geneva, writing several chapters herself and successfully coaxing the other contributors to provide their scripts in time for the whole work to appear before the WCC’s Second Assembly in 1954. At the age of 80, Ruth Rouse was a stately white-haired and very welcome figure in the World Council’s fellowship. She died at the age of 84 in 1956, only a few months after the passing of her colleague John R. Mott.

Published in English from a little-known Swedish academic press, Dr Franzen’s biography deserves to be read by a wider audience. (Hence the length of this review). It is a fitting tribute to a remarkable woman and to her long world-wide service to the missionary and ecumenical movements of the early twentieth century.

JSC

1b) Holger Arning, Die Macht des Heils und das Unheil der Macht. Diskurse von Katholizismus und Nationalsozialismus im Jahr 1934 – eine exemplarische Zeitschriftenanalyse (Politik- und Kommunikationswissenschaftliche Veroeffentlichungen der Goerres-Gesellschaft, Band 28). Paderborn: Ferdinand Schoeningh. 2008. 576 Pp. ISBN 978-3-506-76436-2.
Das Reichskonkordat 1933. Forschungstand, Kontroversen, Dokumente. Ed. Thomas Brechenmacher. (Veroeffentlichungen der Kommission fuer Zeitgeschichte, Reihe B, Bd 109) Paderborn: Ferdinand Schoeningh 2007 310 Pp. ISBN 978-3-506-76465-2

Arning’s massive dissertation presented to the Arts Faculty of the University of Muenster examines in minute detail the weekly issues of a Catholic newspaper in the Muenster region for the early months of 1934. In the author’s opinion, this was the crucial period when the ambivalence of the Catholic attitudes towards the newly-established National Socialist regime was displayed. The disadvantages of such a study are clear: it analyses only one expression of Catholic views in only one locality for only a limited period of a few months. Moreover, the early part of this study is mired in sociological jargon, which is bad enough in English, but even more off-putting in German. Historians of the Nazi period will not be likely to find any new revelations here, since the story of Catholic illusions and misapprehensions about Nazism is already well known.

Arning’s contribution is to give chapter and verse to the readiness with which leading Catholic spokesmen, in this case the editors and contributors, allowed themselves to be seduced by the myths and misrepresentations put out by the Nazi propagandists, but also to demonstrate the effective limits to such efforts. In 1933, to be sure, many Catholics especially in the staunchly reactionary diocese of Muenster, fell readily enough for the Nazis’ call for national renewal, opposition to the Communist threat, imposition of new patterns of leadership, new social and economic goals, and the revival of Germany’s international position. The signing of the Reich Concordat in the summer of 1933 seemed to virtually all Catholics to herald a new era of collaboration and an unprecedented opportunity for Catholic participation in national life. Hitler’s announced goals seemed to reflect closely the political stance of Germany’s conservative elites, so enthusiastic support was justified. Reservations about some of the Nazis’ more radical ambitions were brushed aside and warning signals ignored. The task of the journalists seemed to be to mobilize support for the new experiment and to overcome the reluctance of the Catholic laity to become involved.

But a year later, in June 1934, when Hitler launched his putsch against his internal opponents, and had one of the prominent Catholic lay leaders murdered, this honeymoon quickly evaporated. However, by then, as the columns of this newspaper show, Catholics had given away many hostages to fortune. Their enthusiastic endorsement of the Nazis’ campaigns, especially against both Communism and parliamentary democracy, and to a lesser extent against the alleged influence of the Jews, only served to stress the commonality of views and their approval of antidemocratic, hierarchical patterns of leadership. So too many of these authors found common ground with the Nazis in their hostility to modernism, pacifism, and liberalism in its various forms. Although the newspaper also sought to uphold Catholic doctrines in the purely theological sphere, its editors saw no reason to see any conflict with their new-found political sympathies. Not until late 1934 did the more far-sighted begin to realize that the Nazis’ goals were far more comprehensive and aggressive than they had supposed in earlier assessments. Only then did they see the need for some more coherent Catholic opposition to the Nazis’ totalitarian ambitions. But by then it was too late to begin to mobilize any effective Catholic ideological resistance, which would have had to be based on admission of their earlier misjudgements. The obligation of loyal obedience to the Fuehrer, to his party and to the nation had been so loudly proclaimed that any alternative was ruled out. The Catholics of Muenster were misled by their leaders, but clearly willingly so. This is the sad story with Arning fills out with explicit and compendious details.

Thomas Brechenmacher’s edition of a collection of conference papers on the subject of the ill-fated Reich Concordat of 1933 brings together the latest findings of research on this controversial topic, as well as reports on the archival and documentary sources now available. Also included for almost half of the volume (pp.153-294) are the papers written by the chief state civil servant Rudolf Buttmann, who was in charge of the negotiations concerning the implementation of the Concordat after its signature in July 1933. Although these had been seen by earlier historians of the Concordat, such as Fr. Ludwig Volk, we are now given the texts in full, along with some private observations about the Vatican officials, such as Cardinal Pacelli, later to become Pope Pius XII. The volume also includes helpful descriptions of other archives now available, such as those of the Munich Cardinal Michael Faulhaber, and of the still more controversial figure of Bishop Alois Hudal, who believed that Nazism and Catholicism could be reconciled. The first lectures provide an overview of the historical and moral issues aroused by the Concordat, which are still resounding even seventy-five years later. Particular attention was paid to the hefty debate in the late 1970s between a noted Protestant church historian, Klaus Scholder and the doyen of the German Catholic historians, Konrad Repgen. The issue revolved around the question whether the Vatican, in its desire to achieve a Concordat, sacrificed the future of the German Center Party, mainly Catholics, who then became victims to Nazi repression. Critics of the Concordat have always argued that the Center Party could have been a centre of resistance to Nazi ambitions but was betrayed by the Vatican for its own narrower institutional advantage. Unfortunately Scholder died many years ago, but luckily Professor Repgen, who is still alive, in this 2004 conference made a spirited defence of the Vatican policy. His autobiographical reminiscences, and careful evaluation of the sources, added much to the conference, and set an example to his junior colleagues. But even now, when the archival sources are virtually all available, the debate still continues as to whether the Church was at fault for encouraging the kind of illusions among Catholics to which Arning has drawn attention, or for not admitting its error in judgment and mobilizing its forces for a very different kind of reaction than that which greeted the signing of the Concordat in July 1933.

JSC

1c) Ian Linden, Global Catholicism : Diversity and Change since Vatican II, (Hurst & Company, London, 2009, 978 – 1 – 85065 – 956 – 3)

For anyone who wants an introduction to Roman Catholicism, of a non-Roman variety, this is the book. It starts with three chapters of background, one on the church before the Second Vatican Council, and two on the Council itself. These are quite conventional but necessary as preparation for what follows, which is an account of the church outside Europe and North America — these continents are barely mentioned. And that they are barely mentioned is because they no longer set the pace.

There are two chapters on Latin America where the story begins with a wealthy elite and military dictatorships, mostly propped up by the CIA. Most people are poor and kept poor. The church has only tenuous connections to the population, has a surprisingly foreign set of clergy, and achieves realignment with the poor only against much opposition. But out of this comes liberation theology, with all its excesses as well as its heroes and martyrs, and if the theology fades the bias to the poor gets into the bloodstream of the wider church. Meanwhile Rome blows hot and cold, John Paul II being understandably fixated with the danger of Marxism, though Paul VI had been more open to new developments.
The story then moves to the Philippines and to South Africa, where the church was, as in Rhodesia, generally inert in the face of apartheid. Archbishop Hurley is the exception here, as with Bishop Lamont in Rhodesia his being Irish was a major factor in his political outlook. Rwanda and Zimbabwe are examined in some detail, though “the long walk to freedom is full of pitfalls and may not end in the Promised Land but in tragedy.” As it did in both these lands. And Malawi is the last example studied in detail.

Rome is usually though not always “influenced , one way or another, by models of authority found outside the church, notably kingship and the Roman Empire. Democracy for several centuries played a negative role, defining what the Catholic Church was not.” And there is a “tension between universality and particularity”, the universal being the European, and the particular being the African, Asian, or Latin American. The present Pope Benedict XVI had “referred to a Hellenic Christian heritage safeguarded in good times and bad by European Catholicism” This was a step back from Paul VI in Kampala seeking an African Christianity. And the subject of gender, which was ignored by the liberation theologians, has also been ignored by Rome. This is particularly serious when the leaders in work for the poor are so often women religious.
The final sentence of the book sums up the argument, “the days of the old Eurocentric church directed by Europeans are numbered. The future conversation about Catholicism in the twenty-first century will be conducted increasingly by Latin Americans, Africans, and Asians.”
Gavin White, St Andrews, Scotland

1d) Ernie Harder, Mostly Mennonite, Stories of Jacob and Mary Harder, Abbotsford, B.C, 2009. ISBN 978-0-9813494-0-4
Arthur Kroeger, Hard Passage. A Mennonite family’s long journey from Russia to Canada. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press. 2007. ISBN 13:978-0-88864-473-2

Mennonites are an offshoot of the Anabaptists, a radical Protestant group who derive their name from their Reformation leader Menno Simons. He called on his followers to break away from the authority of both church and state, to form independent communities dedicated to personal salvation, to abstain from worldly affairs and in particular to reject any form of military activities. This combination of fervent piety and pacifism remained characteristic. It led to much harassment and hostility, even enforced exile from their original German base. The experience of hardship and persecution entered deeply into the Mennonite mentality, and was met with impressive devotion and commitment to their ideals.
In the eighteenth century, Catherine the Great of Russia invited a large cohort of these hard-working and God-fearing peasants to settle in what is now the Ukraine and to cultivate vacant lands west of the River Dnieper. Later their offspring founded similar colonies still further east in mid-Siberia. These flourished as self-contained communities, rigidly maintaining their doctrinal beliefs as well as their German-language schools and social institutions. But they had little to do with their Russian neighbours, separated from them by religion, language and culture.
Following the Russian Revolution of 1917, these Mennonites colonies fell on hard times,

being considered alien and unassimilated by the new Soviet rulers. The violence of the civil war was followed by forcible confiscations, depredations, and enforced agricultural contributions. In the early 1920s drought caused widespread famine. Subjected to both physical and religious oppression, many of these Russian Mennonites began to look elsewhere for rescue. They believed they would find in Canada a safe haven where they could take up new farms and also would be exempt from military conscription. They were encouraged by the change in Canadian immigration policies of the mid-1920s, and by the Canadian railway companies who sought new settlers for their vacant lands on the prairies, and were ready to advance loans for their travel costs. But the process of getting out of the Soviet Union, and re-establishing themselves so far away on another continent constituted what Arthur Kroeger rightly calls “A Hard Passage”.

Both these authors depict the same story of persecution, exile, hardship and eventual recovery on Canada’s safer shores. Both recapitulate what may be called the early twentieth century Mennonite syndrome for these Russian-German-Canadian pilgrims. Only their group solidarity, their close family connections and their religious loyalties enabled them to survive these experiences and bring them to a happy conclusion. These reminiscences were written by the Canadian-born sons of families who suffered through these traumatic events. Their surviving records and memories enabled these authors to reconstruct the lost and now almost forgotten sufferings and hardships through which their parents lived.
Ernie Harder successfully evokes the story of his parents, Jake and Mary Harder, who were born in the pre-revolutionary and pre-mechanical days of subsistence farming in the bleak Russian climate. They grew up in the days of drought and famine, and hence were ready to seize the opportunity to leave Russia behind. Luckily, Jake Harder lived to a great age and his son has meticulously followed up on all his numerous relatives in Canada, the United States and Russia. These were closely-knit families, frequently intermarrying and with a strong devotion to their group, so that an outside reader can easily be overwhelmed by the cross-connections of people having the same names and outlooks. Particularly good are the descriptions of pre-1914 Siberian farming, as each Mennonite colony provided assistance to the others when needed. No less graphic are the memories of the early days in Canada. Although young and enterprising, the Harders, like so many others, suffered from the hardships of the Depression. They had no ready resources to fall back on, but were eventually able to resettle in British Columbia and took advantage of fruit growing in the Fraser Valley. They prospered, inter-married and lived out their days in serenity and peace. Ernie and his 90-year old father were even able to revisit Siberia, where of course no trace remained of the Mennonites` former presence, except for a ruined and overgrown graveyard.

For his part, Arthur Kroger was much helped by inheriting from his father Heinrich an old wooden box containing hand-written documents in German about his upbringing in the Mennonite settlements in the Ukraine. The same picture of back-breaking subsistence farming in independent and self-governing communities is recorded in diary entries up to 1914. These records also make it clear that there was virtually no interaction with their Russian neighbours, and needless to say no intermarriages. There were considerable religious disagreements, with the Mennonite Brethren adopting a more rigid Puritanism, which again restricted their social boundaries. But all were overwhelmed by the anarchy and violence after the Revolution, when both Red and White armies campaigned and plundered across their lands. It was to be the first phase of the destruction of the Mennonite community life in Russia. A climate of terrorization and fear prevailed. Subsequently drought and famine caused further hardships. Relief supplies from North America did not arrive until early 1922. But hyper-inflation and Soviet depredations continued. The Mennonites increasingly sought to escape.

Fortunately the new Liberal government in Ottawa looked favourably on bringing in more settlers. The railway officials also regarded Mennonites as `immigrants of the highest type`. The first departures took place in 1923, but Heinrich and Helena Kroeger only followed in 1926, obviously with heavy hearts about leaving behind their Russian friends and relatives, whom they were never likely to see again.
The Russian Mennonites were due to be resettled in Alberta, on land which formed part of the so-called Palliser Triangle, notorious for its poor soil, drought-ridden climate and searing summers. The final years of the 1920s and all of the 1930s saw these conditions predominate. For a penniless family with five small children, who could bring with them little more than their hand luggage, the struggle for survival was a grim one.

Their burdens were only increased when two more sons, including the author Arthur, were born in Alberta. Throughout the 1930s they were forced to depend on relief supplies, both private and public. By 1936 three million acres of abandoned farmland spanned the three Prairie provinces. Not until 1939 did the rains return and the crops improve. In the meantime the family eked out a miserable existence earning only some scarce cash from casual labour on farms in the neighbourhood. . The Mennonite Colonization Board could do little to help, having far too many claims on its limited bounty. In addition they faced considerable hostility from the local population being considered `foreign` immigrants receiving benefits which only Canadians `deserved`. The politicians proved equally mean-spirited. As Kroeger points out, the scale of the disasters they lived through is today unimaginable.

From the end of the 1930s the family`s circumstances improved, and the author`s description of his boyhood years in the rural and remote Prairie farmlands is evocative. He later went on to gain a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford and to have a distinguished career in the federal civil service.

Over the last half century, the former Russian Mennonites have become more and more assimilated into their new Canadian homeland. They no longer marry only each other, and the younger partners frequently explore a wider range of religious affiliations. Many Mennonites no longer consider themselves pacifists. Low German is no longer spoken, except among a few elderly persons. Like their Mennonite cousins who emigrated directly from Germany to Manitoba and Saskatchewan, but unlike the Hutterites, these Russian exiles did not seek to rebuild their separate agricultural colonies on the Prairies. Instead, they have moved increasingly to the towns and cities, and now participate in a wide variety of professions. Inevitably the Mennonite identity has been diluted, though such names as Jantzen, Friesen, Wiebe, Harder, Kroeger and Brauer still remind us of the Mennonites` contributions. But the consciousness of their former European background has also waned. These two authors are therefore to be congratulated in rescuing for a wider audience a small portion of their now disappearing Russian-born heritage.
(Mr. Harder’s book can be obtained by contacting him at www.mostlymennonite.ca)

JSC

I shall shortly be sending you all another letter about the future of this Newsletter.

It remains only to wish all of you a very blessed and relaxing holiday season over Christmas and all the best for your health and endeavours in 2010.

John Conway
University of British Columbia

Share

November 2009 Newsletter

Association of Contemporary Church Historians

(Arbeitsgemeinschaft kirchlicher Zeitgeschichtler)

John S. Conway, Editor. University of British Columbia

November 2009 — Vol. XV, no. 11

 Dear Friends,

In this month of anniversaries, we recall not only the twenty years since the Berlin Wall fell, but also the earlier German revolution of 1918, and the horrific Chrystal Night pogrom of 1938. These events are constitutive of kirchliche Zeitgeschichte, so I hope the following reviews will be of help in coming to terms with these legacies.

I will be glad to hear from any of you with your comments, But please remember to send them to my personal address, as below, and not to press the REPLY button unless you want all our subscribers to hear your opinions.

1) Conference Report: German Studies Association, 2009

2) Book reviews

a) Ruotsila, Christian anti-internationalism
b) Vos, Pryfogle, George, Faith in the World. Mark Gibbs and Vesper Society
c) P. Raina ed., Bishop George Bell
d) Jekeli. German Intellectuals in Romania under Communism
e) Leichsenring, Die katholische Kirche und “ihre Juden”

3) Book notes: Lazarus, In the shadow of Vichy. The Finaly Affair

1) Conference Report:

At the recent German Studies Association conference in Washington, D.C. (October 8-11, 2009), several members of the Association of Contemporary Church History participated in a panel entitled, “Protestant Theological Responses to Race and Religion in Nazi Germany.” Moderated by Robert P. Ericksen (Pacific Lutheran University), three papers explored various aspects of Protestant theology and practice: Kyle Jantzen (Ambrose University College), “Blood and Race or Sin and Salvation: Parish Pastors Debate Rosenberg’s Mythus”; Christopher Probst (Howard Community College), “Protestant Scholarship, Luther, and ‘the Jews’ in Nazi Germany”; and Matthew Hockenos, “Converting Jews in the Third Reich: Antisemitism and the Berlin Judenmission, 1930-1950.” Richard Steigmann-Gall (Kent State University) provided a commentary on the papers.

Jantzen’s paper explored the reactions of parish clergy in three regions of Germany (Brandenburg, Saxony, and Württemberg) to the ideological challenge posed by racial theorist Alfred Rosenberg’s famous work, Myth of the Twentieth Century (Der Mythus des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts). Protestant clergy often found it hard to discern Rosenberg’s significance within the Nazi Party or the important of the Mythus officially, Rosenberg’s book represented his own private opinions, while at other times party officials hailed his views as intellectual treasures central to Nazi racial ideology. A few parish pastors (generally from the radical Thüringian wing of the German Christian Movement) took Rosenberg seriously and proclaimed the truth of his racial ideology. Most clergy who encountered his work rejected it as heretical. While they often acknowledged Rosenberg as an expert on race and were frequently obsessed with defining the proper relationship between the German Volk and the Christian Church, they generally rejected Rosenberg’s denial of the transcendence of God, the sinfulness of humanity, and the validity of the Old and New Testaments. Where Rosenberg championed Jesus as a heroic Aryan fighter, Protestant clergy affirmed Jesus as the Son of God (and a Jew) who defeated sin and death by suffering and dying on a cross. Jantzen concluded that Rosenberg functioned as a line in the theological sand whose work caused all but the most extreme German Christians to reaffirm important aspects of traditional Protestant orthodoxy. He also noted that the widespread criticism of Rosenberg’s ideas might suggest that he was not as important a figure as some scholars have asserted.

Probst’s paper analyzed the interpretation of Martin Luther’s writings on the Jews by Heinrich Bornkamm, Protestant professor of church history in Gießen, Leipzig, and (after the war) Heidelberg. Probst argued that Bornkamm viewed Jews through a prism of Volk and race that drew upon his background in historical theology. Seeking to address the tumultuous events unfolding in Germany, Bornkamm forwarded his own version of Luther’s nonrational argumentation about Judaism, harnessing Luther’s powerful irrational antisemitic rhetoric in tacit support of antisemitic Nazi policy.

After noting Bornkamm’s pro-Nazi and antisemitic sentiments in 1935, he commented on the “Jewish press” which had formerly controlled the forces of “left liberalism,” while in 1939, he wrote about the “powerful and undeniable truth of racial-thinking” and of a religiously inspired Bolshevism led by stateless Jews Probst examined his short 1933 work, “Volk and Race in Martin Luther.” According to Bornkamm, Luther must have known “something” of the “biological and historical unity of a State” and had “at least a notion” of the “biological basic elements in the structure of mankind” which overlap borders of State and Volk, “which we call races.” Thus Bornkamm espoused an interpretation of Luther’s Judenschriften that closely paralleled Nazi conceptions of Volk and race. Paradoxically, then, even as Bornkamm affirmed Luther’s struggle with Jews to be a spiritual effort the goal of which was conversion, the twentieth-century church historian continually conflated religious and racial antipathy towards Jews as he interacted with the writings of the sixteenth-century reformer.

Hockenos’s paper examined the history of the German Protestant Church’s Berlin-based “Society for the Promotion of Christianity among the Jews” (Gesellschaft zur Beförderung des Christentums unter den Juden), commonly refered to as the Berlin Jewish Mission, during the Nazi era and the immediate postwar years. Exploring how the men and women who staffed the Berlin Jewish Mission understood the “Jewish question,” Hockenos asked whether the missionaries’ earnest desire to convert Jews to Christianity put them at odds with antisemitic racial theories or whether missionaries incorporated Nazi racial theories into their missionary worldview?

Surprisingly, the Berlin Jewish Mission remained open through much of the Third Reich, baptizing 704 Jews between 1933 and 1940 in its Messiah Chapel in the German capital (Hockenos estimates that about 3500 Jews converted to Christianity under the influence of the German Jewish missions) until the Mission was shut down by the Gestapo in January 1941. Many Protestants rejected the work of the Berlin Jewish Mission German Christians, who were openly antisemitic, ridiculed the idea that Jews might convert to Christianity for genuinely spiritual reasons, assuming Jewish conversions were politically motivated. Even members of the Confession Church, however, considered the presence of Jews in the Christian community as problematic because they brought with them undesirable “Jewish traits.” The few Protestants who did support the Berlin Jewish Mission believed that if the church approached Jews in the spirit of brotherly love and shared with them Christ’s message of love and forgiveness, the “Jewish problem” could be solved through conversion. Although missionaries identified Jews as a race with certain negative characteristics, they believed that converted Jews, whose faith was genuine, were cleansed, purified, reborn and transformed by the sacrament of baptism, thereby receiving a grace which overcame their race.

The internal conflicts of this position could be seen already in a 1932 article by the president and the director of the Berlin Jewish Mission, Hans Kessler and Edwin Albert. As they wrote, “There is no such thing as a German gospel or a German Christ. The gospel is the gospel for all people, regardless of race. The gospel has the power to transform men of all races, even the Jews. When one no longer believes this and believes only in race . . . they can longer call themselves a Christian.” People who think this way, they went on, reject Jesus and “come into opposition with God, just as the Jews once did.” Continuing in this minor key, Kessler and Albert railed against the spirit of Jewry, insisting that it needed to be overcome a task which could only be accomplished by the Holy Spirit (and not the German spirit). As such, the two men argued that the Jewish Mission stood at the forefront of the struggle of the German people against modern Jewry. At the close of his paper, Hockenos used the term “missionary antisemitism” to describe these complicated and at times contradictory theological responses.

Richard Steigmann-Gall’s commentary brought into focus the central idea common to all three papers, namely, that Protestants in the Third Reich adopted a wide range of perspectives on race and religion, mixing aspects of Nazi antisemitism and racial salvation with either religious or racial antipathy to Jews and a confessional theology which was just as likely to affirm the Jewish origins of Christianity, the Jewishness of Jesus, and the transformative effects of conversion, regardless of race. Various members of the audience also posed questions, making for a lively and fruitful discussion.

K.Jantzen, Calgary

2a) Markku Ruotsila, The origins of Christian anti-internationalism. Conservative Evangelicals and the League of Nations. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press 2008. 240 Pp. ISBN 978-1-58901-191-5.

Despite its somewhat cumbrous title, Markku Ruotsila’s study is both topical and relevant to present concerns. His insightful analysis of a significant section of American Protestantism stresses the continuity of this group’s strongly-held views about America’s destiny and in particular its conduct of foreign policy. He traces the origins of attitudes which dominated and still dominate the mentality of the Protestant minority, commonly called “the Religious Right”, and shows how their views were formulated in the crises of a century ago, particularly in their strident opposition to the policies advocated by the Democratic Party’s President Woodrow Wilson.

This opposition was based on certain key presuppositions. First and foremost, conservative Evangelicals held that traditional orthodox Christianity was the sole source of truth and hence their guide to public policy. Cooperation between Christians and non-Christians compromised their beliefs, and was therefore unacceptable. Any international organization, such as the proposed League of Nations, even if supposedly devoted to peace, was bound to fail because of the unprincipled and dubious association with non-Christian states such as Japan and China. For such Protestants, it was the supreme virtue of the United States that it had a divinely-appointed call to witness to and defend the true faith.

This belief in the special destiny of the United States and its accepted calling to witness to Christ came of course from the first Puritan settlers. By the end of the nineteenth century, this Protestant tradition had hardened into a theological and political conservatism, evidenced by both a literal reading of the bible, and the promotion of Victorian family values and morality. At the beginning of the new century, its champions were already engaged in a bitter struggle against the forces of modernization, secularism and indifferentism. They took especial aim at the advocates of theological liberalism, whose ideas seemed to be based on the heresies of German biblical criticism. They particularly attacked the idea that Christian salvation could be brought nearer by schemes of collective or reformist improvement. They never shared the optimistic assumptions of humanistic betterment so widely adopted by the supporters of the Social Gospel movement of the times. So too conservative Evangelicals deplored the perceived weakening of America’s cherished spiritual values. They opposed many of the changes from an essentially rural to a much more morally ambiguous urban and industrialized society. Contrary to the views championed by progressive politicians, such as President Wilson, they were not inclined to give in to the temptation of moving with the times.

America’s participation in the first world war only intensified this confrontation. Both for personal and political reasons, President Wilson laid great stress on the moral reasons behind the war effort in 1917. No less altruistic was the propaganda put out on behalf of his peace plans in 1918, including his proposals for a League of Nations to ensure “perpetual peace”. Indeed Wilson and his supporters fully believed that the opportunity beckoned to apply the principles of Christianity on a cosmic scale, led of course by the reformist and “progressive” enthusiasts who were Wilson’s most ardent backers in the churches.

It used to be said that “The League of Nations enjoyed the support of all organized religion; and for those who had no religion, it formed an adequate substitute”. Ruotsila;s careful research disputes at least the first half of this adage as far as American Protestantism goes. He scrupulously analyses the various segments of American anti-internationalist Protestantism, and describes the theological bases of their utterances. Basically all of them shared a common rejection of the immanentist theology of the Social Gospel, with its confident belief in human self-sufficiency and the beneficial effect of collective improvements though institutional measures. These conservative Evangelicals were, by contrast, firmly convinced of human sinfulness, and their utter dependence on God for everything, including politics. They totally rejected the kinds of anthropocentric assumptions which underlay the reformers’ ideas for the rectification of world evils by political means.

Ruotsila’s contribution is to show how prevalent the religious arguments were in the heated debates over the ratification of the League’s Covenant. He argues rightly that these have not been given their due weight in most secular histories, either of the League or of twentieth century America. And he shows how widespread and well mobilized were the utterances of those who used their conservative theologies to combat not merely the League of Nations, but all other aspects of modernization and secularization. His evaluation of the various positions adopted by the dispensationalists, hard-line Baptists, conservative Lutherans and Presbyterians, and even a few isolated Episcopalians and Methodists, is excellently nuanced. Each produced their own variant on a similar theme. Generic Christian anti-internationalism was a sub-theme of anti-modernism. The League of Nations offered an unacceptable mixture of unwelcome features: a multinational co-operation with non-Christians; the creation of a dangerous supranational authority; the vision of an impossible goal of human betterment. This would be an apostate deviation from America’s true calling. The fundamental belief that the United States was and is a uniquely Christian nation with a special role to play in the world was already deeply rooted in such circles a hundred years ago. Its recurrence and indeed fulfilment in George W. Bush’s unilateral war in Iraq shows how strongly these conservative Evangelicals’ ideas continue to be played out, even after the League of Nations has long since disappeared.

Interestingly enough, Markku Ruotsila is an adjunct professor of American church history at the University of Helsinki. Is there any comparable position in any American University devoted to Finnish church history?

JSC

 

2b) N.Vos, D.Pryfogle and M George, Faith in the world. Mark Gibbs and Vesper Society, Being God’s Lively People. San Francisco: Vesper Society Imprint 2009. 129 Pp. ISBN 1441479201, <http://www.vesper.org/>http://www.vesper.org

This short but vivid tribute to Mark Gibbs and the Vesper Society records a remarkable trans-Atlantic partnership which encouraged the laity of the churches to take their faith into the world of their everyday lives in new and stimulating ways. Mark Gibbs was an Anglican layman, living in a wind-swept cottage on the north Yorkshire moors, who teamed up with a group of American businessmen mainly from the San Francisco area, seeking to enlarge the horizons of church members, and to see the wider implications for their faith in the world. Too often, it seemed, the clergy had called on the laity to support church-related projects and institutions, but had not equipped them to witness in their secular occupations. Since the laity comprised 99% of church members, and the clergy only 1%, there was an obvious disproportion in the amounts spent on Christian education for the non-professional members in the church pews.. For twenty years from the middle 1960s, Mark Gibbs and the Vesper Society saw it as their mission to mobilize the laity through a series of educational programmes, which pulled together leading Christian laymen to expand their witness and make it relevant to their day-to-day occupations. They paid special attention to the ethical principles which should apply in all walks of life, and sought to overcome the barriers and limitations of too narrow an emphasis on personal salvation in the pious church circles. Rather Christian witness had to apply to all spheres of life, and lay men and women were the ones to make this happen. Mark Gibbs had a special flair for arousing such concerns, not only comforting the afflicted but afflicting the comfortable. For many years he became a roving ambassador for lay renewal, writing, teaching, stimulating, inspiring and sometimes irritating to achieve his ends. In America, the Vesper Society provided the resources to organise seminars, retreats and conferences where the message for lay renewal could be heard. Together they made a significant impact.

Interestingly, the project was largely derived from Germany. After the Second World War, the German Evangelical Church developed two major initiatives designed as reparations for the churches’ disastrous failure to resist the evils of the previous Nazi regime. The first of these was the creation of a series of Evangelical Academies, of which Bad Boll, near Stuttgart was – and is – the most famous. These professionally-staffed institutions provided a large-scale and year-round programme of seminars and short courses, some of them residential, which were a form of continuing Christian education, ranging over a wide number of topics, and using debates and discussions on controversial and topical subjects to draw out the Christian implications. Over the years, the result has been to build up a large corps of informed and critical lay opinion.
No less significant were the biennial Kirchentage or Church Rallies, held in major cities, usually for a week in June, which brought – and still bring – together many thousands of people, including foreigners, in stimulating debates and discussions. Organized and led by lay people, these rallies do much to offset the often sombre and unexciting life in the local Protestant parishes. They also provide an opportunity for all church-related organizations in the social, political and mission fields, to broadcast their messages in a vital and net-working fashion.

These were the models Mark Gibbs brought to America where he found receptive audiences. His belief that the renewal of the church depended on lay people acting beyond the church walls and taking up their ministries in daily life, proved popular and attractive. He helped to overcome the laity’s isolation and to equip them for their everyday vocations. It was also a call for prophetic witness for social justice and peace, particularly during the height of the Vietnam War, and hence ran parallel to the efforts promoted by such bodies as the World Council of Churches, and the emphasis stemming from the Second Vatican Council. Gibbs found new ways to inspire his audiences to be faithful followers of Christ in the secular worlds where they lived. For the layman, he believed, was the essential interpreter of the Christian message in the battlefield of the world, and must be properly equipped for such a task. At a time of turbulent political events and challenges, this reflective Christian witness was most helpful.

Mark Gibbs’ understanding of the church was always inclusive and ecumenical, and sought to overcome the limitations of private piety and individualistic attitudes in social morality. Such a purely private faith, he believed, was as dangerous as a fanatically political creed, and both needed the world-restoring allegiance of the gospel of God.

Unfortunately Gibbs died in 1986, and without his energy and drive the cause languished, especially in England. But in many ways his ideal has flourished with the rapid expansion of lay-led voluntary agencies, ministering and witnessing all over the world. With the obvious decline of clergy-based influence, the laity is now taking a much more active role. But we still need men of Mark Gibbs’ calibre to maintain the enthusiasm and direction of God’s lively people as they live out their faith in the world.
JSC

2c) Peter Raina ed. , Bishop George Bell. House of Lords Speeches and Correspondence with Rudolf Hess. Oxford, Berne etc: Peter Lang. 2009. 226 Pp.

Last year marked the fiftieth anniversary of the death of George Bell, Bishop of Chichester from 1929 to 1958. Tributes to his memory have already appeared in this Newsletter, viz a report on the Memorial Conference held in Chichester (September 2008)) and a full account of the papers given at that conference (April 2009). But we can happily add to these a short note about the edition of Bell’s speeches in the House of Lords and his correspondence with the Nazi leader Rudolf Hess, prepared by one of Bell’s devoted admirers, Peter Raina. We can certainly be grateful that he has researched into the massive archive Bell left behind to dig out the texts of his speeches given in the House of Lords during his twenty-one years as a member of the bench of bishops, as well as the remarkable but wholly ineffective exchange of letters between Bell and Hitler’s Deputy, Hess, from1935 to 1938. (Hess’ German texts are also printed). These materials can only reinforce the impression that Bell was a courageous, outspoken, singular and persistent voice of conscience in those most difficult years for Christian witness. He believed, however, that he had the duty to speak out for the Church on matters of public concern. The House of Lords offered him a public platform, even if his fellow peers were rarely in agreement. Nor were most of his fellow bishops. But Bell was not to be deterred by opportunistic considerations, as was most notable in the famous speech he made in February 1944 denouncing as inhumane the British policy of indiscriminate bombing of German cities, which is reproduced here in full. His protest was based on two main thoughts: first, that the war should be prosecuted in ways which would uphold the ideals for which it was being fought, and secondly, that such destructive bombing made no distinction between the supporters of Nazism in Germany and the numerous opponents of the regime who, Bell believed.would one day rise up and overthrow the monstrous tyranny imposed by Hitler. This was a belief he had long held. Indeed Bell’s whole career had been deeply affected by what he considered was the mistake, even the crime, of the Versailles Peace Treaty, which had so insulted Germany and thereby led to the rise of the Nazi dictatorship. He campaigned long and hard against the vindictive anti-German attitudes held by many leading Britons, and pleaded for the cause of peace and reconciliation throughout the 1920s and 1930s. His leadership in the international ecumenical movement of the mainly Protestant churches had given him many contacts in the European churches as well as in pacifist circles. So he was naturally outraged by the vicious measures adopted by the radical Nazis especially against the Jews. He personally organized numerous relief efforts on their behalf, and rescued a number of Protestant clergymen by providing them with asylum in England. His concern for refugees and his desire to raise awareness (and funds) for their situation was clearly reflected in his pre-1939 speeches, as was his indignation at their treatment as enemy aliens after war broke out. By the end of the war, Bell was looking at the wider horizons and seeking new patterns for post-war reconstruction and reconciliation, as well as renewal though a recommitment to Christianity. These are the themes which are reflected in his speeches, all well and succinctly thought out, penetrating in his resolve not to let the issues be overwhelmed by pragmatic or political considerations, and consistent in his witness to Christian values. Bell sought to make this witness relevant to all aspects of life, and therefore was bold to offer his opinions on a wide range of topics, some of which he could only know at second-hand.

In 1936 Bell took the opportunity of one of his periodic visits to Germany to obtain an interview with Hitler’s Deputy, Rudolf Hess. Bell was undoubtedly influenced by the idea that a personal contact with top German leaders could ensure that they were made aware of the criticisms of the Nazi treatment of the German churches, and would take measures to remedy the repressive actions of their underlings. Thus he told Hess bluntly that church circles abroad were apprehensive of those “prominent leaders of the party who have far more radical opinions and favour a far more radical policy to the whole Church question”. In 1937 he tried to use the same channel to express his concern about specific Confessing Church victims of Nazi repression, and asked for the modification of the measures taken against them. His intervention on behalf of Pastor Martin Niemoeller shortly after his arrest in July 1937,however, earned him a brusque reply for his audacity in pleading on behalf of a clergyman whose “attacks and slanders against the State and its Head have reached such dimensions that the State has been forced to set the law against Pastor Niemoeller” Furthermore, Hess’ letter retaliated by asking how Bell would like it if the British Government’s policies were attacked by Germans on behalf of an unrestrained Irish clergyman. This missive concluded with the peremptory statement: ”90 per cent of the German people did not bestow their confidence on their Government, so that afterwards this Government should tolerate a situation in which a few misguided persons should threaten the internal peace and the basis for the security of the nation as well as its Christian religion”. Undeterred Bell tried again a year later to ask for an alleviation of Niemoeller’s prison terms. He received no reply.

JSC

2d) E.P.Jikeli, Siebenbürgisch-sächsische Pfarrer, Lehrer und Journalisten in der Zeit der kommunistischen Diktatur (1944-1971) [European University Studies, Series III, History and Allied Studies, Vol. 1044.] (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 2007. Pp. 321. $86.95. ISBN 978-3-631-56769-2.)

(This review appeared first in the Catholic Historical Review, October 2009, and is here reprinted by kind permission of the author)

Erwin Peter Jikeli’s study of ethnic German intellectuals in Romania during the first half of the communist era opens a discussion of questions familiar to historians of modern Germany but newer to scholars of communist Eastern Europe. To what extent was the ruling ideology in this case, Romanian communism imported from abroad or imposed from above? Was it only endured by the populace, or did certain elements in society welcome it from below? To what extent were intellectuals in this case, pastors, teachers, and journalists committed democrats engaged in resistance against their regime while making superficial public compromises? Or were they willing collaborators out of ideological conviction or for professional gain?

In this published version of his doctoral dissertation from Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Jikeli (who was raised and educated in Romania) explores the vocational history of ethnic German intellectuals from the Siebenbürgen (“Seven Fortresses”) region of Romania, where Saxons first settled in the twelfth century as defenders of Transylvania. Jikeli employs a social-scientific approach, applying biographical techniques to understand the pastors, teachers, and journalists he analyzes. Indeed, one of the unique features of Jikeli’s study is his attempt to survey 259 former members of the three professions (many had emigrated to Germany proper before and after 1989). Unfortunately, only 91 (just over a third) responded at all and only 52 (barely one-fifth) filled out his long, probing questionnaires, the others “presumably afflicted by a moral dilemma or fear of the truth” (p. 7). These limitations aside, Jikeli is to be commended for his wide use of primary sources, including diaries, biographies, letters, chronicles, newspapers and publications, and all manner of official correspondence and personnel records (some of which, he notes, contained lies meant to discredit the intellectuals during the communist era).

Following a methodological introduction and four chapters of historical and socio-political background, Jikeli probes the attitudes and actions of his subjects during the first half of the Romanian communist era from the installation of the single-party system under Soviet military pressure to the intense Stalinism of the 1950s to the relaxation and adoption of independent foreign, economic, and cultural policies in the early years of Nicolai Cea escu’s reign in three main chapters. The year 1971, when the Romanian dictator implemented a harsher domestic policy (and when the thirty-year freeze on archival records began to affect his study), marks the end point of Jikeli’s research. Two subsequent chapters assess the issues of party membership and contact with Securitate, or Romanian secret service.

Jikeli’s goal is to understand the extent to which these Saxon pastors, teachers, and journalists maintained some critical distance from the regime and attempted to represent the interests of their minority group. What he discovers is that all three groups of intellectuals suffered under policies which attempted to draw professionals from the “healthy” social categories of workers and farmers and which suppressed minority populations (primarily Hungarians) in favour of Romanianization. German Protestant pastors (mainly Lutheran since the Reformation) in Transylvania found themselves under great suspicion since they were only indirectly under the control of the state and since they stood by definition in opposition to the atheism of the communist party. For that reason, pastors were monitored and recruited intensely by the Securitate. German teachers were pressured to join the communist party, not least because of their important role as transmitters of the state’s materialist and assimilationist educational program. Journalists were required to be party members and worked under editors-in-chief who were party appointees charged to direct the propaganda program of the press.

Jikeli argues that all three groups of German intellectuals found ways to subvert or evade some of the burden of their association with the communist system (his few survey respondents were quick to provide these kinds of stories) and to bolster siebenbürgisch-sächsisch identity. But given the important position held by Romanian professionals and particularly by these natural leaders in the minority population, there can be little doubt that they must have made significant accommodations with the Romanian party-state. Due to the lack of survey respondents and the absence of relevant secret service files, however, Jikeli concludes that we will never likely know the full extent of such collaboration among the ethnic German intellectuals of Romania.

Kyle Jantzen, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

2e) Jana Leichsenring, Die katholische Kirche un “ihre Juden”. Das “Hilfswerk beim Bischoeflichen Ordinariat Berlin” 1938-1948. Berlin: Metropol Verlg. 2007 349 Pp. ISBN 978-3-938690-58-1

This thoroughly researched dissertation for Berlin’s Technical University tells the story of the Catholic agency belatedly established in 1938 to assist those Catholics of Jewish ancestry as they faced persecution and deportation by the Nazis. (Ms Leichsenring’s footnotes are exemplarily exhaustive!) But the meat of the thesis concerns the often reluctant measures, taken with inadequate means by the Catholic authorities, to help these unfortunate members of their flock, and includes a number of heart-wrenching stories of their fate. Leichsenring estimates that there were approximately 45,000 Catholics labelled by the Nazis as “Jews” or “Mischlinge”. Many resided in Berlin, so that it was natural that the office to help them should be placed under the auspices of the Berlin Bishop, Konrad von Preysing. At first, efforts had been made to assist such Catholics to emigrate through the St Raphael’s Verein, but the Gestapo placed increasing restrictions on this program, and in 1941 ordered the society to be dissolved. In any case, in October 1941 no further emigration of Jews was allowed. (The same decree put an end to the Protestant Church’s similar efforts, along with the arrest of its principal organiser, Pastor Heinrich Gruber). But the Catholic Hilfswerk continued, under the direction of resolute and resourceful leadership of Margarete Sommer, whose valiant endeavours deserve to be better known. Since emigration was no longer possible, Sommer had to concentrate on personal assistance on the spot. Her imaginative and thorough efforts to give whatever assistance to her individual contacts was possible are here fully recorded and praised But she also wanted to mobilize the whole church to protest against the injustices and terrorization which her charges were undergoing. To this end she prepared a number of reports, from February 1941, especially on the effects of deportation, and the drastic living conditions in the ghettos in the east where these individuals had been sent. A year later she reported on what she had learnt about the so-called Wannsee Conference, which led her to the conviction that the Jews were to be murdered en masse, and that the same treatment was to be given to those Catholics in mixed marriages and their children. Bishop Preysing then forwarded these reports to his superior Cardinal Bertram in Breslau. In fact Sommer also personally went to see Bertram, but was not believed. Her plea for a strong public denunciation by the whole Catholic hierarchy of the Nazis’ misdeeds was turned down The Cardinal refused to act on such unverified information, and limited himself to written protests to specific Reich ministers and bureaucrats about the Nazi plan to dissolve Church-blessed mixed marriages. When Sommer went to visit him for one last time in April 1944, he refused to see her, and ordered Preysing to keep her under control. Leichsenring thus adds to the already established evidence that the Catholic response to the persecution of the Jews was far too limited, and was given, even by Sommer herself, only to practising Catholics. The conclusion has to be reached that, while it is untrue to say that nothing was done, far greater efforts could have been made if the Catholic bishops had been more determined to take up arms against the regime. But having given their allegiance in 1933, and afraid for the consequences if the Reich Concordat was to be revoked, and in the circumstances of total war, none of the bishops were prepared to act publicly on behalf of the Jews, who had been so denounced in every piece of Nazi propaganda. The record of the Hilfswerk, whose papers Leichsenring has so competently researched, is therefore one of frustration and very limited success.

JSC

3) Book notes: J.B.Lazarus, In the shadow of Vichy. The Finaly Affair, New York: Peter Lang, 2008. ISBN 978­4331-0212-7
In the immediate post-Holocaust years, Catholic-Jewish relations in France were deeply perturbed by the controversial issue of the future fate of Jewish children whose parents had been murdered by the Nazis and who had been given refugee by Catholics in convents and schools. After the end of hostilities, these care-givers were not surprisingly reluctant to part from these charges. But the Jewish community organisations went to great efforts to reclaim the children and sought to place them with Jewish relatives, or in Jewish communal institutions, or even to let them take part in an early aliyah to Palestine. The most notorious case, where one French Catholic care-giver sought to thwart these claims, came in the dispute over two small boys, the Finaly brothers. This Catholic true believer refused to deliver the boys to their aunts in New Zealand and Israel, had them secretly baptised as Catholics and even eventually had them smuggled out of France to Spain. She also successfully mobilized the Catholic community to her side using arguments derived from the Dreyfus affair of fifty years earlier. The anti-Semitic overtones were explicit. Fortunately, as the author makes clear, there were other Catholic clerics appalled by this bigotry. Finally a settlement was reached and the boys were returned to their relatives. But the polarization of French opinion was only healed when more eirenic views prevailed, as was seen in the declarations on relations with Judaism at the Second Vatican Council. JSC

With every best wish
John Conway

Share

October 2009 Newsletter

Association of Contemporary Church Historians

(Arbeitsgemeinschaft kirchlicher Zeitgeschichtler)

John S. Conway, Editor. University of British Columbia

October 2009 — Vol. XV, no. 10

 Dear Friends

Sometimes historians simply have to accept that that they cannot find the hard and fast answers they seek in the inadequate remnants of the past with which they have to deal. As the events they are looking at recede into the past, new work will be susceptible to the likelihood of diminishing returns.

Sir Ian Kershaw

Contents

1) Book reviews:

a) Garrrard and Garrard, Russian Orthodoxy Resurgent
b) Desbois, The Holocaust in Ukraine
c) ed. Smith and Rittner, No Going Back. Letters to Pope Benedict XVI

2) Article: Steinfeldt, Seder at the Parish

1a) John Garrard and Carol Garrard. Russian Orthodoxy Resurgent : Faith and Power in the New Russia. Princeton University Press, 2008. xiv + 326 pp. $29.95 US. cloth. ISBN 978-691-12571-2

(This review first appeared in Church History, Vol .77, No 2 June 2009 and is reproduced by kind permission of the author)

John and Carol Garrard open their story by joining the lengthy list of authors who have been trying to explain the reasons behind the collapse of Soviet power in 1991. In their case the focus is on religion, the inability of communist leaders to destroy the subversive power of the Orthodox faith (despite consistent and often brutal anti-religious campaigns) and the rickety regime’s failure to detect signs of resistance growing gradually within the Russian Orthodox hierarchy. Ironically, it was a similar resistance coming from Orthodox bishops that helped to shake up the complacency of tsarist power during the Revolution of 1905.

The Garrards are quite correct to note that the Western academic establishment has, by and large, ignored religious themes associated with the downfall of the USSR in favour of studies that point to an ailing economy or to pressures exerted on the Kremlin by Cold Warriors. The place of Orthodoxy as a factor in the story of Soviet demise has been undeservedly confined to the footnotes, partly due to the failure of Western authors to realize fully the extent to which God-centered religious values continue to influence most of the world’s peoples. An exception to this oversight has been the work of Great Britain’s Keston Institute, where the Garrards have spent considerable time culling through newspaper collections and interviewing staff members who closely watched and sharply criticized the last years of the oppressive Soviet bureaucracy directed by its Council for Religious Affairs. In an oversight of their own, however, the Garrards neglected to mention the outstanding work of the late Jane Ellis and the research efforts conducted at the Aleksanteri Institute at the University of Helsinki.

The authors then go on to describe what they call resurgent Orthodoxy in the years 1989 to 2007, concentrating particularly on the Holy Synod’s clever harnessing of a popular urge to restore beauty to run-down church buildings and revive a number of traditional religious celebrations. The Russian federal government has had neither the means nor the will to resist this activity, which did so much to gather a previously scattered faithful into a collective force supporting the aims of the Moscow Patriarchate’s leadership. In this core section of their narrative, the Garrards also discuss some of the perennial problems Russian Orthodoxy faces and has faced at least since the time of Peter the Great, including anti-Semitism, the unwelcome enthusiasm of Western missionaries, domestic movements promoting monarchism or nationalism in the name of Christianity, and, of course, the latest episode in the age old feud with Rome. One up-to-date chapter explains the success the church has enjoyed in its relations with the Russian Army, but the authors probably should have strengthened their story by including information on efforts to introduce a course on Orthodox culture into the public school system.

One of the most interesting discussions in the Garrards’ work reviews the causes of tension within the Russian Orthodox Church itself. At the root of most of this stress sits the phenomenon of Sergiyanstvo, the decision made in 1927 by the imprisoned Metropolitan Sergy (Stragorodsky) to accept Stalin’s terms for reopening the church. As Sergy was well aware, of course, the so-called reopening meant very little beyond allowing the Soviet government full use of the church to advance its foreign policy aims, and fierce persecution of religion by the regime continued, especially under Nikita Khrushchev. It also meant that no clergyman could be ordained without being vetted by the government and that all bishops were both appointed by the state and obliged to obey instructions handed down by the KGB. Sergy’s decision to accept such severe restrictions in exchange for the survival of the church was and continues to be widely criticized in some Orthodox circles at home and abroad, but the authors treat the entire issue with admirable objectivity and give each point of view in the argument the sensitivity it deserves.

Throughout their analyses, the Garrards point emphatically to the political and theological savvy of Aleksy II as the indispensable element in the church revival since 1991, and, indeed, the late Patriarch was a fearless and foxy leader. His death in December 2008 was a great loss. On the other hand, many clergy deserve more attention than they receive here, if the story of Orthodoxy’s present success in Russia is to be understood. In this regard, Metropolitan Kirill, Father Vsevolod Chaplin, and the late Father Alexander Men’ are only three important names. Moreover, the most prominent intellectuals in Russia today are either lay Orthodox Christians who support the church or religious-minded public figures who have promoted the cause of religious toleration, in some cases when their lives have been in danger. Their ideas and actions have played a crucial part in Orthodoxy’s resurgence and including them would have rendered the Garrards’ narrative more substantial.

Even though the book’s style appeals to a popular readership, scholars will want to study the Garrards’ work. The authors’ personal contacts with many Russians active in church life have awarded them priceless insights, within the reach of very few Westerners, and many important events they witnessed have not been well covered by news outlets. On the other hand, their use of many and at times lengthy flash-backs to past events (initially described in well known volumes of imperial and Muscovite religious histories) will be already well known to serious students of Russia. Furthermore, citing many more Russian language sources in support of the book’s contentions would have established the reference points professional historians like to see.

John D. Basil, University of South Carolina

1b) Patrick Desbois. The Holocaust by Bullets: A Priest’s Journey to Uncover the Truth Behind the Murder of 1.5 Million Jews. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. 272 pp. $26.95 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-230-60617-3.

(This review by Kyle Jantzen, Ambrose University, Calgary appeared on H- German on July 20th 2009 and is here reprinted by kind permission of the author)

The Holocaust by Bullets is a powerful, if unusual, book. Neither
research monograph nor memoir, it describes the efforts of French
priest Patrick Desbois to uncover the nature and scope of the
Holocaust in Ukraine, as well chronicling Desbois’s own path into
Holocaust research. It is comprised not only of the narrative of
Desbois’s efforts and findings, but also contains several transcripts
from among the hundreds of interviews Desbois conducted with
Ukrainian peasants along with sixteen pages of color pictures of
killing sites, Ukrainian peasants, and spent cartridges he and his
team found as evidence of the mass murder of Jews. The result is a
book aimed at the general reader or undergraduate student that
communicates both the brutality of the German mobile killing units
(Einsatzgruppen) that annihilated Jews and the deep trauma they
generated in towns and villages across Ukraine. Desbois also serves
historians of the Holocaust, complementing German and Russian
archival material with oral history, in the process corroborating
much of the early Soviet account of the mass murder of Jews in
eastern Europe and putting a human face on the detached perpetrator
reports so common to Holocaust histories. Indeed, Desbois has
consulted with scholars from Europe, Israel, and North America, and
the book was published with the support of the United States
Holocaust Memorial Museum.

In the early chapters of the book, most of the attention falls on
Desbois and his journey toward the study of the Holocaust, beginning
with his childhood in France. His extended family inculcated in him a
deep sense of responsibility for other people and a strong awareness
of the need for justice, and left with him their memories of the
Second World War and the French Resistance. Along the way, vigorous
debates took place between Catholic and atheist members of his family
about the relevance of Christianity in a world of such evil.
Converted to Christianity during his university years, Desbois
travelled to India to work with Mother Theresa’s mission to the poor,
entered the Roman Catholic priesthood, and later traveled to Africa
to teach mathematics. On a trip to Poland during the Christmas season
of 1990, Desbois realized he was not far from the site of the former
Rawa-Ruska camp in Ukraine, where his grandfather had been held
prisoner. This moment became for him a revelatory one, at which he
began to see the Holocaust as a personal responsibility (p. 15). As a
result, Desbois entered into a period of preparation, studying
Hebrew, attending annual seminars at Yad Vashem, and learning about
Jews and Judaism from colleagues in France. He led a Holocaust study
trip to eastern Europe, and came to realize that witnesses were still
alive who had seen the camps and ghettos, and the mass murders
perpetrated in Poland and Ukraine. Along the way, Desbois became
secretary to the French Conference of Bishops for relations with
Judaism, advisor to the Cardinal-Archbishop of Lyon, and advisor to
the Vatican on the Jewish religion. Some readers may find this
autobiographical beginning to be a distraction, while others will
find it helps them understand the zeal behind the French priest’s
efforts. At the very least, it constitutes a proper admission that an
author’s own experiences and presuppositions shape the work he or she
engages in.

Desbois’s search for Rawa-Ruska and his journeys to other Ukrainian
mass murder sites led to a series of discoveries he describes in
narrative form. He soon found, for instance, that many sites where
Nazis had exterminated large groups of Jews were officially
invisible, with no markers or memorials. Near Lviv, for instance, at
least 90,000 Jews were killed in the Lisinitchi Forest, yet no
public sign marks that event today (p. 111). At other locations,
where memorials commemorating the massacres had been erected, they
were often placed some distance away from the actual killing sites.
One important breakthrough for Desbois and his team was the
realization that killing sites could be discovered by means of metal
detectors–a high concentration of spent cartridges (German ones were
labelled by year and place of manufacture) meant that they had found
the precise location of a mass grave. Desbois also periodically
encountered obstructionism from Ukrainian peasants who did not want
to acknowledge the massacres. When he persisted in asking the
villagers or produced archival evidence demonstrating that massacres
had taken place, however, the stories came tumbling out.

What he learned from elderly Ukrainians reveals not only the
depravity of the Einsatzgruppen, Order Police, and Wehrmacht units
engaged in the killing, but also the deep trauma suffered by
Ukrainians forced to watch their Jewish neighbors, business
associates, schoolmates, and friends being murdered or (worse still)
compelled to assist the killers in their task. For the most part,
Desbois concludes that the callous readiness of the Nazis to kill
when faced with any opposition, no matter how slight, created a
terror that cowed most villagers into silence or cooperation–few
dared to attempt to rescue the Jews living in their midst. Indeed,
Desbois’s interviews reveal just how common it was for the German
forces to conscript Ukrainians to assist in the task of mass murder.
In perhaps the most disturbing section of the book, Desbois catalogs
the various forms of Ukrainian engagement in the Holocaust. Civilians
were ordered to dig burial pits, to cart Jews to execution sites, or
to carry the bodies of Jews from killing sites to mass graves. Other
Ukrainians were made to stand guard over Jews who were about to be
killed, to pull out the Jews’ gold teeth just before execution, or to
walk back and forth across the bodies of dead and wounded Jews so as
to compact the piles of corpses. Still others were recruited to
supply sand and lime to killing sites, to shovel it over the dead and
dying bodies, to supply or spread out the hemp and sunflowers used to
burn corpses, or to spread ash over the sites as part of the
clean-up. Finally, civilians were also forced to cook for the
killers, to provide lodging for the members of _Einsatzgruppen_, to
store shovels and other implements used in the killing process, and
to gather, sort, and mend clothing and other possessions left behind
by Jews and reused or sold by the Germans. As Desbois discovered,
most villagers were commanded to perform such duties at gunpoint.
Even more significantly, he asserts repeatedly that “most of them
were children” (pp. 66, 75, 81, 84, and 97).

In a great many cases, the mass murder of Jews took place right in
Ukrainian villages, especially when partisan operations made the
forests unsafe for the Germans. In one village, a man led Desbois to
the edge of a wide lawn, declaring the ground nearby to be the local
execution site and adding that he had watched the killings from
twenty meters away. At that point in the conversation, other
villagers came running up to Desbois, aware of the subject of the
conversation. One interrupted, exclaiming, “My vegetable allotment
patch. That’s my vegetable patch! Leave our gardens alone” (p. 65).
As Desbois observed, “Without realizing it, with their protestations
they were only confirming what everyone in the area knew: the bodies
of shot Jews were resting under the tomato plants” (p. 65). During
those killing operations, any enclosed space could become a temporary
prison, one of the “antechambers to death” (p. 98). Silos, granaries,
wells, ditches, schools, town halls, synagogues, wine cellars, police
stations, shops, pigsties, chicken coops, and stables were all
employed either as holding cages or killing sites. In other cases,
Jews were shot in the streets right outside the homes of
villagers–homes in which many of those witnesses have lived ever
since, silently carrying the trauma of those experiences throughout
their lives. The most graphic example of this trauma was the
assertion, made over and over by the Ukrainians Desbois interviewed,
that the killing sites “breathed” for three days, as the ground moved
over the bodies of those who were only wounded, but gradually died of
weakness, suffocation, or injury (p. 65).

Time and again, Desbois’s interviews with Ukrainian villagers reveal
the excessive cruelty of Germans and (though less so) of Ukrainians.
In one especially gruesome incident, Germans trapped Jews in the
cellar under the marketplace in the village of Sataniv, walling them
in to die there. For four days, the villagers had to wait until the
ground stopped moving and silence returned to the market. In another
village called Strusiv, the Nazis organized a kind of black Passover,
instructing villagers to post crosses outside their doors and then
killing all those who lived in homes without crosses. In yet another
community, Bertniki, it was a local Ukrainian man who exploited the
plight of Jews, offering to hide them but then smothering them with
quilts during the night. Though Ukrainians were at times complicit in
the mass murder of the Jews, Desbois’s account suggests this was the
exception rather than the rule. More often, he finds, members of the
local non-Jewish population had little choice but to stand aside or
even aid the killing process, lest they be caught up in it
themselves. Readers who have been convinced by the work of Timothy
Snyder, Martin Dean, or Omar Bartov might question this conclusion,
however, and it would have been good had Desbois connected his
findings on the ground to those of researchers working in the
archives.

Several times, Father Desbois explains his motivation for the
difficult task of documenting the Holocaust in Ukraine. Certainly,
the problem of evil has been in the forefront of his mind: “I am
convinced that there is only one human race–a human race that shoots
two-year-old children. For better or worse I belong to that human
race and this allows me to acknowledge that an ideology can deceive
minds to the point of annihilating all ethical reflexes and all
recognition of the human in the other” (p. 67). For Desbois, it is
not enough simply to affirm or to declare truth. Rather, people must
be committed to developing a “deep conscience,” because “conscience
is a fragile entity” (p. 68). Moreover, he sees his work as an act of
justice towards the victims of National Socialism and a deterrent
against future mass murder. Sooner or later, he argues, someone will
uncover the roots of a genocide, no matter who the killers were.

The Holocaust by Bullets is an extremely personal book. Desbois
closes his account by returning in his mind to Rawa-Ruska, the camp
where his grandfather was a prisoner and which sparked his initial
interest in the Holocaust. After reproducing the text of a testimony
about French prisoners of war digging pits for the execution of Jews,
he remembers his grandfather and ponders “a question that will not
leave me alone: Did he see it?” (p. 213). Such a personal story as
this one begs for more contextual information. One might have wished
for an introductory or concluding chapter outlining the course of the
Holocaust in Ukraine, with more background on _Einsatzgruppen _C and
D and a sense of how Desbois’s work fits into the current research on
this mobile phase of the Holocaust. Teachers will want to use this
book as a supplement to (though not a replacement for) conventional
Holocaust texts or other new works.[1] That said, Desbois’s book
serves as a moving introduction to the Holocaust in Ukraine, a
disturbing catalog of mass murder, and a primer on the moral
implications of living in a land where genocide is perpetrated.

Note [1]. Ray Brandon and Wendy Lower, eds., The Shoah in Ukraine:
History, Testimony, Memorialization 
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008).

Kyle Jantzen, Ambrose University, Calgary, Alberta

1c) ed. Stephen Smith and Carol Rittner, No Going Back. Letters to Pope Benedict XVI on the Holocaust, Jewish-Christian Relations and Israel. London: Quill Press 2009 180 pp. ISBN 978-0-955009-2-3.

In May of this year, Pope Benedict XVI paid a goodwill visit to the Middle East. To mark the occasion, two Holocaust scholar-activists, the Briton Stephen Smith and the American Carol Rittner, invited a group of their friends and contacts – Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims – to respond to the question: What would you say to Pope Benedict XVI if you had five minutes with him? This was a challenging assignment, predictably resulting in a number of provocative replies, which are here printed unexpurgated and unabridged. Equally predictably, the suggestions and comments made to the Pope were evidence of the considerable expectations placed upon the pontiff’s influence in the field of Christian-Jewish relations, or alternatively of the disappointments when these hopes have (so far) not been realized. Particularly among the veterans in the field of inter-faith dialogue, especially the Catholics, in the chapter “Relationships”, their sense of disillusionment is readily apparent at what they conceive to be the foot-dragging of the Vatican and its Curia. They have been grieved by such incidents as the papal willingness to be reconciled with the renegade bishop Williamson, who promptly took his revenge by denouncing the Holocaust as a “hoax”, by the still unfinished attempt to grant sanctification to Pope Pius XII, or by the delays in opening up the Vatican archives for the reign of this controversial pontiff. Not surprisingly the Jewish contributors urge Benedict to keep up the momentum of the changes in the relationships between Christians and Jews so notably marked by the issuance of the document Nostra Aetate more than forty years ago. But at the same time, there is an undercurrent of doubt whether in fact, after so many centuries of intolerant bigotry against Jews, the Catholic Church can be reformed, even if John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II have set a splendidly new tone. Even the title of the book seems to suggest a kind of implied ultimatum, issued to a Pope from Germany, whose earlier career had earned him a reputation of rigidity in the defence of Catholic doctrine. Other contributors are kinder. They recognise that after so long a history of mutual antagonisms, there are bound to be recurring incidents which inflame old suspicions. But these should not be placed in the foreground, however irritating they may seem to be to the impatient champions of a truly new and harmonious relationship between Christians and Jews. They should take heart at the very clear stance taken by Benedict XVI, as expressed during his visit to the Yad Vashem Memorial in Jerusalem, when he clearly denied the legitimacy of Holocaust denial and spoke of the importance of remembering the victims and their personal identities.

Very few Protestants contributed, perhaps because Lutherans have yet to come to terms with Martin Luther’s regrettable outbursts of anti-Judaic hatred, while British Protestants have to contend with the legacy of the British Government’s refusal to allow Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany to seek asylum in Palestine, or with the memory of the subsequent conflicts which led up to the establishment of the State of Israel. As one contributor said, Protestants are drawn to give sympathy to the underdog, and this now leads them to favour the oppressed Palestinians. So their enthusiasm for the State of Israel is limited, and shares none of the visceral or even spiritual links held by Jews. In addition, Protestants have for too long “spiritualized” the concept of the Holy Land, so that it no longer has any connection to the actual geography of the Middle East. But at the same time, they acknowledge the Pope’s moral leadership of all Christians, and so urge him “to speak positively about Judaism; to speak decisively about Holocaust denial; to speak clearly about universal moral values; and to speak encouragingly about Jewish–Christian relations, indeed about inter-faith relations generally.”

Each letter is accompanied by some questions which the author would like to have considered, and by a list of books recommended. It also has maps, lists of dates and documents, and even web addresses. These are all most helpful, especially to those whose pilgrimage along this route has only started. So the whole book can be strongly commended. It is available for purchase from The Holocaust Centre, Laxton, near Newark, Nottinghamshire, NG22 0PA, U.K.
JSC

2) Irena Steinfeldt, Seder at the Parish

(This article appeared in Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, Quarterly, Vol 54, July 2009 and is reprinted by kind permission of the author)

While waiting in the Hall of Remembrance during his visit to Yad Vashem, Pope Benedict XVI passed by the tree planted in honour of the Celis family from Belgium: two brothers – Father Hubert and Father Louis Celis, who were Catholic priests – their father and siblings. During the Holocaust the Celis family hid the four Rotenberg children, whose parents had been deported to Auschwitz in November 1942.
To camouflage their identity, the Rotenbergs had to attend church services, but in the privacy if his home, Father Louis Celis made sure that they preserved their Jewish identity, that Wolfgang put on his tefillin (phylacteries) and recited his prayers. After the war Father Hubert Celis wrote: “I never tried to convert the Rotenberg children to the Catholic faith. I always respected their religious beliefs. Mrs Rotenberg had confidence in me and I had given her my word as priest.”

Hundreds of clerics of all Christian denominations have been recognized over the years as Righteous Gentiles Among the Nations, among them many Catholics. Hubert and Louis Celis received the title of Righteous for their role in the rescue of the four Rotenberg siblings, but their conduct is especially admirable because of the deep respect they showed for the children’s religion. Like them, Don Gaetano Tantalo of Tagliacozzo Alto, Italy, not only hid seven members of the Orvieto and Pacifici families, but also went out of his way to enable them to perform Jewish rituals. The page on which he did his calculation to determine the date of Passover is exhibited in Yad Vashem’s Holocaust History Museum, with the fascinating story of the celebration of a Jewish Seder at the home of a parish priest during the German occupation of Italy in 1944.

The attitude of the churches towards rescuing Jews during the Shoah touches upon intricate and often painful questions, and when examining the particulars of every case, the Commission for the Designation of the Righteous is often faced with enormous challenges that reflect the complexity of the topic: the baptizing of children (was it motivated by the theological mission to convert the Jews and save their souls or was the purpose to protect them and hide their Jewish identity?); the return of children to the Jewish fold at the end of the war; what made rescue more recurrent in certain dioceses and religious orders than others; and to what extent did clerics act as individuals or make their decisions as a result of instruction and guidance from their superiors?

Christian conduct during the Holocaust continues to challenge the Christian world well into the twenty-first century. A range of factors played a role in influencing the behaviour of the church leaders and clerics when confronted with the murder of the Jews. Like other groups, many remained silent and a number of clerics went as far as to collaborate, but there were those who risked their lives to rescue Jews. While Christian anti-Jewish theology and its teaching of contempt contributed to indifference and collaboration, other clerics and Christians saw it as their religious duty to intervene and act.
Irena Steinfeldt, Jerusalem.

With every best wish to you all,
John Conway

Share