-
10. A Divided Confessing Church
- University of Nebraska Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
A Divided Confessing Church 93 Berlin) had a decisive influence on the Nazi Jewish legislation, particularly in the timing of the Nuremberg Laws.∞∏ We turn now to the reactions in the Confessing Church to the Nuremberg Laws. ∞≠ A Divided Confessing Church The Confessing Church’s response to Nazi racial laws was marked by growing disagreement among its leaders about what direction the church should take.∞ Their unanimous hostility to the German Christians no longer compensated for their other differences, particularly those rooted in the theological traditions of the various regional churches. These theological differences were underscored by the different circumstances facing each regional church after 1933. Of the twentyeight regional churches, three—the Lutheran churches of Hannover, Bavaria , and Württemberg—remained ‘‘intact’’ after the July 1933 church elections. These churches continued to be governed by their powerful bishops (Marahrens of Hannover, Meiser of Bavaria, and Wurm of Württemberg). In most of the other regional churches, however, the German Christians gained enough administrative seats in the church elections to make life difficult for those who opposed them. These churches were torn by quarreling factions of German Christians, Pastors’ Emergency League members, and moderate members who viewed both other groups as extreme. In some churches, Confessing Christians set up parallel church councils or governments (for example, the Provisional Church Administration established at the 1934 Dahlem Synod, and the local and regional Councils of Brethren) and either ignored or fought the established church authorities. This was the case in much of the Church of the Old Prussian Union (which included the regional churches of Westphalia , Berlin-Brandenburg, and the Rhineland). In Westphalia, for example , church president Karl Koch represented the Confessing Church and ignored the elected German Christian Church Consistory in Münster as best he could. The unanimity achieved at Barmen had transcended regional and confessional lines. Even the bishops of the intact churches initially attended Confessing synods and were members of the Provisional Church Admin- The Isolation of the Jews 94 istration. Increasingly, however, the conservative Lutheran bishops disagreed with their more radical colleagues in the Pastors’ Emergency League. In October 1935, the state stepped in. In an attempt to bring order to the increasingly divided German Evangelical Church, Reich Minister of Church Affairs Hanns Kerrl convened the Reich Church Committee. This committee included the prominent bishops of the intact churches and was led by the seventy-five-year-old retired general superintendent Dr. Wilhelm Zoellner.≤ The intact Lutheran churches and the Councils of Brethren in the divided Lutheran regional churches supported the Reich Church Committee ; the regional churches with a more Reformed theological tradition (such as the Rhineland church) viewed it as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. These divisions led to the final split within the Confessing Church. At the fourth confessional synod in Bad Oeynhausen (17–22 February 1936), the first Provisional Church Administration of the Confessing Church, which had been chaired by Hannover’s Bishop Marahrens, resigned. The second Provisional Church Administration, appointed by the Reich Council of Brethren, represented the more radical line. In supporting the establishment of the Reich Church Committee, the intact church leaders had hoped to keep Confessing Christians, the German Christians, and the ‘‘middle’’ together, thereby preventing a church schism. The German Christians were so radical, however, that there was never much chance that the committee would succeed in calming internal church tensions. State restrictions, particularly on the committee’s ecumenical freedom, eventually led Zoellner to resign. The committee was dissolved in February 1937.≥ In the fall of 1935, the different factions continued to debate the Confessing Church’s proper course under Nazism. In the wake of the Nuremberg Laws, it was not surprising that the delegates to the Steglitz Synod avoided any position that might generate more controversy. It was one more instance of the Confessing Church’s hesitation to speak or act on behalf of the Jews. the steglitz synod At the Augsburg Synod in May 1935, Reformed Berlin superintendent Martin Albertz had urged Westphalian church president Koch to remind the synodal delegates that ‘‘many thousands of Protestant non-Aryans . . . have long awaited a word from the Confessing Church.’’∂ Albertz cited [35.169.107.177] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 18:15 GMT) A Divided Confessing Church 95 Marga Meusel’s first memorandum, ‘‘On the Responsibilities of the Confessing Church toward Non-Aryans.’’ The Augsburg Synod, however, was characterized by its ‘‘silence and staying on the sidelines’’ regarding the plight of non-Aryans.∑ In his farewell...