In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The Defamation of the Jews 64 ‘‘Even in the matter of the Jewish question, which is difficult to make understandable in foreign countries, I found a sympathy that truly surprised me. I repeatedly found that students had dealt intensively with the fundamental aspect of this question and, therefore, expressed a very extensive and objective endorsement of the German government’s actions in this area. This appears to be a point where the German authorities ’ persistent efforts at clarification have been effective.’’π≠ Plaintively, Lilje noted that the reaction in Sweden ‘‘with regard to the Aryan paragraph [is] as negative as before. . . . Yet, occasionally I have found open-mindedness in this area, too.’’ His ‘‘overall impression’’ was that the Swedes ‘‘(have) recognized the historical magnitude of our Chancellor and the purity of his desire. I am of the firm conviction that the good and fair judgment about Germany will win out in the foreseeable future.’’π∞ π The Aryan Paragraph and the Protestant Press the early impact of the aryan paragraph After mid-November 1933, it appeared that the church opposition’s desperate efforts to abolish the Aryan paragraph (in the church, at least) had not been entirely in vain. The excesses of the 13 November German Christian Sports Palace rally, especially a wildly anti-Jewish speech by Berlin regional party chairman Dr. Reinhold Krause, led Reich Bishop Müller to suspend the Aryan paragraph. It was a demonstrative attempt to disassociate himself from the chaotic events in Berlin and save his job. Müller’s unexpected move deferred (‘‘until the announcement of a German Evangelical Church law’’) the implementation of all laws affecting the legal status of clergy and church civil servants that had been passed by the individual regional churches after 1 January 1933.∞ Because this dismissed all pending actions against non-Aryan pastors, many in the church opposition concluded that their efforts on behalf of these colleagues had succeeded and were no longer necessary. This assumption proved to be false, as one example illustrates. In a letter to the Reich bishop on 11 October 1933, Breslau pastor Ernst Hornig protested the application of the Aryan paragraph to ordained clergy, in particular the termination notice given Pastor Friedrich Forell.≤ Hor- The Aryan Paragraph and the Protestant Press 65 nig wrote that Forell’s great merits made it incomprehensible that he should be the only Prussian clergyman dismissed because of the Aryan paragraph; others had been retained ‘‘under similar circumstances.’’ Hornig requested the ‘‘unconditional’’ guarantee of Forell’s pension, along with a promise of his possible ‘‘return to church service in Silesia.’’ Hornig received no reply until 4 January 1934, when the Aryan paragraph was reintroduced in the church. In its response, the Evangelical Central Church Council consented to Forell’s petition for premature retirement (as though Forell had ever requested retirement!) and guaranteed his pension. ‘‘Pastor Forell presumably will enter into the service of the Swedish Society for Missions to Israel. We consider the matter hereby settled.’’≥ The council’s letter revealed the church bureaucracy’s true colors as an adversary of the ‘‘Christian love’’ so often aspired to. Forell’s case was ‘‘settled’’ by aligning the church’s decisions with state laws. At the time Hornig’s letter arrived at the Central Church Council in Berlin, the suspension of the Aryan paragraph was imminent, and any further assurances were superfluous. But, since Müller had only suspended the Aryan paragraph, not annulled it, the church simply waited for the suspension to expire before it ‘‘settled’’ Forell’s case with a gesture of Christian accommodation . There may have been other such cases, particularly after the Aryan paragraph was repealed again in April 1934. The entire situation illustrated the bankruptcy of the church leadership . Junge Kirche, the journal of the church opposition, commented that the Aryan paragraph had become ‘‘almost a ‘shibboleth’ in the church struggle. How has the church government behaved? Just observe: (1) The law is passed (resolution of the General Synod of the Regional Churches of the Old Prussian Union from 6 September 1933). . . . (2) The law is repealed (16 November 1933). . . . (3) The repeal is repealed (Reich bishop decree of 4 January 1934). . . . (4) The repeal of the repeal is repealed (sec. 1 of the Church Law for the Pacification of the Situation in the Church, 13 April 1934). . . . (5) The repeal of the repeal remains in effect (sec. 4 of the same law).’’∂ The Reich bishop’s intellectual and spiritual confusion was matched by...

Share