THE POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF THE TWO KINGDOMS DOCTRINE IN THE NAZI PERIOD: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE GERMAN CHRISTIANS, THE CONFESSING CHURCH, AND THE MENNONITES

JEREMY ROBERT KOOP

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

GRADUATE PROGRAMME IN HISTORY YORK UNIVERSITY, TORONTO, ONTARIO

OCTOBER 2011 Library and Archives Bibliotheque et Canada Archives Canada

Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition

395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-88680-9

Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-88680-9

NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distrbute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.

The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.

In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these.

While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis. Canada Dissertation Abstract

This dissertation investigates Protestant and Mennonite responses within

Germany to National Socialism, and given the real potential for, but lack of, institutional church opposition to the regime, examines whether theological precursors helped determine patterns of Christian political decision-making during the Nazi era. It further examines the extent to which these theological formulations were particularly Lutheran.

As a point of comparison to mainline German Protestantism, the study questions how we can account for the ambiguous and at times ironic reactions within a free church community like the German Mennonites, which possessed a unique, albeit complicated, history of nonresistance and political nonparticipation.

Examining the political-theological positions adopted by Emanuel Hirsch, Karl

Barth, and Benjamin H. Unruh towards the emerging regime - supporting, opposing, or maintaining an ambiguous middle-ground - this dissertation argues that the ways in

which German Protestant theologians related to specific Lutheran theological

formulations - the doctrine of the two kingdoms and natural revelation in particular - significantly informed their political reactions to the temptations and dangers presented

by National Socialism. The theological work of these prominent leaders of the German

Christian movement, the Confessing Church, and the German Mennonites respectively,

further demonstrates the inseparability of theology from politics before, during, and in the aftermath of the Third Reich.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction. 1. Chapter One: The historic origins of the Two Kingdoms Doctrine. 24. Luther's Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms. 27. Historic appropriations of Luther's thought. 36. Chapter Two: Emanuel Hirsch, natural revelation, and volkisch theology. 53. Nationalism and the Protestant churches. 59. The challenge of National Socialism. 67. The origins of Hirsch's political theology. 75. The impact of defeat and Hirsch's developing volkisch theology. 96. Volk and race. 110. Hirsch's turn to National Socialism. 122. Chapter Three: Karl Barth and the theological rejection of National Socialism. 132. The First World War and Barth's theological impasse. 138. A new direction. 143. The basis of a theological dispute. 150. The dispute intensifies. 160. Barth's political theology. 179. The Barmen Declaration and Barth's repudiation of natural revelation. 192. Barth's theological rejection of National Socialism. 207. Chapter Four: Benjamin Unruh, Mennonite pragmatism and theological 228. ambiguity. The challenges of nationalism and Mennonite assimilation. 240. The destruction of the Mennonite commonwealth. 250. Anticommunism and Germanic identity. 261. Mennonites and the Third Reich. 275. Pragmatic and theological foundations of support. 282. Unruh's engagement with the regime. 293. The Rundbriefgemeinschaft. 303.

Conclusion. 318. Bibliography. 332.

v Introduction.

In August 1947, the Council of Brethren of the Evangelical Church - reform- minded leaders within German Protestantism - issued what has become known as the

Darmstadt Statement in an attempt to come to terms with the church's position under

National Socialism, and forge a new path forward. Highly contentious, the "Statement by the Council of Brethren of the Evangelical Church of Germany on the Political Course of

Our People" essentially expounded in specific political terms issues that church leaders had only skirted in the Stuttgart Declaration two years prior.

Months after the Second World War ended, an international delegation from the

World Council of Churches initiated a visit with German church leaders, and pressed them for a statement.1 Intended for a foreign audience, the ensuing Stuttgart Declaration acknowledged the pain caused by the church and the German people, expressed as

"solidarity of guilt". Despite its admission, the declaration was unsatisfactory in numerous respects, failing to refer specifically to National Socialist policies and crimes, or the church's political sympathies. Instead, the declaration put forth that the church had stood against the ideology that resulted in National Socialism, but had not believed, prayed or loved as it ought to have. Insofar as German Protestantism had failed, the declaration presented these shortcomings as religious failures.

1 See: Matthew D. Hockenos, A Church Divided: German Protestants Confront the Nazi Past (Bloomington, 2004). 2 The text of the Stuttgart Declaration is included as an appendix in: John Anthony Moses, The Reluctant Revolutionary: Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Collision with Prusso-German History (New York, 2009), pp. 259- 60. The Evangelical Church in Germany did not present an official statement regarding the "Jewish Question" until April, 1950. 1 Even though vague, the Stuttgart Declaration was met with resistance, perceived

by many Germans as an admission of collective guilt. And whereas reform-minded

church leaders looked for answers for the church's behaviour under National Socialism at

the institutional level, emphasized institutional guilt, and sought public confession,

conservatives generally focused on individual guilt and human sin. Instead of structural

change, conservatives stressed the forgiveness of God's grace.3 Conservatives, therefore,

differentiated between political guilt and the church's guilt, which they considered to be of a religious nature.4

Now in 1947, the Council of Brethren sought to deal with the specific political

underpinnings of Protestantism's political acquiescence, with an obvious vision to the church's future political orientation.5 The Darmstadt Statement began by outlining the

need for absolution "from our common guilt, from our fathers' guilt as well as our own".

Thus the Council of Brethren was both admitting guilt which implicated the present church, but also the church's historic failures. In particular, Darmstadt indicted the historic embrace of both domestic power politics and foreign policy founded on militarism, which, it argued, paved the way for National Socialism and the "unrestricted exercise of political power".6

3 Hockenos, A Church Divided, pp. 63-70. 4 Hockenos, A Church Divided, p. 92. 5 See: Matthew D. Hockenos, "The German Protestant Debate on Politics and Theology after the Second World War", in Dianne Kirby, ed., Religion and the Cold War (New York, 2003), pp. 37-49. 5 The text of the statement is found as an appendix in: Matthew D. Hockenos, "The German Protestant Debate on Politics and Theology after the Second World War", in Dianne Kirby, ed., Religion and the Cold War (New York, 2003), pp. 46-7. 2 The statement continued by confessing that the church had erred by aligning itself

with both political and economic conservatism. Economically, the church had

categorically rejected the impulses of Marxism, which ought to have reminded the church

of its obligation to social justice. Politically, the church's conservatism had propped up

the governing status quo and negated the legitimacy of forcing political change: "We

have denied the right of revolution; but we have condoned and approved the development

of absolute dictatorship".7

Beyond its implications for the Evangelical Church in Germany's relationship to

its troubled past under the Third Reich, and its church-political orientation moving into the Cold War, the Darmstadt Statement and the opposition it engendered are demonstrative of the extent to which postwar Protestant debate was conducted in theological rhetoric.8 In a letter to the Council of Brethren, Hans Asmussen, a leader within the EKD, took issue with Darmstadt's judgments about German nationalism.

According to Asmussen, it was to be remembered that the German fatherland was one of the concrete realities of human life through which God's purposes were made known.9

Moreover, while Asmussen conceded that there were dangers associated with nationalism's abuses, these needed to be considered against the legitimate benefits of a strong state; it was not biblical to consider conservatism and conventional power

7 "A Statement by the Council of Brethren of the EKD Concerning the Political Course of Our People", p. 46. 8 Hockenos, A Church Divided, pp. 3,11. 9 Hans Asmussen, "Schreiben des Leiters der Kirchenkanzlei der EKD Asmussen an den Bruderrat der EKD", in Dorothee Buchhaas-Birkholz, ed., "Zum politischen Weg unseres Volkes Politische Leitbilder und Vorstellungen im deutschen Protestantismus 1945-1952. Ein Dokumentation (Dusseldorf, 1989), p. 106. 3 structures only negatively. Thus, Asmussen remained suspicious about what he

considered to be Darmstadt's legitimating of revolution.10

In keeping with Christian conservatism in general, Asmussen expressed similar

apprehensions about Darmstadt's positive reflections on Marxism in unequivocal terms.

According to Asmussen, Social Democracy had advocated class struggle, greediness, mass murder, the demonizing of political opponents, and the dissolution of the community. Turning Darmstadt's conclusions about the relationship between historic conservative bases of power and their relationship to National Socialism on their head,

Asmussen countered that in fact it had been socialist intolerance which stood as a precursor to Hitlerism."

Biblically, Asmussen based his objections to socialism on the seventh commandment, and it is the theological foundations of Asmussen's objections that are most significant, for they move beyond commonly held secular conservative antisocialism. At the heart of Asmussen's objections to the Darmstadt Statement are his theological reservations about the statement's obvious Barthian influence - that is the influence of Reformed theology over traditional Lutheran doctrine. In part, Asmussen was wary both of what he feared was the statement's conflating of faith and works and its consequent subversion of the Lutheran doctrine of grace, and the statement's understanding of the manner in which sin was absolved.12 Most importantly, however,

10 Asmussen, "Schreiben des Leiters der Kirchenkanzlei der EKD Asmussen", pp. 106-7. 11 Asmussen, "Schreiben des Leiters der Kirchenkanzlei der EKD Asmussen", p. 108. 12 According to Asmussen, "Man kann als Glaubender viel irren und doch selig werden. Man kann aber nicht mit vielen guten Werken ohne Glauben selig werden!" "Schreiben des Leiters der Kirchenkanzlei der EKD Asmussen", p. 110. 4 Asmussen rejected the Reformed understanding of the relationship between gospel and law over and against the Lutheran ordering of law and gospel.13

Considered from the conservative Lutheran perspective, Asmussen's theological reservations were not far off the mark. Karl Barth had been closely involved in the drafting of the Darmstadt Statement, and his theology had clearly held sway. Barth's political-theological influence was most obvious in the implication that the church's past pattern of submission to, and alignment with, conservative institutions had prevented it firom taking a stand and in fact enabled National Socialism, which came closest to an outright denial of traditional Lutheran doctrine that separated the spiritual and worldly spheres.

Most important for our purposes, the fact that the inter-Protestant controversy surrounding the church's postwar statements about its relationship to National Socialism was framed in theological language indicates the inseparability of politics from theology for Protestant church leaders. This connection of politics and theology was not new; rather it was a continuation of politicized theology present in German Protestant thought throughout the Third Reich. This dissertation argues that the postwar controversy reveals the centrality of Lutheran interpretations within the dispute. It contends that the ways in which German Protestant theologians related to specific Lutheran theological formulations - the doctrine of the two kingdoms and natural revelation in particular - significantly contributed to their political orientations to the challenges and temptations

13 Asmussen, "Schreiben des Letters der Kirchenkanzlei der EKD Asmussen", pp. 110-1. The differences between the Reformed and Lutheran positions regarding law and gospel factor squarely in the following discussion. 5 presented by National Socialism. This interconnectedness between political responses to

National Socialism - supporting, opposing, or maintaining an ambiguous middle-ground

- and theological formulations becomes evident through an examination of the work of

German Christian, Confessing Church, and Mennonite theologians.

* * *

When Hitler was made chancellor of Germany in January 1933, the German

Protestant churches stood at a crossroads. On the one hand, the Lutheran provincial churches (Landeskirchen) had maintained intimate relations to the German states since the time of the Reformation, and until the fallout of the First World War and the Kaiser's abdication, church governments had been headed by political rulers. Similarly, Protestant pastors were, to a large extent, intellectual products of the German university faculties, whose members were appointed by state officials rather than the churches themselves.

Coupled with government funding for the churches, German Protestantism retained close organizational ties to the German states, and these structural connections acted in conjunction with general Protestant conservatism and nationalist sympathies to further tighten the bonds between church and state. At the same time, significant sections of

German Protestantism were intent on preserving its theological autonomy, and did so even in the face of the National Socialist programme of coordination (Gleichschaltung).

As Hitler consolidated power in Germany he had aspirations to take over the church; however these were never met. And although he attempted to coordinate the

Landeskirchen into a Reich church, Hitler was unable to fully subjugate German

Protestantism. Despite this failure, the National Socialist revolution produced mixed 6 reactions within German Protestant circles and ultimately resulted in a schism between

the sympathetic German Christian movement (Deutsche Christen) which melded Nazi

ideology and volkisch thought with contemporary theology, and the Confessing Church

(Bekennende Kirche) which sought to safeguard its ecclesial autonomy from National

Socialist interference.

Even though German Protestantism remained fractured throughout the Third

Reich, given their social and political importance within Germany it can be argued that if

any organizations were in a position to apply a brake to National Socialism it was the

German churches. The churches were in a unique position in German society.14 Both the

Protestant and Catholic churches were well established organizations with substantial

resources, a history of political involvement, and a measure of protection and autonomy

from National Socialism that the social impact of church programmes and the sheer

number of loyal Christians in Germany provided. The Nazis were limited to a degree in

the attacks they could make against the churches, especially early on in the Third Reich,

because so many Germans maintained church affiliation. Moreover, the Catholic Church

had signed a concordat with Nazi Germany in 1933 that guaranteed numerous ecclesiastical freedoms. And yet even as the self-professed bastions of morality, the pattern of actions taken by both the Catholic and Protestant churches as institutions

I4See: William Sheridan Allen, "Objective and Subjective Inhabitants in the German Resistance to Hitler", in Frank H. Littell and Hubert G. Locke eds., The German Church Struggle and the Holocaust (Detroit, 1974), p. 115. 7 during the Nazi era illustrates that they opposed National Socialism in defence of strictly confessional interests.15

Although circumscribed, because the Confessing Church positioned itself against the regime in important respects, it should be examined with a view to the broader debate about resistance. There is a general attempt by historians who study resistance movements in Germany to add clarity to the debate by refining the definition of resistance, and distinguishing 'resistance' from 'opposition'. However, the debate tends to become confused by the interchangeability of the terms.16 Differing terminology notwithstanding, conceptually it is more or less agreed upon that a distinction needs to be maintained "between everyday nonconformity, selective opposition to specific policies and practices, and fundamental resistance aimed at overthrowing the Nazi regime".17

These distinctions are of particular importance with regards to Protestant reactions to

National Socialism, where opposition was routinely restricted to particular issues and not

15 The present study does not deal with the Catholic church in Germany. On Catholic responses to the Third Reich see: GOnther Lewy, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (New York, 1964); John S. Conway, The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933-45 (New York, 1968); Ernst Christian Helmreich, The German Churches Under Hitler: Background, Struggle, and Epilogue (Detroit, 1979); Michael Phayer, The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930-1965 (Bloomington, 2000); Beth A. Griech-Polelle, Bishop von Galen: German Catholicism and National Socialism (New Haven, 2002); Kevin Spicer, Resisting the Third Reich. The Catholic Clergy in Hitler's Berlin (DeKalb, 2004); and Suzanne Brown-Fleming, The Holocaust and Catholic Conscience. Cardinal Aloisius Muench and the Guilt Question in Germany (Notre Dame, 2005). On Catholics see also Oded Heilbronner, "From Ghetto to Ghetto: The Place of German Catholic Society in Recent Historiography", The Journal of Modern History, 72 (2) (2000), pp. 453-95. 16 Kershaw argues that "If the meaning of 'resistance' is not to be wholly diluted, it seems sensible to restrict it to active participation in organized attempts to work against the regime with the conscious aim of undermining it or planning for the moment of its demise". Ian Kershaw, Popidar Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich: Bavaria 1933-1945 (Oxford, 1983), pp. 2-3. Claudia Koonz distinguishes between "the 'resister' - a person who openly opposed the Nazis" and "the 'opponent' - a person who acted to thwart a particular policy that touched his or her daily life, while assenting in general to Nazi aims and ideals". Claudia Koonz, "Choice and Courage" in David Clay Large, ed., Contending with Hitler: Varieties of German Resistance in the Third Reich (Cambridge, 1991), p. 51. 17 David Clay Large, ed., Contending with Hitler: Varieties of German Resistance in the Third Reich (Cambridge, 1991), p. 4. 8 directed against the regime as a totality - actions of individuals Claudia Koonz would

identify as opponents, and Martin Broszat would call partial resisters.18

There has not been a consensus amongst historians about the motivation of those

who resisted National Socialism. Many of the first accounts of German resistance were

essentially hagiographies, presenting the motivation for dissent as principled and moral -

beyond national or particular interests. Later revisionists, many of whom were not

Germans, complicated the picture of resistance movements by outlining pragmatic

reasons alongside ideals, and noting the important role of German patriots who were

trying to stave off the destruction of the nation. Moreover, it became clear that there was

no unified and coordinated 'Resistance'. Instead, various and diverse groups with

differing social and political ideals rejected aspects of National Socialism and positioned

themselves against the regime. Many of these resisters were supportive of parts of

National Socialism's social revolution and the German recovery, and had opposed

parliamentarism and the Republic's weakness.19

18 Broszat distinguishes between resistance and opposition, where opposition is "organized", "fundamental", and "determined"; while resistance is "partial", and found in broader sections of German society. Martin Broszat, "A Social and Historical Typology of German Opposition to Hitler", in David Clay Large, ed., Contending with Hitler: Varieties of German Resistance in the Third Reich (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 25-7. 19 Theodore S. Hamerow, On the Road to the Wolfs Lair: German Resistance to Hitler (Cambrige, 1997), pp. 8-10; Hans Mommsen, "The German Resistance against Hitler and the Restoration of Politics", Journal of Modern History 64 suppl. (1992), p. SI 14; Shelley Baranowski, "Consent and Dissent: The Confessing Church and Conservative Opposition to National Socialism," Journal of Modern History 59 (1987), p. 54. As examples of studies emphasizing the moral component of resistance, both earlier and more recent, see: Hans Rothfels, The German Opposition to Hitler (Hinsdale, 1948); Gerhard Ritter, The German Resistance: Carl Goerdeler's Struggle against Tyranny (New York, 1958); Peter Hoffmann, German Resistance to Hitler (Cambridge, 1988); Lowell C. Green, Lutherans Against Hitler: The Untold Story (St. Louis, 2007). Green's study is veiy apologetic of the Erlangen faculty and the Confessional Lutheran position in general, and is consistently critical of what Green considers to be Barth's divisive influence. Green goes so far as to draw similarities between Barth and Hitler, pp. 225, 236. 9 Like scholarship investigating German resistance to National Socialism - much of which also examined the role of the churches as potential centres of resistance - the significant body of work on the churches during the Third Reich has also evolved. This scholarship, over time, has generally moved away from the pattern of earlier, more apologetic studies which depicted the German churches as victims of National Socialist totalitarian machinations.20 Similarly, instead of identifying a broad 'church struggle' against National Socialism as part of a wider German resistance, the church struggle is better represented as an inter-Protestant conflict to control the future of the Protestant church.

In conjunction with the emphasis on Protestantism's inner divisions, scholars have demonstrated that despite the opposition between the Confessing Church and the

German Christians, there was no real concerted Protestant criticism of National Socialism itself, even within the Confessing Church.21 Instead, studies have established that significant segments of German Protestantism had an affinity for tenets of National

Socialism.22 These findings have been supported by more recent local studies which,

20 See for example: John S. Conway, The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933-45 (New York, 1968); Beate Ruhm von Oppen, Religion and Resistance to Nazism (Princeton, 1971); Hubert G. Locke, ed., The Church Confronts the Nazis: Barmen then and Now (Toronto, 1984); Theodore N. Thomas, Women Against Hitler: Christian Resistance in the Third Reich (London, 1995). 21 See for example: Hans Prolingheuer, "Der ungekampfte Kirchenkampf 1933-1945 - das politische Versagen der Bekennenden Kirche", Neue Stimme Sonderheft 6 (1983), pp. 3-34; Wolfgang Gerlach, A Is die Zeugen schwiegen: Bekennende Kirche und die Juden (Berlin, 1987); Shelley Baranowski, The Confessing Church, Conservative Elites, and the Nazi State (Queenston, 1986); Victoria Barnett, For the Soul of the People: Protestant Protest Against Hitler (Oxford, 1992). 22 See for example: Robert P. Ericksen, Theologians Under Hitler: Gerhard Kittel, Paul Althaus and Emanuel Hirsch (New Haven, 1985); Manfred Gailus, Protestantismus und Nationalsozialismus: Studien zur nationalsozialistischen Durchdringung des protestantischen Sozialmilieus in Berlin (K5ln, 2001); Ernst Christian Helmreich, The German Churches Under Hitler: Background Struggle, and Epilogue (Detroit, 1979); Susannah Heschel, The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany 10 while allowing a more focussed and nuanced look at the church struggle than broader institutional studies, have reinforced the importance of the Protestant milieu as a factor in the reception of National Socialism.23

Given this perspective, perhaps the most productive approach to interpreting responses to National Socialism is to attempt to understand the relationship between political and ethical thought, and the ways in which both were informed by an individual's circumstances. Following this line of reasoning those who opposed National

Socialism could be both idealistic and pragmatic, as their politics would reflect their ethics and their intellectual and material contexts.24 On the other end of the spectrum, examining the interplay between political and ethical thought sheds light on reasons behind the varying degrees of acquiescence to, and acceptance of, National Socialist ideology, under the assumption that the Nazi indoctrination of society was not total.25 In terms of examining theologians who continually framed their responses to National

Socialism in theological terms, it is similarly useful to examine the extent to which

(Princeton, 2008); Doris L. Bergen, Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movement in the Third Reich (Chapel Hill, 1996); Gerhard Lindemann, "Typisch Judisch": Die Stellungder Ev.luth. Landeskirche Hannovers zu Antijudaismus, Judenfeindschaft und Antisemitismus 1919-1949 (Berlin, 1998); Ernst Klee, "Die SA Jesu Christi": Die Kirche im Banne Hitlers (Frankfurt a.M, 1989). 23 See for example: Kyle Jantzen, Faith and Fatherland: Parish Politics in Hitler's Germany (Minneapolis, 2008); Thomas Fandel, Konfession und Nationalsozialismus. Evangelische und katholische Pfarrer in der Pfalz 1930-1939 (Paderborn, 1997); Bjorn Mensing, Pfarrer und Nationalsozialismus. Geschichte einer Verstrickung am Beispiel der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche in Bayern (Gottingen, 1998); Manfred Gailus, Protestantismus und Nationalsozialismus: Studien zur nationalsozialistischen Durchdringung des protestantischen Sozialmilieus in Berlin (Koln, 2001). Compare these studies to more institutional studies: Klaus Scholder, The Churches and the Third Reich 2 vols., trans. John Bowden (London, 1987-1988); and Kurt Meier, Der evangelische Kirchenkampf3 vols. (Gdttingen, 1976-1984). 24 See for example: Joachim Fest, Plotting Hitler's Death, trans. Bruce Little (New York, 1996), p. 326. 25 Hans Mommsen has suggested that instead of the picture of National Socialism's total control of German society through coercive forces and indoctrination, German society is better described as suffering from "a cynical mentality of sheer survival, of passivity, and of conformism". Mommsen, "The German Resistance against Hitler and the Restoration of Politics", p. S12S. 11 political thought and subsequent action were informed by their theological

"yt\ formulations.

Ultimately we must conclude that the motivation behind those Protestant church

leaders who did provide opposition to the regime was mixed, and collective institutional

action was limited. The Protestant clergy was generally patriotic, nationalistic, and opposed the Versailles treaty and the German losses; therefore significant sections were tempted by National Socialism's promises. Thus, instead of constituting organized resistance, German Protestantism divided, and even those parts of the church which

rejected the National Socialist Gleichschaltung essentially acted in order to protect their own confessional interests.27

Given the real potential for church resistance to the Nazi regime, and holding

German Protestantism to the standards of morality it recognized in itself, important questions arise about theological precursors that helped determine patterns of political decision-making, and the extent to which these theological formulations were particularly

Lutheran. Stated differently, to what extent did belief systems impact political decision­ making at different historic junctures? In particular, did German Lutheranism contribute to the reception of National Socialism?

26 See for example: Diether Goetz Lichdi, "The Story of Nazism and its Reception by German Mennonites", Mennonite Life, 36 (1981), p. 26. Following Michael Geyer, Beth Griech-Polelle suggests that with respect to church leaders it is of use to "evaluate resisters in light of their ability to mobilize public opinion in such a way as to build solidarity where little or none had previously existed", thereby placing a "moral imperative" on their actions. Beth A. Griech-Polelle, Bishop von Galen: German Catholicism and National Socialism (New Haven, 2002), p. 4. See also: Michael Geyer, "Resistance as Ongoing Project: Visions of Order, Obligations to Strangers, Struggles for Civil Society", Journal of Modern History, 64, suppl. (1992), pp. S217-S241. 27 Victoria Barnett, For the Soul of the People: Protestant Protest Against Hitler (Oxford, 1992) p. 58. Barnett concludes that essentially the Confessing Church was a "loyal opposition" geared towards protecting the church's autonomy, but otherwise not criticizing National Socialist policy. 12 As a point of comparison to mainline German Protestantism, how do we account

for the ambiguous and at times ironic reactions within a free church community like the

German Mennonites, which possessed a unique - albeit complicated - history of nonresistance and political nonparticipation? A comparative examination of the political- theological positions adopted by prominent leaders of the German Christian movement, the Confessing Church, and the German Mennonites sheds considerable light on these pertinent questions.

The present study investigates the effects that a particular interpretation of

Lutheran doctrine had on German Protestant thought - as manifested in Emanuel

Hirsch's volkisch theology, his emphasis on the state, and reconciliation of the Christian's full participation within the regime - in a comparative framework with Karl Barth's rejection of National Socialism, and Benjamin H. Unruh's Mennonite perspective during the 1920s and 1930s in Germany. Essentially the study contends that there is an important connection between ethics and politics, whereby political behaviour is significantly informed by, and reflective of, an individual's intellectual context.

Therefore, to a significant degree the ways in which German Protestant and Mennonite theologians related to the doctrine of the two kingdoms informed their political reactions to National Socialism. Put simply, the Lutheran legacy in Germany contributed to the reception of National Socialism through the ways in which a particular extension of

Lutheran thought was leveraged politically.

Lutheranism was an integral component in German society and a formative influence on modern German culture. However, it cannot be uncritically suggested that 13 Lutheranism in its entirety - that is to say something intrinsic about Lutheranism as a whole - fatalistically paved the way for National Socialism. Still, it can be maintained that aspects of Lutheranism's teaching on the church's relationship to temporal authority had a depoliticizing effect on German Protestants in the sense that both the implications of the doctrine of the two kingdoms, and a belief in the orders of creation prevented

Lutheran criticism of the National Socialist state.28 Where individuals were located theologically had a bearing on how they dealt with problems in society and state. Thus, the ways in which the particular Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms was engaged by church leaders sheds considerable light on the differing Protestant responses to National

Socialism.

Within the historiography on the inter-Protestant conflict to control the future of the German church, Karl Barth is dealt with extensively; Emanuel Hirsch is dealt with less so. Generally speaking, the bellicose personal relationship between Barth and

28 Jantzen, Faith and Fatherland, p. 28. 29 See for example: Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts, trans. John Bowden (London, 1976); George Hunsinger, ed., Karl Barth and Radical Politics (Philadelphia, 1976); Timothy J. Gorringe, Karl Barth: Against Hegemony (Oxford, 1999); Frank Jehle, Ever Against the Stream: The Politics of Karl Barth, 1906-1968, trans. Richard and Martha Burnett (Grand Rapids, 2002); Mark L. Lindsay, Covenanted Solidarity: The Theological Basis of Karl Barth's Opposition to Nazi Antisemitism and the Holocaust (New York, 2001); Friedrich-Wilhelm Marquardt, Theologie und Sozialismus: Das Beispiel Karl Barths (Munich, 1985); John H. Yoder, Karl Barth and the Problem of War & Other Essays on Barth ed., Mark Thiessen Nation (Eugene, 2003); Bruce L. McCormack, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development 1909-1936 (Oxford, 1995); Franz G.M. Feige, The Varieties of Protestantism in Nazi Germany: Five Theopolitical Positions (Lewiston, 1990); Jack Forstman, Christian Faith in Dark Times: Theological Conflicts in the Shadow of Hitler (Louisville, 1992); A. James Reimer, The Emanuel Hirsch and Paul Tillich Debate: A Study in the Political Ramifications of Theology (Queenston, 1989); Gunda Schneider-Flume, Die politische Theologie Emanuel Hirschs 1918-1933 (Frankfurt, 1971); Jens Holger Schjarring, Theologische Gewissenethik undpolitischen Wirklichkeit: Das Beispiel Eduard Geismars und Emanuel Hirschs (Gottingen, 1979); Heinrich Assel, Der Andere Aufbruch: Die Lutherrenaissance - Urspriinge, Aporien und Wege: Karl Holl, Emanuel Hirsch, Rudolph Hermann (1910-1935) (GSttingen, 1994); Martin Ohst, "Kriegserfahrung und Gottesglaube. Zu den 'Schopfheim Predigten' (1917) von Emanuel Hirsch", in Gudrun Litz, Heidrun Munzert and Roland 14 Hirsch - evidenced through their prolonged personal and public correspondence - and the

direct relationship between their respective political theologies has been insufficiently

examined.30 Beyond Mennonite scholars, Unruh is not dealt with in the broader

scholarship, and the Mennonite historiography itself is complicated by Unruh's

prominent status within the community, and the vast legacy of his work on behalf of

displaced and immigrant Mennonites.31 Moreover, whereas the historiography includes

important works on both the German Christian movement and the Confessing Church, the church struggle is depicted almost exclusively as the schism between these two groups - more recently highlighting the common assumptions found within wide sections of German Protestantism - without extensively treating the free churches, much less the

Mennonites in this context.32 The general focus on the Confessing Church and German

Liebenberg eds., Frommigkeit, Theologie, Frommigkeitstheologie: Contributions to European Church History: Festschrift fur Berndt Hamm zum 60. Geburtstag (Leiden, 2005); Robert P. Ericksen, Theologians Under Hitler: Gerhard Kittel, Paid Althaus and Emanuel Hirsch (New Haven, 1985); James A. Zabel, Nazism and the Pastors: A Study of the Ideas of Three 'Deutsche Christen' Groups (Missoula, 1976). 30 For a brief treatment of the correspondence see: Walter Buff, "Karl Barth und Emanuel Hirsch: Anmerkungen zu einem Briefwechsel" in Hans Martin Muller, ed., Christliche Wahrheit und neuzeitliches Denken: zu Emanuel Hirschs Leben und Werk (Tubingen, 1984), pp. 15-36. 31 The only full-length biography of Unruh at present is highly apologetic: Heinrich B. Unruh, Fiigung und Fiihrungen: Benjamin Heinrich Unruh 1881-1959. Ein Leben im Geiste christlicher Humanitat und im Dienste der Nachstenliebe (Detmold, 2009). See also: Abraham Friesen, In Defense of Privilege: Russian Mennonites and the State before and during World War I (Winnipeg, 2006); Jakob Warkentin, "Benjamin Heinrich Unruh: Teacher, Scholar, Statesman 1881-1959", trans. Victor G. Doerksen in Harry Loewen, ed., Shepherds, Servants and Prophets: Leadership Among the Russian Mennonites (ca. 1800-1960) (Kitchener, 2003), pp. 401-25; Frank H. Epp, Mennonite Exodus: The Rescue and Resettlement of the Russian Mennonites Since the Communist Revolution (Altona, 1962). 32 On the firee churches see: Diether G8tz Lichdi, Mennoniten im Dritten Reich: Dokumentation und Deutung (Weierhof, 1977); Hans-Jurgen Goertz, "Nationale Erhebung und religiflser Niedergang: Missgluckte Aneignung des tauferischen Leitbildes im Dritten Reich", in his Umstrittenes Tdufertum 1525- 1975: Neue Forschung (G5ttingen, 1975), pp. 259-89; Mark Jantzen, Mennonite German Soldiers: Nation, Religion, and Family in the Prussian East, 1772-1880 (Notre Dame, 2010); John D. Thiesen, Mennonite and Nazi? Attitudes among Mennonite Colonists in Latin America, 1933-1945 (Kitchener, 1999); James Irvin Lichti, Houses on the Sand? Pacifist Denominations in Nazi Germany (New York, 2008); Christine King, The Nazi State and the New Religions: Five Case Studies in Non-conformity (New York, 1982); Karl 15 Christian dispute is understandable; the present study nonetheless attempts to address this gap-

Similarly, the political ramifications of Lutheran doctrine are discussed within different contexts in the wider literature with varying degrees of success, but the particular use of the doctrine of the two kingdoms as a sustained interpretive framework offers a new perspective.33 The present study therefore builds upon scholarship which has demonstrated the Lutheran precursors to the Protestant attraction or acquiescence to

National Socialism through its analytical scope - by measuring individuals' political reactions gauged by a particular doctrine, as evidenced by their theological writings.

In his study, The Varieties of Protestantism in Nazi Germany, Franz Feige outlined five theo-political responses to National Socialism including "the confessional and a-political stance represented by the Confessing Church", and "the 'German

Christians' as the Nazis in the church". However, unlike Feige, the present study does not attempt to use Hirsch, Barth, or Unruh as representatives of a typology; rather it attempts to parallel them within an interpretive framework, and in relation to common historic junctures. As a second point of contrast, in Theologians Under Hitler, Robert Ericksen examined Emanuel Hirsch's attraction to National Socialism in comparison with two

Zehrer, Evangelische Freikirchen und das 'Dritte Reich' (Gottingen, 1986); Andrea Striibind, Die unjreie Freikirche. Der Bund der Baptistengemeinden im 'Dritten Reich' (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1991). 33 Robert P. Ericksen, Theologians Under Hitler: Gerhard Kittel, Paul Althaus and Emanuel Hirsch (New Haven, 1985); Karl Kupisch, "The 'Luther Renaissance'", Journal of Contemporary History, 2 (1967), pp. 39-49; Hans Tiefel, "The German Lutheran Church and the Rise of National Socialism", Church History, 41 (1972), pp. 326-36; Hans Tiefel, "Use and Misuse of Luther During the German Church Struggle", The Lutheran Quarterly, 25 (1973), pp. 395-411; Klaus Scholder, The Churches and the Third Reich. Vol. One: Preliminary History and the Time of Illusions 1918-1934, trans. John Bowden (London, 1987), pp. 99-119; Hartmut Lehmann, "Hitlers evangelische Wahler", in his Protestantische Weltsichten. Transformationen seitdem 17. Jahrhundert (G6ttingen, 1998), pp. 130-52. 16 other prominent German theologians: Gerhard Kittel and Paul Althaus. Ericksen concluded that Kittel, Althaus, and Hirsch "were well-meaning, intelligent and respectable individuals who also happened to support Adolf Hitler", each having

"developed a rationale for his political stance which was intellectually defensible".34

Ultimately, however, Ericksen maintained that the "arbitrary" material factors of life go

further in explaining political orientation than do intellectual factors.35

Whereas Ericksen's work prioritized "factors of background and environment",

the present study approaches the question of intellectuals' responses to the Third Reich

from a different perspective, by investigating the theological influence on politics.36

Therefore rather than focussing on Hirsch's, Barth's, and Unruh's influence on their

respective constituencies - while acknowledging that they certainly were highly

influential - more attention is paid to how each individual arrived at his theo-political

position.

Ericksen's work and studies that similarly prioritize pragmatic or material causes

certainly further our understanding of the political responses to National Socialism within

Germany's Protestant milieu. At the same time, theology must be taken seriously as a

contributing factor. Dietrich BonhoefFer serves as a fitting example. In his introductory

section Ericksen specifically questioned whether the differences between Kittel's,

Althaus', and Hirsch's support for the Fuhrer, and Bonhoeffer's well known decision to

join the conspiracy to kill Hitler can be explained based on their theological positions.

34 Ericksen, Theologians Under Hitler, p. 26. 35 Ericksen, Theologians Under Hitler, pp. 25-6. 36 Ericksen, Theologians Under Hitler, p. 25. 17 Ericksen suggested no; Bonhoeffer's Barthian dialectical theology cannot be the answer,

for dialectical theologians like Friedrich Gogarten supported Hitler. Instead, Ericksen emphasized the fact that "Bonhoeffer had both an English family tie and international

living experiences to give him a cosmopolitan outlook on life".37 Hirsch, by contrast was the product of a conservative, nationalist environment.

The comparison is striking, but could a 'cosmopolitan' attitude of itself have immunized Bonhoeffer against Nazism? Like Hirsch, Bonhoeffer had Prussian family: he was born in Breslau and his maternal grandfather had served as the court chaplain for

Wilhelm II. If Hirsch's political orientation can be explained by his Prussianism, it would seem to follow that so too could Bonhoeffer's, especially given his aristocratic connections. No doubt Hirsch's environment and familial influences played an important role in his decision to support Hitler; but it appears equally important that whereas Hirsch

- as a theologian - enthusiastically appropriated the doctrine of the two kingdoms,

Bonhoeffer - also a theologian, but despite his own Prussian Lutheran influences - followed Barth in rejecting it.

There is a danger inherent in suggesting that an aspect of Lutheran theology contributed to a positive reception of National Socialism. A sense of inevitability can easily be affixed to Germany's past whereby a causal chain is constructed linking

Luther's thought and the Reformation through to a failed bourgeois revolution in 1848; to

Bismarck, unification and the apparent triumph of Prussian authoritarianism; straight

37 Ericksen, Theologians Under Hitler, p. 26. 18 through to Hitler's seizure of power and the Nazi ascendancy. These rigid causal links simply do not exist.

At the same time, an examination of German theological thought reveals evidence of continuity, accounting, in part, for the complacency or even enthusiasm of significant sections of German Protestantism throughout the Third Reich. Continuity, however, is not tantamount to causality. Nor can it be maintained that the continuity within German theological thought remained static. It is more appropriately referred to as evolving.

The idea of evolving continuity seems to fit with arguments Helmut Walser Smith has recently put forward in which he positions himself against "chronologically myopic" histories of the German twentieth century.38 In his study of antisemitism across the 'long nineteenth century' to the Holocaust, Smith traces lines of continuity within European conceptualizations of nation, religion, and race as he examines the transformation of antisemitic violence and its theatricality from localized, limited acts, to murder justified by a nationalist framework.39 Significantly, Smith's study demonstrates the transformation of continuous patterns within a broad scope of German history. The

Holocaust as "unconditional genocide" was unprecedented in German history; however continuity exists "in the imagination of expulsion, in the severing of ties to others, and in

38 Helmut Walser Smith, The Continuities of German History: Nation, Religion, and Race across the Long Nineteenth Century (Cambridge, 2008), p.3. Smith refers to what he considers to be "an emerging historiographical consensus that confines questions concerning the continuities of German history to the short, violent twentieth century", pp. 6-7. 39 Walser Smith contends that continuity "does not mean that events from a given point tend to a certain outcome, or that the later point merely reiterates a starting point"; and similarly rejects the idea that "from a certain point, change is mainly endogenous (i.e., unaffected by events external to the system) and thus determined by factors specific to Germany..." The Continuities of German History, p. 10. 19 the violent ideologies, nationalism, anti-Semitism, and racism, that make these things

possible to think, support, and enact".40

Along similar lines, the emergence of National Socialism was unlike previous systems of authority in Germany; but there were enough points of attraction to tempt significant sections of German Protestantism. Longstanding theological sympathies for, or at least submission to, secular authority further smoothed the transition.

As an important corollary, the doctrine of the two kingdoms needs to be considered in conjunction with contemporaneous theological understandings of divine revelation to humanity, for in critical ways these lines of thought were mutually reaffirming. The interaction between the doctrine of the two kingdoms and a belief in

God's continued revelation through the natural world is most evident in Emanuel Hirsch.

The Volk as an interpretive category became central to Hirsch's theology and consequent political thought.41 For Hirsch, nationality and the German Volk were instruments of divine revelation; national history was a record of God's interaction with the German people. When coupled with the conviction that an individual's personal-spiritual sphere was parallel to, and therefore not antagonistic towards, the broader human-political sphere, there remained no incongruence between the ethical claims of Christianity on an individual and full participation within political society. This belief enabled Hirsch to reconcile political participation within National Socialism and ultimately consider

National Socialism the culmination of Germany's providential history. Contrarily, Barth

40 Walser Smith, The Continuities of German History, pp. 232, 233. 41 A. James Reimer, The Emanuel Hirsch and Paul Tillich Debate: A Study in the Political Ramifications of Theology (Queenston, 1989), p. 54. 20 vehemently denied the possibility of natural revelation, and linked it to what he considered to be the false dichotomy and dangerous Lutheran legacy of the doctrine of the two kingdoms.

If Barth and Hirsch stand at opposite ends of the spectrum of serious theological responses to the Third Reich, Unruh's enthusiastic reception of tenets of National

Socialism, filtered through his Mennonitism, stands him somewhere in between. Because all three theologians consistently and purposefully formulated their relationships to

National Socialism in theological terms, Barth's political opposition, Hirsch's fervent nationalism and its dangerous implications, and Unruh's complicated and often ironic relationship to his Mennonite theological traditions need to be understood from a theological perspective.

Whereas Barth and Hirsch were at one time friends and colleagues, became heated public theological opponents, and maintained a decades-long correspondence, the rationale behind Unruh's inclusion in the present comparative framework might not be immediately evident. Beyond being contemporaries (all three were born in the 1880s) and sharing similar theological training, each had to formulate his own personal theology in the wake of the calamitous events and uncertainty of the early twentieth century; and each had to make sense of, and negotiate, the National Socialist era.42 Additionally,

Unruh's perspective widens the scope of investigation to incorporate the effects of

Lutheranism within an historical German free church, a perspective most often pushed to

42 Unruh b. 1881; Barth b. 1886; Hirsch b. 1888. 21 the margins of church histories of the Third Reich due to the relative prominence and importance of Lutheranism in Germany.

The present study begins by examining the historic origins of the doctrine of the two kingdoms and its unique place in German history. Chapter two then builds upon the foundation of the doctrine to discuss the Lutheran theological-political legacy in

Germany and the impact of German nationalism on the Protestant church. This legacy factored squarely into the development of Emanuel Hirsch's understanding of natural revelation and his vdlkisch theological framework, as he moved towards a theologically based acceptance of National Socialism.

Like Hirsch, Barth also anticipated National Socialism; however while Hirsch awaited a national revolution, Barth predicted the dangerous ramifications of a nationalistically oriented theology based on natural revelation. The First World War was arguably equally significant for Barth and Hirsch. But whereas the war deeply disappointed Hirsch's dreams of a national rejuvenation based on the 'spirit of 1914', the war led Barth to realize the bankruptcy of his previous theological underpinnings.

Chapter three examines Barth and Hirsch's prolonged theological quarrel, and the basis of Barth's evolving rejection of National Socialism.

It can be argued that if any German church community had the historical theological foundations to reject the National Socialist state it was the Mennonites. And yet this is not what happened. Many Mennonites welcomed Hitler's ascension to power, and prominent Mennonite leaders like Benjamin H. Unruh were largely uncritical in their

22 support of the regime.43 When Mennonites did reject the Nazi Weltanschauung, they generally reverted to political quietism and withdrawal. Therefore the Mennonite perspective is a fitting counterpoint to mainline Protestantism. These themes are discussed in Chapter four.

Because Hirsch, Barth, and Unruh were theologians who consistently worked through their relationships to the current political climate in theological terms, it makes sense that their reactions to National Socialism be interpreted through a theological framework. More specifically, Hirsch and Barth both actively engaged the doctrine of the two kingdoms - albeit from opposing sides - from the perspective that it held a key to understanding German society's relationship to the Nazi regime. While Unruh did not appeal to the doctrine as explicitly as did Hirsch and Barth, his simultaneous engagement with traditional Mennonitism and work alongside state apparatuses demonstrates the tension between historical attitudes of nonresistance and the pulls of political participation. Our understanding of divergent theological-political responses to National

Socialism is therefore broadened by an examination into the various receptions and usages of the doctrine of the two kingdoms.

43 It is important to note at this point that personal support for Hitler in Germany outstripped a general support for the NSDAP. It was similarly possible to support Hitler while remaining critical of Nazi policies and ideology. Ian Kershaw, The 'Hitler MythImages and Reality in the Third Reich (Oxford, 1987), p. 1. 23 Chapter One: The historic origins of the Two Kingdoms Doctrine.

In order to fully use the different responses to Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms as an interpretive framework, it is necessary that we trace the origins and development of his two kingdom imagery. Summarized briefly, Luther disagreed with

Aristotle's assumption that humans are inherently political animals and reach their full potential within political society.44 Rather, Luther maintained that the order of law was established by God as the direct result of human sin. Thus, magistrates and the institution of government are divine ordinances to provide peace and justice to a fallen world. The

Christian, according to Luther, belongs to two kingdoms while on earth, and is in turn subject to two governments. Within the personal sphere, where the Christian exists before

God, the Christian is commanded to love, endure wrongs, forgive, and sacrifice at the individual level. In society, the Christian, as are all citizens, is subject to the law. God has

given the sword, and the magistrate rules with coercive force to maintain peace and

justice.45

Luther's use of the metaphor and its immediate and later political ramifications

are most significant for the course of German history, but it is impossible to discuss

Luther's formulation without first acknowledging his indebtedness to Augustine and

classical and biblical traditions.

When Augustine wrote City of God his intention was to present a thorough and

convincing defence of "the glorious City of God against those who prefer their own gods

44 David C. Steinmetz, "Luther and the Two Kingdoms", in his Luther in Context (Bloomington, 1986), p. 114. 45 Martin Luther, On Secular Authority: how far does the Obedience owed to it extend? in Harro Hopfl ed. and trans. Luther and Calvin on Secular A uthority (Cambridge, 1991). 24 to the Founder of that City".46 Thematically, City of God expounds Augustine's belief about the true nature of reality and society, the consequences of the Fall and original sin, and the importance of revelation and grace in salvation. Most important for our purposes,

Augustine established a binary distinction to which all human beings necessarily belong, as either citizens of the City of God, or citizens of the earthly city.

The combination of classical influences and Christian orthodoxy are evident throughout City of God, and its allegorical structure is reminiscent of both classical and biblical tropes.47 In Augustine's case, he used this literary convention to convey human history as a dichotomy between the two cities, but his description was not intended to be prescriptive for future states.48 Augustine divided all of humanity according to one criterion - the object of an individual's love. Individual behaviour is either governed by love of self, or love of God. The two are mutually exclusive, and the pattern holds true for all of time. In fact, this singular underlying tension is what has divided humankind

46 Augustine, City of God, trans. Henry Bettenson (London, 1972) 1.1, p. 5. 47 John Neville Figgis suggested that John's Revelation is a likely source of the two cities imagery, but took it as "almost certain that Augustine took it from Tyconius, the Donatist whom he respected so greatly". John Neville Figgis, The Political Aspects of S.Augustine's 'City of God' (Gloucester, 1963), p. 46. Gerard O'Daly has suggested as influences: Jewish apocalypticism; John's Revelation; "the typological use of Jerusalem and Babylon in Christian writings from Paul to Ambrose"; and the pattern of "antitheses in Donatist theology, especially in the writings of Tyconius, who, though not an orthodox Donatist, held beliefs formed by the views of that schismatic movement". Gerard O'Daly, Augustine's City of God: A Reader's Guide (Oxford, 1999), p. 23. Johannes Van Oort has downplayed the influence ofNeoplatonism, Tyconius, and Manichaeism on Augustine's formulation: "The actual source, therefore, is rather the pre- Augustinian Christian, the Jewish and in particular the archaic Jewish-Christian tradition". Van Oort, Jerusalem and Babylon: A Study into Augustine's City of God and the Sources of His Doctrine of the Two Cities (New York, 1991), p. 357. 48John H.S. Burleigh, The City of God: A Study of Augustine's Philosophy (London, 1949), p. 153; O'Daly, Augustine's City of God: A Reader's Guide, p. 59. 25 into two distinct societies since the beginning, and will continue to do so until the completion of time.49

Unlike classical understandings, where humanity's perfection could be found in

the proper ordering of society to resemble the proper ordering of the individual soul, for

Augustine, this was an impossibility. In their fallen state, human beings are incapable of

achieving true virtue and fulfilling the political ideals of the classical philosophers.50

Political systems, then, are demonstrative of humanity's fallen nature and are necessary

because of sin, just as government can be accounted for as a providential necessity to

provide order to otherwise chaotic conditions.51 In this interpretation, Christians are to be

subject to the governing authorities because they have been instituted by God as a means of protecting humanity in its fallen state.52 Government exists not as an embodiment of

virtue or proper organization of desires, but to repress and control.53

While it may be concluded that Augustine himself did not directly identify the

City of God with any particular temporal institution, his city analogy most certainly

created the opportunity for his formulation to be misappropriated.54 The solidification of

49 Glanville Downey, "The Ethical City, the Secular City and the City of God", Anglican Theological Review, 56 (1974), pp. 36,39. 50 Carol Harrison, Augustine: Christian Truth and Fractured Humanity (Oxford, 2000), p. 220. 51 Harrison, Augustine, p. 215; Henry Chadwick, Augustine (Oxford, 1986), p. 102; see also: P.R.L. Brown, "Saint Augustine and Political Society", in Dorothy F. Donnelly, ed., The City of God: A Collection of Critical Essays (New York, 1995), p. 23. 52 Harrison, Augustine, p. 216. 53 Paul Weithman, "Augustine's Political Philosophy" in Norman Kretzmann and Eleonore Stump, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Augustine (Cambridge, 2001), p. 243. 54 Figgis, The Political Aspects ofS. Augustine's 'City of God', p. 84. On the eschatological distinction between Augustine's two cities, see for example: Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo (London, 2000), p. 313; Burleigh, The City of God, p. 160; Benedict J. Groeschel, Augustine: Major Writings (New York, 1995), p. 144; Harrison, Augustine, p. 220; Van Oort, Jerusalem and Babylon, p. 92; Weithman, "Augustine's Political Philosophy", p. 235-7. 26 the union between church and state in the Middle Ages is demonstrative of the influence of the dominant reading of City of God, which, when "stripped of its eschatological content" was turned into " a theological and political programme."55

Herein lies an interpretive commonality between the Augustinian and Lutheran doctrines of the two kingdoms. Both doctrines can be examined in and of themselves - that is with the intent of understanding their original purposes and meaning. At the same time, reading Augustine and Luther on their own terms reveals that in many significant ways their formulations were appropriated in ways neither ever envisioned. Mediaeval interpretations and applications of his thought developed and entrenched caesaropapist systems that Augustine never endorsed, and Luther could never have anticipated the extent of the political uses to which his thought would be applied.56

Luther's Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms.

Luther's rediscovered emphasis on the grace of God has been widely documented.

This rediscovery, of such fundamental importance in the history of western society, shifted theological attention back to Augustine; and while unique in many regards, remained thoroughly Augustinian.57 It then follows that because Luther's understanding of justification through grace lay at the heart of his thinking and informed the rest of his theology, Augustine's influence will be detectable throughout Luther's thought. Most

55 Van Oort, Jerusalem and Babylon, p. 92. 56 This is not to suggest that Luther himself was not very engaged politically during his lifetime. 57 Alister McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction 2nd Ed. (Oxford, 1993), pp. 109-110, 119. For differences between Luther's and Augustine's understanding of righteousness see: Alister McGrath, Luther's Theology of the Cross: Martin Luther's Theological Breakthrough (Oxford, 1985), pp. 134-5. 27 significant for our purposes, Augustine's doctrine of the two cities is essential to understanding Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms.

One of the main purposes of Luther's politically oriented theology was to outline the ways in which Christians can conform to the ideals of the Sermon on the Mount while remaining good citizens. In doing so, Luther had to reconcile a number of seemingly discordant themes in his political theology.58 As the lynchpin of Luther's broader theology, the doctrine of justification by grace through faith accordingly forms the basis for Christian ethics.59 Building on this foundation, Luther had to reconcile Christian ethics modelled after Jesus' teaching with his own belief that all individual Christians are called to participate actively in civic society, even as some may be called to exercise roles of authority. The responsibilities of the institutional church and the Christian individual are not to be conflated. God has ordained government and worldly authority to preserve peace and order, but the church must not aspire to rule. God exercises control over both the church and the state, but does so by very distinct means. The church is governed by the gospel, while God preserves order in the world through natural law, human reason, and ultimately coercive force.60

Essentially the two kingdom paradigm allowed Luther to invoke the gospels' ethics while still endorsing full civic participation. Luther moved away from Roman

Catholic interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount which considered the totality of its teachings too difficult for the average Christian, and drew a distinction between

58 David Steinmetz outlines five pillars of Luther's political theology in "Luther and the Two Kingdoms", p. 114. 9 Paul Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther, trans. Robert C. Schultz (Philadelphia, 1972), p. 3. 60 Steinmetz, "Luther and the Two Kingdoms", p. 114. 28 'commands' and 'counsels'. Jesus' words were not binding commands for everyone, but instead were 'counsels' for those, who like monks, aspired for perfection. Luther similarly rejected the 'Enthusiast' rendering of the Sermon on the Mount as normative,

both in its revolutionary and passive form. Luther took the ethical standards of the

Sermon on the Mount seriously in that they are precepts which the Christian must follow, but refused to countenance religious revolution, or what he interpreted to be Anabaptist political quietism in the form of the abdication of this world and its responsibilities.61 As

Luther interpreted scripture, the ethics of Jesus apply to all Christians in the present, and thus are not merely other-worldly ideals for God's coming kingdom; but he qualified this teaching in terms of public life. The moral ideals of the Sermon on the Mount are not universally applicable to individual decisions within public offices.62

In many respects, Luther's two kingdom doctrine was an attempt to synchronize

Christian responsibility to the state with a New Testament ethic founded on justification by grace, by indicating the social spaces in which this ethic is binding.63 Similarly, the doctrine of the two governments — the secular and the spiritual - stemmed from Luther's understanding of the differing biblical teachings on government: the gospels' apparent

61 Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther, pp. 63-4. 62 Steinmetz, "Luther and the Two Kingdoms", p. 114. 63 Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther's Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms in the Context of His Theology, trans. Karl H. Hertz (Philadelphia, 1966), p. 13; W. D. J. Cargill Thompson has called Luther's two kingdom doctrine "a solution to the perennial problem of how to reconcile the use of force with the Sermon on the Mount...and it could be claimed that Luther's solution is one of the most rational and satisfactory answers that has ever been put forward". The Political Thought of Martin Luther, Philip Broadhead ed., (Sussex, 1984), p. 78. 29 rejection of the state; the Old Testament institution of the sword; and the apostolic sanctioning of authority.64

There is an underlying unity in Luther's theology, even as it developed over time;

but Luther did not present a formal systematic doctrine of the two kingdoms.65 Because the two kingdoms paradigm runs throughout his theology, we may speak in terms of a two kingdoms doctrine for practical reasons, while still acknowledging that the terminology is problematic.66 Gleaning Luther's thoughts on the relationship between

Christians and the temporal and secular authorities is further complicated by his ambiguous language, and, at times, inconsistent or imprecise vocabulary.67 Following W.

D. J. Cargill Thompson, it is helpful to consider three distinct elements in Luther's two kingdoms construct: the distinction between the spiritual realm - that is the realm in which the individual relates to God - and the temporal realm, where the individual relates to others; the differentiation between the two governments instituted by God; and the eschatological separation of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the Devil.68

64 Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther, p. 44; Lau suggested that the two kingdoms doctrine is, in part, an attempt to balance the call to obedience found in Romans 13:1-7 with the 'clausula Petri' found in Acts 5:29, which states that God must be obeyed before people. Franz Lau, "The Lutheran Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms", Lutheran World, 12 (1965), p. 359. 65 Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luther's Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development, trans, and ed. Roy A. Harrisville (Minneapolis, 1999), p. 315; Lau, "The Lutheran Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms", pp. 355, 357-8. 66 Lau, "The Lutheran Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms", p. 358. 67 W. D. J. Cargill Thompson, Studies in the Reformation: Luther to Hooker, C. W. Dugmore ed., (London, 1980), p. 43. 68 Cargill Thompson, The Political Thought of Martin Luther, p. 38. 30 In Von Weltlicher Oberkeit Luther divided "all mankind into two classes, the first belonging to the kingdom of God, the second to the kingdom of the world".69 Although

Europe had been essentially Christianized through the institutionalized church, Luther was sceptical of the level of individual devotion, figuring that only a tiny minority within the baptized masses could be considered "true Christians". Left to its own devices, human society would degrade into chaos. Ideally, if society moved from its nominal

Christianity to "true" Christianity, there would be no need for temporal government.

Because this was not the case, "God has ordained two governments: the spiritual.. .and the temporal" to produce righteousness and keep order.70

The Christian, while on earth, is subject to both temporal and spiritual authority.

As a citizen of the kingdom of Christ, the Christian is part of a hidden kingdom. At present the kingdom of Christ is not visible in the world, as Christ "reigns amid our weakness and tribulations".71 The kingdom of Christ is unlike earthly kingdoms in that it does not occupy a particular physical space or have a corresponding earthly government.

The kingdom of Christ is spiritual, and consequently temporal affairs or material things are not its concern. Its mandate is instructing the Christian how to live, and ultimately obtain absolution from sin, freedom from death, and eternal life.72 Though still on earth,

69 Martin Luther, Luther's Works, American Edition, vol. 45, Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann eds. (St Louis and Philadelphia, 1955ff), p. 88. [Hereafter LW]. 70 LW, vol. 45, p. 91. 71 LW, vol. 28, pp. 125-6. Luther here uses the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of God as "one and the same Kingdom". 12 LW, vol. 13, pp. 237-8. 31 the Christian is ruled by Christ through faith, spirit and the Word, even "amid sin, death, devil, world and hell".73

According to Luther's interpretation of the New Testament, there is no ruling authority or coercion among Christians within the kingdom. Instead, citizenship is voluntary, and Christians are mutually submissive one to another.74 There is no authority because no one desires to lord over another, and as all are subject to all, the kingdom of

Christ is marked by its equality. Moreover, among Christians, authority over one another would not be possible even if someone did in fact desire to rule, as the entire kingdom operates by a totally different relational paradigm.75 Indicative of this new paradigm is the fact that "race", "line", and any other factor of "flesh and blood" are of no concern in the kingdom of God.76 Citizenship is not hereditary, nor is it determined by virtue of any lineage.

It is significant to note that this equality is only on the spiritual level; Luther had no intention of instituting a revolutionary order that levelled existing social hierarchies.

Luther instead appealed to the apostolic preaching of equality to slaves, which he argued did not intend to dismantle physical slavery. Slaves, like prisoners and the sick, were equals as Christians, but were not free, for "a worldly kingdom cannot exist without an inequality of persons, some being free, some imprisoned, some lords, some subjects..." 77

73 LW, vol. 12, p. 104. 74 LW, vol. 13, p. 287. 75 LW, vol. 45, p. 117. 76 LW, vol. 13, p. 300. 77 LW, vol. 46, p. 39. 32 In the same way that Luther divided all of humanity into two classes, he also divided each individual according to the "twofold nature". Each person has a spiritual and a bodily nature - the soul and the flesh. •70 Luther argued that this twofold nature is not exactly synonymous with the spirit and the body interpreted as the "inner" and the

"outward"; both the soul and the flesh have inner and outward components. The spiritual and bodily natures are more precisely distinguished by the ends they work toward - eternal or temporal life.79 Having established that Christians are spiritually equal but that the earthly kingdom cannot exist without hierarchies and inequality, and that each individual possesses a double nature, Luther could argue that because of this double nature Christians can be both lords and subjects to all.80

Humanity's twofold nature is important for understanding Luther's two kingdoms doctrine because it preserves equality among Christians while accommodating and accounting for earthly inequality. Christians are citizens of the kingdom of Christ, but o * they also are "earthly, perishable, mortal" citizens. Within the temporal kingdom Luther identified three types of governing authority: Christ's government, under which falls preaching and the sacraments; the secular authorities and their coercive powers; and the ordering of the household.82 All government has been established and is sustained by

God, and serves as God's representative on earth to protect and maintain peace. To do so,

God has granted the sword to temporal governments to both protect the good and punish

78 LW, vol. 31, p. 344. 79 LW, vol. 35, p. 372. 80 LW, vol. 31, p. 344. 81 LW, vol. 12, p. 103. 82 Martin Luther, D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimarer Ausgabe) vol. 37, Hermann Bohlaus ed., (Graz: 1966), p. 426. 33 wrong doing.83 As such, the institutions of authority are divinely ordained, but Luther maintained an important distinction between offices and individuals. God has appointed the temporal estates, making them "holy and divine positions in life", but not everyone who fills them has been called by God to that position. Positions of authority may very well be filled by "knaves and rascals".84

Luther maintained that true Christians would not need government, but on earth

Christians are not intended to live for themselves. Christians submit themselves to the secular government because they are to live in service of their neighbours. Even though they have no need for it themselves, Christians support secular government for the sake of others.85 Luther harmonized the competing loyalties facing the Christian by carefully distinguishing between the 'inner' and 'outer':

In this way the two propositions are brought into harmony with one another: at one and the same time you satisfy God's kingdom inwardly and the kingdom of the world outwardly. You suffer evil and injustice, and yet at the same time you punish evil and injustice; you do not resist evil, and yet at the same time, you do resist it. In the one case, you consider yourself and what is yours; in the other, you consider your neighbour and what is his.86

As an individual the Christian is to be governed by the love ethic of the Sermon on the Mount, seeking the benefit of others, and enduring personal injustice. Coercive force and violence has no place among Christians. As a member of society, the Christian is to support the secular government to the point of bearing the sword to preserve the

83 LW, vol. 46, p. 95. 84 LW, vol. 13, p. 71. 85 LW, vol. 45, p. 94. 86 LW, vol. 45, p. 96. 34 peace and serve non-Christians. There appears to be no limit to the Christian's

involvement:

Therefore, if you see that there is a lack of hangmen, constables, judges, lords, or princes, and you find that you are qualified, you should offer your services and seek the position, that the essential governmental authority may not be despised and become enfeebled or perish.87

When Christians fulfill the duties of their secular offices, there is nothing in the discharging of their responsibilities that would outwardly distinguish them from non-

Christians. The fulfillment of the office is 'Christian' insofar as the individual's

motivation is specifically Christian - that is, serving the neighbour.88 Certainly God's

relationship to people transcends all earthly offices and is independent of them, but God can give commands directly through these offices.89 Such a sanctioning of governmental structures necessarily places a great responsibility on the individual Christian, who must discern God's commands from other pronouncements of the state.

Although Luther's theology contains numerous radical and theologically divisive concepts, at its heart, it was still socially conservative in a number of crucial ways. Luther

had a typical late-mediaeval hierarchical understanding of society in which everyone has

both superiors to whom they are accountable, and inferiors over whom they are responsible. Ultimate authority rests with God, who ordains all earthly government, q/> giving and taking it away. Accordingly, Luther's theology is marked by a belief in the fundamental temporal inequality of people.

87 LW, vol. 45, p. 95. 88 Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther, p. 40. 89 Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther, p. 77. 90 LW, vol. 46, pp. 116,126-7. 35 In a similar vein, Luther carefully distinguished between individuals and offices, arguing that it is possible for people to assume positions of authority to which they have not been called by God. This distinction can be used to explain bad government in part,

but Luther's high view of the role of government in preserving peace and order explicitly rejected the possibility of revolution, even when a ruler has misused his or her office. The

Christian may make appeals to those in authority, but generally is instructed to bear government quietly. Even when government directly contravenes God's commands, the

Christian is to 'obey God rather than man' in passive resistance, but must not engage in rebellion, as "no insurrection is ever right, no matter how right the cause it seeks to

promote".91

Historic appropriations of Luther's thought.

Throughout German history Luther's thought has been used to provide rationale for political action in the immediate - including in his own lifetime, by him. It has also figured prominently in attempts to explain the larger German past that argue that there is something peculiar in Lutheranism which has helped direct the course of German history.

The idea of a German Sonderweg (literally 'special path') is not new to postwar interpretations. In its earliest forms German exceptionalism had positive connotations and described unique German attributes. While the French underwent their Revolution that degraded into the Terror, German proponents of exceptionalism prided themselves that they did not need a revolution to enact change. The progressive legal reforms attained

91 LW, vol. 45, p. 63. 36 only through revolution in France were achieved in Prussia-Germany through superior and distinctly German means, such as Prussia's civil code or Kant's philosophy. Similar arguments for German cultural superiority resurged in the propaganda of World War I.92

As the Third Reich came crashing to an end, German intellectuals could no longer laud German peculiarities, and the conceptualization of German exceptionalism executed a moral about-face, re-emerging in the 1960s with pejorative connotations.93 The German

Sonderweg was cast as a deviance in an attempt to come to terms with the German tragedy. In its new form the Sonderweg thesis argued that German unification in 1871 came 'from above', that a chance had been missed in 1848 for Germany to travel down the normative path of western development. Germany then only joined the rest of the liberal western world under duress after total defeat at the end of the Second World

War.94 Summarized nicely by David Blackbourn and Geoff Eley:

92 Charles S. Maier, The Unmasterable Past: History, Holocaust, and German National Identity (Cambridge, 1988), p. 102. On the political mobilization of the concept Kultur, see: Modris Ekstein, Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age (Boston, 1989). Thomas Mann, for example, differentiated the depth of a distinct German Kultur from what he believed to be the trivialities and materialism of the broader European civilization, and interpreted the First World War as a manifestation "of Germany's ancient struggle against the spirit of the West". Thomas Mann, Reflections of a Nonpolitical Man, trans. Walter D. Morris (New York, 1983), p. 29. 93 David Blackbourn and Geoff Eley, The Peculiarities of German History: Bourgeois Society and Politics in Nineteenth-Century Germany (Oxford, 1984), p. 4. In many ways Hans-Ulrich Wehler is representative of the functionalist approach that historians following Blackbourn and Eley have rejected. In The German Empire 1871-1918, Wehler looked to Imperial Germany to explain the National Socialist consolidation of power, beginning with its "problematical origins". These origins included an agricultural revolution simultaneous with an industrial revolution, a series of wars, the 'Constitutional Conflict' which politically emasculated the bourgeoisie until the fall of the Empire, "'revolution from above' carried out by the Prussian military", and "socio-economic upheavals". Thus, according to Wehler, unified Germany had a legacy of structural flaws from its earliest point, which had a profound impact on the later course of German development. Hans-Ulrich Wehler, The German Empire 1871-1918, trans. Kim Traynor (New York, 1985), pp. 7, 10, 9,21. See: The Peculiarities of German History, pp. 162-3. 94 Richard J. Evans, Rethinking German History: Nineteenth-Century Germany and the Origins of the Third Reich (London, 1987), p. 97. 37 Fascism succeeded because of the persistence of illiberal, authoritarian structures in state and society; these structures endured because the German bourgeoisie, unlike its British and French counterparts, was incapable of sweeping them away in a process of successful bourgeois revolution...; this incapacity developed because in Germany the bourgeoisie never formed itself into an independent class capable of destroying feudalism and of building a society that was capitalist and liberal in the full sense of these two terms.95

The Sonderweg thesis thus works on the assumption of a chain of causality in which

bourgeois liberalism fosters a belief in parliamentarian ideals leading eventually to

democracy.96

The question, therefore, was as Jurgen Kocka so succinctly put it - whether there

was a direct causal link between the failure of the Republic and the rise of the National

Socialist dictatorship, and the shortcomings of Imperial Germany or even earlier German

historical development. Certainly eminent historians in Germany in the immediate

postwar period did not think so. Following the collapse of the Third Reich and the

exposure of the extent of Nazi atrocities, German historians such as Friedrich Meinecke

and Gerhard Ritter attempted to contextualize what they considered to be the tragic Nazi

aberration. Writing in the 1940's, both historians stressed the broader European context

and ideological climate - that was not particular to Germany - from which the Nazis developed. This version of German apologetics which, in Ian Kershaw's words, depicts

Nazism as "a decisive break with the 'healthy' German past," came as a response to

95 Blackbourn and Eley, The Peculiarities of German History, p. 73. 96 Blackbourn and Eley, The Peculiarities of German History, p. 16. 38 uncritical studies from England and the United States that drew causal chains from

Luther to Hitler, and traced faults in the German collective character back centuries.97

Already during the battle for public opinion in World War I that saw a resurgence of arguments for positive German exceptionalism on the German side, the American sociologist Thorstein Veblen produced a far less positive theory of German deviance

oil from normative western development. Drawing upon the interconnected themes of mentality, war experience, geography and industrialization, Veblen charted the German aberration. Veblen typified Germans as having a "spirit of abnegation" or "duty" that had been imprinted on the German essence through "fifteen centuries of submission to masterful discipline or coercion".99 German militarism and the common experience of war reinforced the submissive German character. For Veblen, German militarism involved a crucial psychological aspect in which Germans were conditioned to be subservient and obedient to a hierarchical social structure, accustomed to receiving and fulfilling even arbitrary orders. War bred compliance that carried over into peacetime. In

i no short, "What is a military organisation in war is a servile organisation in peace".

After the Second World War theories of German deviance understandably flourished. William Shirer popularized these misrepresentations in his best-selling The

Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Shirer devoted a chapter to "The Mind of Hitler and the

Roots of the Third Reich" in which he argued that no figure looms larger in Germany's

97 Ian Kershaw, The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation (London, 2000), pp. 7- 8. 98 Thorstein Veblen, Imperial Germany and the Industrial Revolution (Ann Arbor, 1966). "Veblen, p. 67. 100 Veblen, p. 81-2. 39 past than Martin Luther. According to Shirer, in Luther we see the embodiment of both the best and most dangerous aspects of the German mind. But it was Luther's negative legacy with which Shirer was concerned: Luther's "savage" antisemitism, "coarseness",

"boisterousness", "fanaticism", "intolerance" and "violence". It was Luther who, through the Reformation, democratized German religion, translated the Bible into the vernacular, and standardized the German language. And yet by aligning himself with German princes against the peasant revolts, "his passion for political autocracy ensured a mindless and

provincial political absolutism" that Shirer interpreted as ensuring a fractionalized

Germany until 1871.101 Thus, Luther started Germans on a road toward the Third Reich through a cultural legacy of submission to authority and political stagnation. The divided

German territories were separated from the path of western liberalism, unable to recreate the events of 1789 because of their autarchic backwardness.102

By linking Luther to Hitler, Shirer succumbed to the same logic as Nazi ideologues. The difference is that Shirer emphasized Luther's dangerous and negative legacy, whereas Alfred Rosenberg lauded Luther as a great German for Germanizing

Christianity, placing him in a long line of great German thinkers: "After Luther, the awakening Germanism led to Goethe, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Lagarde; today it is approaching with giant strides its full blossoming season".

Luther's prominence in the Reformation, its obvious importance in the course of

German history, and the sheer volume of Luther's writing, almost ensured that his

101 William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (Greenwich, 1962), pp. 134-5. 102 Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, p. 136. 103 Alfred Rosenberg, Mythus II. The Character of the New Religion, ed. John Arendzen (London: 1936), p. 10. 40 thought would be appropriated for various causes and used to support diverse positions through the years. And while much of this literature no doubt was written with an eye to fatalism and direct historical causality, it is no less important to recognize the strands of continuity in German history as Kocka has pointed out.104 This is particularly true when examining Luther's legacy on German history; and it is of some importance to point to the many ways, and to what effect, Luther and his writings were appropriated to further the cause of German political acquiescence, nation-building and nationalism.105

Writing in the early twentieth-century, Heinrich Boehmer traced the ways in which Luther's political thought had been treated in Germany. Roughly outlined, early

Protestant hagiographical accounts evolved into Lutheran orthodoxy. This orthodoxy was challenged by Pietist revisionism, which placed an increased emphasis on the 'young

Luther', and sought to distinguish the real Luther from Lutheranism. Later in the

104 While acknowledging that the most extreme versions of the Sonderweg have been shattered, Jiirgen Kocka has argued that current research supports the thesis in three critical ways. The first is that in Germany alone did unification, the decision whether to adopt parliamentarism or not, and industrialization (with all their social corollaries) happen simultaneously. This coincidence of "crises" prevented any from being entirely solved, and led to the familiar tropes of the Sonderweg thesis. Kocka also has argued that current research supports the conclusions that the German bourgeoisie was comparatively non-influential, and thirdly that German society was subjected to a tradition of strong central bureaucracy. JQrgen Kocka, "Asymmetrical Historical Comparison: The Case of the German Sonderweg"', History and Theory 38, (1999), pp. 45-6. 105 Julian Jenkins examined Fritz Fischer's contention that German political development differed from the rest of western political culture because of the important influence of Lutheran conservatism and authoritarianism in Germany. Whereas western European liberalism was influenced by Calvinism, in Germany, liberalism was stunted largely because of the impact of Lutheranism on political and religious thought. Jenkins agreed with Fischer and argued that Luther's thought was distilled through Hegelian and Rankean interpretations into German theological circles, combining politics and theology. Although Jenkins' use of the term "continuity" is helpful in understanding the continued influence of Lutheran doctrine, by juxtaposing German thought against western liberalism - presented as normative - Jenkin's study fails to avoid a number of the problems common to the Sonderweg interpretation. Julian Jenkins, "War Theology, 1914 and Germany's Sonderweg: Luther's Heirs and Patriotism", The Journal of Religious History, (1989). See also Fritz Fischer, Der erste Weltkrieg und das deutsche Geschichtsbild: Beitrage zur Bewaltigung eines historischen Tabus (Dusseldorf, 1977), pp. 37-88. 41 eighteenth-century, Enlightenment thinkers could not readily identify with Luther or come to terms with his Anfechtung, and yet even as they distanced themselves from religious thought, could affirm Luther's anti-papism and emphasis on the freedom of the individual conscience. The Romantic concentration on individual genius produced mixed responses to Luther, but could not mobilize his image as could German nationalists during the wars of liberation and foreign domination, who cast Luther as a prototypical national hero, and used him for various political purposes.106

According to Boehmer, "all the different conceptions of the earlier stages of development undergo a kind of resurrection in the course of the nineteenth century".107

So we see Luther upheld as a great patriot by the Burschenschaft movement, praised by conservatives for his social conservatism during the 1830s and 1840s, and, following unification without Catholic Austria and Bismarck's Kulturkampf, exalted as a national

Protestant hero.108 This resurrection factors squarely into our discussion of the twentieth- century political ramifications of the two kingdoms doctrine.

Roughly speaking, the method of theological inquiry in Germany passed through a number of general phases from the nineteenth century to the post-WWI period. Biblical historicism was replaced as the primary means of interpretation by a greater focus on dogmatics, which in turn was supplanted by biblical studies and a renewed interest in the

106 Heinrich Boehmer, Luther & the Reformation in the Light of Modern Research, trans. E.S.G. Potter (London, 1930), pp. 6-11. See also: Eric W. Gritsch, "Luther and the State: Post-Reformation Ramifications", in James D. Tracy, ed., Luther and the Modern State in Germany (Kirksville, 1986), pp. 54-5. 107 Boehmer, Luther & the Reformation, p. 11. 108 Karl Kupisch, "The 'Luther Renaissance'", Journal of Contemporary History, 2 (1967), pp. 40-1. 42 Reformation and its theology.109 In terms of the height of the popular exaltation of

Luther, this occurred during the First World War, on the occasion of the 400th

anniversary of the posting of the 95 theses.110 Like the celebrations of the 400th

anniversary of Luther's birth, it was a catalyst for renewed intellectual work on Luther's

theology and its impact. In 1883, Heinrich von Treitschke and Albrecht Ritschl

exemplified the esteem with which Luther's legacy was handled. Both men delivered

lectures in November of that year extolling Luther's gifts to Germany: civic religious

toleration; the freedom of knowledge, which prepared the way for scientific inquiry into

the scriptures; a unified language, setting the stage for poetry and new learning; the

unshackling of church and state; and a "freer civilization".111 Treitschke epitomized the

hero-worship with the suggestion that "the most priceless legacy bequeathed by Luther to

our people is, after all, the legacy of himself and of the life-giving might of his heaven-

inspired mind".112

In 1917, Karl Holl delivered an important lecture at Berlin University to commemorate Luther, which, combined with his subsequent work on the Reformer,

ushered in the 'Luther Renaissance'.113 The new presentations of Luther made his theology more relevant within a culture struggling to find direction, and distancing itself

109 James M. Stayer, Martin Luther, German Saviour: German Evangelical Theological Factions and the Interpretation of Luther, 1917-1933 (Montreal & Kingston, 2000), p 3. 110 Kupisch, "The 'Luther Renaissance'", p. 41. 111 Heinrich von Treitschke, "Luther and the German Nation" in his Germany, France, Russia, and Islam, trans. Geo. Haven Putnam (New York, 1915); Albrecht Ritschl, "Festival Address on the Four-Hundreth Anniversary of the Birth of Martin Luther", in David W. Lotz, ed., trans., Ritschl and Luther: A Fresh Perspective on Albrecht Ritschl's Theology in Light of His Luther Study (New York, 1974). 112 Treitschke, "Luther and the German Nation", p. 255. See: Hartmut Lehmann, "Das Luther jubilaum 1883", in his Protestantische Weltsichten: Transformationen seit dem 17. Jahrhundert (GSttingen, 1998), pp. 105-129. 113 Kupisch, "The 'Luther Renaissance'", p. 42. 43 from a traditional liberal bourgeois faith in progress.114 From 1905 onwards, Holl's theological work had been moving away from liberalism, and increasingly focussed on the doctrine of justification. Inherent in the doctrine of justification is an emphasis on

God's wrath and human corruption. Prior to the First World War these emphases, along with the strategic tightening of communal bonds within German society, served to distance German Lutheranism from the perceived individualism of its western Protestant counterparts.115

One of the significant outcomes of the return to Luther is that it renewed a denominational self-consciousness within German Lutheranism, which further separated it from other Christian confessions by aligning German Lutheranism with the German nation.116 Thus, in the midst of their attempts to return German theology back to its

Reformation roots, theologians on both ends of the political spectrum constructed and mobilized images of Luther as a German saviour. 117

At this point it is important to differentiate between the intentional recasting of the Luther image to support specific political causes - as did several prominent theologians of the Luther Renaissance - and deep seated political tendencies within

German Lutheranism itself. Historically, the Lutheran understanding of the roles of the church and state divested power from ecclesiastical authorities and placed the right to use

114 Kupisch, "The 'Luther Renaissance'", p. 43. 115 Stayer, Martin Luther, German Saviour, pp. 25-6. 116 Hans Tiefel, "Use and Misuse of Luther During the German Church Struggle", The Lutheran Quarterly, 25 (1973), p. 398; Kupisch, "The 'Luther Renaissance'", p. 44. 117 See: Stayer, Martin Luther,German Saviour. 44 coercive force within the realm of state authority. This shifting of power greatly enhanced the reach of the state, and legitimated a nascent monarchical absolutism.118

However, too great a focus on Luther's teachings about submission to temporal authority written before or during the Peasants' War can prove misleading.

Interpretations that indict Luther as the precursor to secular European absolutism are prone to neglect the development of a theory of revolution embedded within Luther's political theology. As we have seen, already in the 1523 treatise "On Secular Authority",

Luther qualified his instructions about submission to allow for passive resistance against laws that contravene God's commands.119 By 1530, Luther and other leading reformers had modified their theory of revolution to allow for the active resistance of a tyrant, but safeguarded the teaching by restricting revolt to political authorities.120

Luther's theory of resistance was by no means static; yet even at its most permissive point it grants the right to resist only to magistrates, and reinforces social conservatism through paternal analogies. Thus we see in the "Small Catechism" an explanation of the fourth commandment (to honour one's parents) which also includes an • 01 obligation to honour authority and one's superiors. In essence, the political

llg Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. Vol II: The Age of Reformation (Cambridge, 1978), p. 73. 119 J.S. Klan, "Luther's Resistance Teaching and the German Church Struggle under Hitler", The Journal of Religious History, 14 (1987), p. 435. 120 Gritsch, "Luther and the State", p. 52; Klan, "Luther's Resistance Teaching", p. 435; Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, pp. 199-207. 121 Ulrich Duchrow, Lutheran Churches — Salt or Mirror of Society? Case Studies on the Theory and Practice of the Two Kingdoms Doctrine (Geneva, 1977), p. 10. 45 implications of the first commandment (to have no other gods) come into effect in the fourth - one serves God by serving one's superiors.122

Further submissive tendencies also resulted from the church's application of

Luther's teachings about 'the orders', or stations and vocations in life. Luther taught that it is within the three orders: marriage, including the family and all economic relations; political authority; and ecclesiastical offices, that individuals will learn how to properly serve God within all realms of life. Just as each Christian is simultaneously a citizen of two kingdoms, he or she will also simultaneously occupy more than one vocation.

Human nature causes individuals to sin, but they are nonetheless called to specific vocations which remain untainted in and of themselves because they have been divinely instituted. Yet even though God has established the orders, there is no explicit instruction from God about discharging specific secular responsibilities. The Christian and non-

Christian alike are governed by reason and the guidelines of their particular vocation.

Amongst the implications of a Lutheran emphasis on the role of reason in decision making were a greater focus on the individual, and a compartmentalization of responsibilities. In time, it became Lutheran orthodoxy that the church itself should embody the economic, political and ecclesial orders, symbolizing just how far the

Lutheran church fused with the broader political system, and the degree to which political institutions were accepted as normative by the church.124

122 Gritsch, "Luther and the State", p. 50. 123 Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther, pp. 36-40. 124 Duchrow, Lutheran Churches - Salt or Mirror of Society? p. 10. 46 Thus, its misappropriations notwithstanding, Lutheran theology contained within it a certain tendency towards submission to political institutions and authority.

Responding to Luther's own comments that no one since the apostles has praised temporal authority as highly as he has, Franz Lau has suggested that it "is hardly surprising then that the doctrine of the two kingdoms in the Lutheran church should have become such a quietive likely to debilitate ethical responsibility and send consciences to sleep!"125

One of the ways that a particular use of Luther's teaching contributed to political quietism was through a misapplied dualism in the recognition of social forces as divinely ordained. Luther's theology contains several dualisms other than the distinctions between the two kingdoms and two governments - such as the distinction between the inner and outer person, and the separation of the earthly life and the next - that presented

potentially dangerous implications, or at least were easily misapplied.126 Instead of distinguishing between good and evil across all realms of the human experience,

Lutheran theologians emphasized Luther's two kingdoms paradigm, overextending

Luther's original intent.127 As we shall see, an overemphasis on the divide between the outer and inner person allowed some Lutherans to relegate Christian ethical obligations to the inner or private realm of the individual.

More specifically, Lutheran theologians responding to the radicalism of the

French Revolution had built upon Luther's teachings about submission to worldly

125 LW, vol. 46, p. 95; Lau, "The Lutheran Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms", p. 359. 126 Tiefel, "Use and Misuse of Luther During the German Church Struggle", p. 403. 127 Duchrow, Lutheran Churches - Salt or Mirror of Society? p. 12. 47 authorities, and used it as the basis for endorsing existing German monarchical

systems. Although subtle, supporting specific manifestations of authority as divinely appointed, as opposed to political authority in the abstract, established a dangerous precedent for Lutheran theology in Germany.

In much the same way, liberal theologians in the late nineteenth and early

twentieth centuries sought to safeguard a place for established Christianity in Germany

alongside newer developments in economics and science, and the impact of intellectual

and broader social movements such as nationalism, racism and imperialism, by casting

each as an independently governed facet of God's created order. Essentially, by extending traditional Lutheran dualisms, liberal theologians preserved the private

personal sphere for Christian ethics while at the same time founding "the theoretical

justification of the notorious concept that the spheres of life are autonomous".129 The

danger inherent in this theological progression was that social forces could be compartmentalized, and understood on their own terms in a form of ethical disconnect.

Moreover, specific nations and ethnicities, and their respective developments could be

regarded as divinely ordained in and of themselves.

Building on both Lutheranism's intrinsic sympathy for power structures and a history of various political usages of Luther's legacy within Germany, intellectuals such as Treitschke and Ritschl, and nationalist theologians of the Luther Renaissance could integrate Luther into the "legends of 1871", representing Luther's political theology as a

128 Duchrow, Lutheran Churches - Salt or Mirror of Society? p. 11. 129 Duchrow, Lutheran Churches - Salt or Mirror of Society? pp. 12-3; For a discussion of the mobilization of'divinely created categories' in Weimar Germany see also: Kupisch, "The 'Luther Renaissance'", pp. 46-8. 48 precursor to the new German state.130 The myth that there was continuity from 1517 to

1871 proved to be advantageous in several regards. From the position of the political

authorities, the idea of 'divinely created categories' represented the state as an autonomous order of God's creation with its own set of governing principles. This conception of the state effectively removed Christian ethics from the political sphere and

freed German policy makers to pursue nationalistic and imperial programmes unhindered

by church interference. Secondly, the German monarchical system was strengthened

because of the vested interests of German Lutheranism in the success of the monarchy. A

weakening of the monarchy would necessarily come at the hands of Protestantism's enemies - political Catholicism, or Social Democracy - so it followed that Luther's

political theology would not be used to support general political authority, but monarchy specifically. This pattern continued after the dissolution of Imperial Germany when

Luther was recast as a counterrevolutionary.131

In the period between 1871 and 1918 we can detect a pattern of monarchism, a

nationalism that by and large supported German imperialism, and social and political

i "\"y conservatism in Lutheran church leaders. For many Protestants the unified Germany

was a sign of God's favour; so too was the defeat of Catholic France. Moreover, many saw in Bismarck's Kleindeutsch solution to unification the chance for Protestantism to act as a guiding force in German national life by establishing a Volkskirche, and further

130 Thomas A. Brady Jr., "Luther and the State: The Reformer's Teaching in its Social Setting", in James D. Tracy, ed., Luther and the Modern State in Germany (Kirksville, 1986), pp. 41-2. 131 Brady, "Luther and the State", pp. 42-3. 132 Daniel R. Borg," Volkskirche, 'Christian State,' and the Weimar Republic", Church History, 35 (1966), p. 186; John S. Conway, "The Political Role of German Protestantism, 1870-1990", Journal of Church and State, (1992), p. 821. 49 1 "»•> suppress Catholicism m Germany. The effort to shape a national religious culture engaged the church in civil life, but also aligned it closely with the Hohenzollern monarchy through its interpretation of the recent political triumphs as providential. As

John Conway has suggested, the churches "became willing accomplices in the proclamation of this new kind of civil religion", acting as an impediment to criticism of the state, and hampering liberalism.134

The myth of continuity from 1517 to 1871 fostered a belief in German exceptionalism that distanced a presumption of the superiority of German Kultur from the

perceived decadence and materialism of the rest of Western Europe, and elevated the concept of the Volk as the unifying force for Germans.135 Given this background, it is not surprising that the Protestant churches largely got caught up in the nationalist enthusiasm of 1914.

With the fall of the monarchy and the devastating defeat in the First World War, many Lutheran church leaders focussed attention on the dire need to maintain the

Volkshirche since what they believed to be the legitimate state had collapsed. Unable to support the Weimar Republic because of latent anti-democratic and anti-socialist sentiments, the Protestant churches sought to safeguard the Volkshirche as the protector of German Christendom in lieu of a "Christian state". As Daniel Borg has illustrated, the concept of the Volkshirche helps to explain in part why numerous Protestant clergy

133 Conway, "The Political Role of German Protestantism", p. 819. 134 Conway, "The Political Role of German Protestantism", pp. 820-1. 135 Conway, "The Political Role of German Protestantism", p. 822. 136 Borg, "'Volkshirche, 'Christian State,' and the Weimar Republic", p. 186; Conway, "The Political Role of German Protestantism", pp. 825-6. 50 became politically involved in the interwar period. It was presumed that Christianity had historically formed the basis of German morality. Working from this premise, many

Protestants fused Christianity with what it was to be German - a definition firmly based on the authoritarian paternalistic values of the second Kaiser Reich. It then followed that forces destructive or alien to the German Volkskirche were likewise destructive to the

German Volk.ni

Proponents of a German Volkskirche in Weimar believed that sustaining a

Christian culture across the divides of German society would keep the Protestant churches relevant, while maintaining a link to a proud ecclesial tradition and providing direction for the future. By establishing a true Volkskirche, that is a church for all

Germans, Protestant leaders also hoped to alleviate the suffering caused by the defeat in the First World War.138

If the Volkskirche was a mechanism for dealing with the upheaval caused by the war, so too was the adoption of the Old Testament trope of the 'chosen people'. Hartmut

Lehmann has argued that the 'chosen people' image was a way to come to terms with the course of German history, specifically sacrifice, and was evident already in the portrayals of German exceptionalism by German intellectuals who rejected the Enlightenment, and the subsequent victory over France in 1813.139 Lehmann suggested that there were four

137 Borg,"Volkskirche, 'Christian State,' and the Weimar Republic", pp. 189-90. 138 Conway, "The Political Role of German Protestantism", p. 826. 139 Hartmut Lehmann, "The Germans as a Chosen People: Old Testament Themes in German Nationalism", German Studies Review, 14 (1991), pp. 262-3. See also: Hartmut Lehmann, '"God our Old Ally': The Chosen People Theme in Late Nineteenth-and Early Twentieth-Century German Nationalism", in William R. Hutchison and Hartmut Lehmann eds., Many Are Chosen: Divine Election and Western Nationalism (Minneapolis, 1994), pp. 85-107. 51 phases to the development of the trope within German society, spanning from the

Napoleonic wars through to unification. Similarly, Lehmann argued that the image of

God's "special covenant" with Germany underwent "gradual corruption, and perversion"

in four stages between the 1870s and the Third Reich.140

If the 'chosen people' image helped Germans come to terms with sacrifice, it can

be argued that it cut both ways by necessitating an explanation for suffering. Many theologians who still held on to the belief in God's providential plan for Germany, also

welcomed National Socialism as the means for German renewal.

John Bossy has suggested that "It is true that Luther had a knack of inspiring conclusions which he claimed not to have intended..but explaining German Lutheran acceptance of, if not enthusiasm for, National Socialism by appealing solely to Luther's

theological legacy is insufficient.141 If German Protestants were somehow predisposed to accept all earthly authority because of Lutheranism, one could assume that the Weimar

Republic would have been received more favourably as a divine institution. The fact that

many German Protestants did not welcome the Republic indicates that there were other

significant factors involved in their decision making.142 While an examination of the

political ramifications of Luther's two kingdom doctrine is an important interpretive

framework, theological reasons must be considered alongside other social and material factors.

140 Lehmann, "The Germans as a Chosen People", p. 266. 141 John Bossy, Christianity in the West 1400-1700 (Oxford, 1985), p. 154. 142 Hans Tiefel, "The German Lutheran Church and the Rise of National Socialism", Church History, 41 (1972), p. 327. 52 Chapter Two: Emanuel Hirsch, natural revelation, and volkisch theology.

The story of German Protestant receptivity to National Socialism is complicated by a number of confluent factors that greatly affected the German churches and their members. As we have seen, Luther's theological legacy bequeathed German Protestants a tendency toward submission to temporal authority. This submission made for loyal subjects, and in terms of political thought, most commonly resulted in a close connection between Lutheranism and monarchism. Generally speaking, Lutheran monarchism in

Germany was also accompanied by social conservatism, support for imperialism, and nationalism. While a preference for monarchism was not exceptional, the Lutheran tradition of support for a specific form of political authority rather than authority in the abstract, coupled with nationalistic sympathies, would have important repercussions when it later faced the Weimar Republic and National Socialism.

Within the complex historiographical debate about the political and cultural origins of German nationalism there is an important current of thought which emphasizes the interconnectedness of nationalism and religion. Already in the 1920s, Carlton Hayes identified significant commonalities between "modern nationalism" and religious systems. Without overextending his comparison, Hayes noted that there are several parallels between nationalist and church praxis: national registration, schooling and the tax are of similar importance to baptism, catechism and the tithe. Moreover, national myths function in much the same way as established religious orthodoxy in supplanting

53 and combating heresy.143 Beyond these structural parallels, scholars similarly have noted the "religious element" of modern political cultures.

First published in Vienna just weeks after the Anschluss, Erich Voegelin's observations in Die Politischen Religionen are particularly interesting.144 Voegelin prefaced the treatise with an attempt to clear up misconceptions about his work which failed to perceive its fundamental opposition to National Socialism. From Voegelin's perspective, it was not that there was no place for an ethically based rejection of Nazism, but these efforts failed to oppose National Socialism at its most fundamental level because they did not recognize the necessity of being rooted "in religious experience".

Voegelin, therefore, worked from the double assumption that National Socialist evil was not merely a privation - it was a thing in and of itself - and that National Socialism was an "anti-Christian religious movement", an ersatz religion like fascism and communism which grew within the emptiness left by the secularization of western society.145

Writing shortly after the war, Norman Cohn arrived at similar conclusions to

Voegelin's but from a different vantage point, from an examination of what he described

143 Carlton J.H. Hayes, "Nationalism as a Religion", Essays on Nationalism (New York, 1926), pp. 106-7; Following Eugen Lemberg and Theodor Schieder, Peter Alter more recently defined modern nationalism as "both an ideology and a political movement which holds the nation and the sovereign nation-state to be crucial indwelling values, and which manages to mobilize the political will of a people or a large section of a population". Similar to Hayes' interpretation of nationalism as religion, in Alter's construct nationalism reaches people beyond the intellectual, engaging an emotional component that in turn motivates determined collective action towards a goal. Moreover, the individual willingness to sacrifice life for the national cause, and the state's ritualized commemoration of heroic service and martyrdom, are akin to religious sacrifice and ceremony. Peter Alter, Nationalism (London, 1994), pp. 4-5. 144 Erich Voegelin, Political Religions, trans. T.J. DiNapoli and E.S. Easterly III (Lewiston, 1986), p. 2. Voegelin, blacklisted by the Nazis, fled to Switzerland after Austria was annexed. 145 Voegelin, Political Religions, pp. 2-3, 78-9. There is a striking similarity between the resistance to National Socialism Voegelin endorsed, and Karl Barth's assertion that resistance could not be founded on human morality or natural law. See chapter 3. 54 as the "persistent tradition" of "revolutionary millenarianism". Although primarily

focussed on the Middle Ages, Cohn extrapolated his conclusions to also apply to

twentieth century fascism, Nazism, and communism. According to Cohn, medieval

millenarian movements drew their numbers from the marginalized in society, and with

their charismatic leaders, acted as "surrogates for the Church".146 Over time the

apocalyptic visions morphed and secularized. The central driving force was no longer the

will of God; it was the dictates of history, but still aimed "to purify the world by

destroying the agents of corruption".147

Following a line also charting continuities in form, George Mosse argued that

fascism had built upon an evolution in western politics which centred on 'popular

sovereignty'. In short, the will of the people itself became a secularized belief system

which, as the object of faith was transferred to the nation, needed to be supported by a

profane liturgy of symbols and myths. Thus, National Socialism was able to draw on an

extended history of politicized myths which supported its volkisch nationalism.148 And

even though fascism was not a comprehensive system, Mosse suggested that its ethos

"was, in fact, a theology which provided the framework for national worship".149

More recently, Michael Burleigh has cited a "renaissance" for studies using

political-religious interpretive frameworks, his own lengthy study examining the Third

146 Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages (London, 1970), pp. 281-3. First published in 1957. 147 Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium, p. 285. ,4S George L. Mosse, The Nationalization of the Masses: Political Symbolism and Mass Movements in Germany from the Napoleonic Wars Through the Third Reich (New York, 1975), pp. 2,4. 149 Mosse, The Nationalization of the Masses, p. 9. 55 Reich from the position that Nazism was a 'political religion'.150 Thus, without overemphasizing methodological commonalities, there is comparability between Cohn's millennial paradigm and Saul Friedlander's later use of the concept "redemptive anti-

Semitism" to describe the ideology of Hitler and top level Nazis - an "anti-Semitic eschatological worldview" fusing elements of Christian redemption with theories of racial supremacy.151

Similarly, in an attempt to understand the radicalization of the political right in

Germany, Richard Frankel examines the ways in which Bismarck was transformed into a political symbol, and how the use of his image was contested, shaped to suit diverse agendas. With a view to the "phenomenon of political religion", of which Nazism is an example, Frankel concludes that National Socialism as a political religion cannot rightly be understood "without a full picture of the political culture in which it took root - a political culture shaped for decades by the political religion of the Bismarck Cult".152

Thomas Rohkramer has also argued that there are important likenesses between right-wing nationalism and religious systems. However, Rohkramer suggests that in

150 Michael Burleigh, The Third Reich: A New History (New York, 2000), pp. 11; 815-6 fn. 21,22. James Rhodes, for example, in his study, The Hitler Movement: A Modern Millenarian Revolution, adapted Voegelin's and Cohn's frameworks to conclude that "the Hitler movement was a millenarian-gnostic revolution, that is, that the Nazis believed that their reality was dominated by fiendish powers and that they experienced revelations or acquired pseudoscientific knowledge about their historical situation that made them want to fight a modern battle of Armageddon for a worldly New Jerusalem". Importantly, Rhodes maintained that "the Nazis were thoroughly secular". James M. Rhodes, The Hitler Movement: A Modern Millenarian Revolution (Stanford, 1980), p. 18. 151 Saul Friediander, Nazi Germany and the Jews. Vol. I: The Years of Persecution, 1933-1939 (New York, 1997), p. 87. For Friediander, National Socialist apocalypticism is demonstrated by the fact that "Nazism and particularly Hitler's worldview, considered history as the confrontation of an immutable good and an immutable evil. The outcome could only be envisioned in religious terms: perdition or redemption", p. 100. 152 Richard E. Frankel, Bismarck's Shadow: The Cult of Leadership and the Transformation of the German Right, 1898-1945 (Oxford, 2005), p. 6. 56 terms of "extreme nationalism", "political religion" is too narrow a concept, as it "does not account for the variations within the drive for a single communal faith".153 Claudia

Koonz similarly describes Nazism as a faith system, but argues that Nazi ideologues were

secularists, and that National Socialism introduced "an absolutist secular faith" into the

space traditionally maintained by Christianity.154

While we may not agree with all of their conclusions, it is significant that these studies - as diverse as they are - apply religiousness as an interpretive framework.155

Theological overtones permeated German society into the twentieth century.156 Thus if secular politics was infused with aspects of Christian religion, it is all the more appropriate when dealing with political attitudes of theologians to treat them at a theological level. A more materialist approach might imply that societal forces largely determined Protestant reactions to National Socialism. But as religious themes were common throughout German society, it is fair to suggest that social forces and personal theologies were mutually reaffirming.

153 Thomas Rohkramer, A Single Communal Faith? The German Right from Conservatism to National Socialism (New York, 2007), pp. 13-4. 154 Claudia Koonz, The Nazi Conscience (Cambridge, 2003). 153 The studies cited above are intended to illustrate the breadth of the issues involved in the discussion about Nazism as a political religion. See also: Michael Ley and Julius Schoeps, eds., Der Nationalsozialismus als politische Religion (Bodenheim b. Mainz, 1997); Claus-Ekkehard Barsch, Die politische Religion des Nationalsozialismus. Die religiose Dimension der NS-ldeologie in den Schriften von Dietrich Eckart, Joseph Goebbels, Alfred Rosenberg und Adolf Hitler (Munich, 1998); Hans Maier, ed., Politische Religionen. Die totalitaren Regime und das Christentum (Paderborn, 1996); Hans Mommsen, "Der Nationalsozialismus als s&kulare Religion" in Gerhard Besier, ed., Zwischen 'nationaler Revolution' und militarischer Aggression: Transformationen in Kirche und Gesellschafi wahrend der konsolidierten NS-Gewaltherrschaft, 1934-1939 (Munich, 2001), pp. 43-55. 156 Modris Eksteins documented secular crowds singing hymns in the early episodes of war enthusiasm in 1914, what he depicted as a revived religiousness, and a uniting of the sacred and national. According to Eksteins, idealism held considerable sway in imperial Germany, privileging the spiritual over material realities of life, so that the events of the summer of 1914 were depicted by most Germans "in spiritual terms". Modris Eksteins, Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age (Boston, 1989), pp. 62, 90. 57 Furthermore, in terms of examining the effects of nationalism on the church, it is useful to broaden our focus to include the ways in which nationalism was contested

"horizontally" along cultural and denominational lines as opposed to becoming preoccupied with the "vertical conflicts" of class struggle and the interplay of "the ruling and the ruled". This change in focus allows better insight into the differing responses within German Protestantism to National Socialism.157 It is equally important to observe that 'official' ideology did not transfer unfiltered down to the lower classes.158 Even those who identified most closely with nationalist causes still need to be considered in terms of their composite identities, taking into account other identity forming factors such as religious and cultural affiliations, even if these factors appear secondary to nationalist sentiments. 159

Inasmuch as nationalist movements affected the broader German political landscape, nationalism also exerted an important and powerful influence within

Protestant churches. Beyond nationalist sentiments that might have been fostered by the

157 Helmut Walser Smith, German Nationalism and Religions Conflict: Culture, Ideology, Politics, 1870- 1914 (Princeton, 1995), pp. 11-13. Smith suggests that a focus on "vertical conflicts" is a commonality shared even by methodological opponents. Using Geoff Eley and Hans-Ulrich Wehler as examples, Smith demonstrates that even though he positions himself against functional interpretations of German nationalism, Eley bears similarity to Wehler insofar as they both emphasize the "vertical conflicts" between authority structures and those under authority. Whereas Wehler's ftinctionalism concentrates on nationalism's utility, that is how it served elite purposes, Eley stresses the importance of the bourgeoisie and the role of middle-class mobilization in the struggle over nationalism. See also: Geoff Eley, Reshaping the German Right: Radical Nationalism and Political Change After Bismarck (New Haven, 1980); Hans- Ulrich Wehler, The German Empire 1871-1918, trans. Kim Traynor (New York, 1985). 138 Following Hugh Seton-Watson and Benedict Anderson, Smith draws a further distinction within the discussion of German nationalist ideology and praxis, that between 'popular' and 'official' nationalism. While popular nationalism is essentially a collection of common beliefs, official nationalism, on the other hand, "is a strategy of domination" which mobilizes aspects of popular nationalism, but for the advantage of the regime. Smith, German Nationalism and Religious Conflict, p. 8. 159 E.J. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1992), p. 11. 58 wider social climate, material factors such as their dependence on the state for their livelihood, and official efforts such as the Kulturkampf s attempt to stifle political

Catholicism, the emotional or religious component of German nationalism exercised an important pull on German Protestants.

Nationalism and the Protestant churches.

Materially speaking, the Lutheran Landeskirchen had very close connections to the German states from the time of the Reformation. As the previous ecclesial order crumbled, a reformed version was needed to replace it. Control over church affairs in the

German Lander was assumed by local authorities, and was quickly enshrined in the law under the 'right of Reformation' (ins reformandi), giving the princes complete power over the church in their territories. This system remained largely unchanged until the

Napoleonic occupation. But even after the Congress of Vienna, through the processes of territorial rearrangement and internal migration which resulted in confessional realignment, and the development of new church and state constitutions, up until the

Kaiser's abdication German rulers headed church government.160

Describing the conditions of the church in Germany to an American audience in

1909, Richard Lempp noted that all churches in Germany were governed by state appointed consistories. Likewise, the theological faculties in the German universities were appointed by state officials and not by the Landeskirchen. As a result, "since every

160 For a brief description of this development see: Klaus Scholder, The Churches and the Third Reich. Vol. One: Preliminary History and the Time of Illusions 1918-1934, trans. John Bowden (London, 1987), pp. 3- 36. 59 German minister.. .must have graduated from a German university, the Protestant churches have no influence upon the education of their ministers".161 Consequently, for very concrete and practical reasons - none the least of which was government subsidies - the Protestant churches in Germany maintained close ties to government. In many cases these ties were as close internally as they were organizationally.

In his study of German historicism, Georg Iggers traced lines of continuity through a distinctly German "conception of history", arguing that the dominant historical method used by German historians in the nineteenth, and well into the twentieth century was shaped by "theoretical convictions" which emphasized high politics and political source material. These convictions guided German historians' methodology and "political orientation", as historians largely neglected many social subfields and other disciplines, and focussed on the state and what was perceived to be its beneficent nature.162

For our purposes it is significant that historicism's method of examining primary documents, and the philosophical separation from natural law and eternal processes to instead emphasize human agency and choice - in short, to emphasize development in time as opposed to a constant character - spread throughout the humanities in German universities in the nineteenth century.163 As German theology faculties incorporated

161 Richard Lempp, "Present Religious Conditions in Germany", The Harvard Theological Review, 3 (1910), pp. 87-8. 162 Georg G. Iggers, The German Conception of History: The National Tradition of Historical Thought from Herder to the Present, rev. ed. (Middletown, 1983) p. 4. 163 Iggers, pp. 4-5. 60 aspects of the new historical methodology, they in turn were influenced by the central tenets of historicism's theoretical convictions.164

German historicism's influence on Protestant theology went well beyond the critical evaluation of primary source material. In a significant way the distinction that thinkers such as Hegel and Ranke drew between the German nation and the German state as its authoritative apparatus, bore resemblance to the traditional Lutheran understanding of the difference between the secular and the spiritual realms.165 It may thus be suggested that historicism's differentiation of nation and state, and its understanding of national power and struggle as part of a divine plan made it easy for German Lutherans to adopt important aspects of this nationalist line of thought.166

The nationalist tendencies of German historicism were amongst several intellectual influences that reinforced traditional Lutheran sentiments and worked in

164 For the lasting impact of historical study on German theology into the early twentieth century, see: Karl Bornhausen, "The Present Status of Liberal Theology in Germany", The American Journal of Theology, 20 (1914), pp. 201-2; In his discussion of the historiography of the role professors and intellectuals played in producing intellectual support for the First World War, John Moses comments that the consensus about the general lack of academic pacifism "suggests strongly that the majority of German academics prior to and during the First World War shared a strongly Hegelian understanding of world history". John A. Moses, "The Mobilisation of the Intellectuals 1914-1915 and the Continuity of German Historical Consciousness", Australian Journal of Politics and History, 48 (2002), p. 337. 165 Iggers, p. 42; Julian Jenkins, Christian Pacifism Confronts German Nationalism — The Ecumenical Movement and the Cause of Peace in Germany, 1914-1933 (Lewiston, 2002), p. 24. 166 In discussion of Lutheranism's influence on Prussian militarism, Ernst Troeltsch argued Lutheranism "hallowed the realistic sense of power, and the ethical virtues of obedience, reverence, and respect for authority, which are indispensable to Prussian militarism". Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches vol.11, trans. Olive Wyon (New York, 1960), p. 575; Julian Jenkins has suggested that in terms of the traditional Lutheran understanding of the separation of the spiritual and secular realms, the historicist interpretation only differed in terms of "the spiritual realm, where the nation rather than the Church was regarded as the basis of authority. The logical result was that over the course of the nineteenth century, the Church began to identify itself with the nation as the spiritual authority for the German state". Jenkins, Christian Pacifism Confronts German Nationalism, p. 24. Jenkins' discussion does not make it clear whether Hegel and Ranke were the direct influences on this particular mode of thought within the church, or whether it can be attributed to a long standing concept of the orders of creation. Jenkins' reliance on Fischer and the Sonderweg concept are discussed in chapter one, fn. 105. 61 conjunction with the structural connection of church and state to further Protestant nationalism. As we have seen, Luther's image was mobilized by various Protestant groups throughout the nineteenth century, which depicted him as a patriotic national hero, and integrated Luther into the legend of direct continuity from 1517 to 1871. With the defeat of France in 1870/1, many German Protestants interpreted the victory as divine providence, a signal of the superiority of German culture over French Catholicism and civilization. Similarly, unification without Austria was embraced by many as an opportunity for Protestantism to shape Germany's religious future.167

Nationalist Protestant pastors had compounded religion and patriotism already during the campaign against Napoleon, but this fusion of patriotic nationalism and

Protestant religiosity grew more pronounced during the Kaiserreich.m The renewed focus on Luther which sparked the 'Luther Renaissance' fostered denominational self- confidence, the corollary of which was an alignment of Lutheranism with nationalist thought by stressing German particularity as expressed in Luther's unique contributions and genius. An analogous situation occurred within Kulturprotestantismus. Theologians who belonged to the culture-Protestantism movement attempted to ensure that theology could stand up to the rigours of scientific knowledge and remain relevant within modern society by engaging contemporary culture.169 However, this emphasis on German Kultur carried with it the inherent tendency to regard German culture as superior.170

167 See chapter 1. 168 Karl-Wilhelm Dahm, "German Protestantism and Politics, 1918-39", Journal of Contemporary History, 3 (1969), p. 39; Jenkins, Christian Pacifism Confronts German Nationalism, p. 26. 169 In an article published in 1914, Karl Bornhausen defined the "task of liberal theology" as "one of mediation; consequently it will seek to bring into closer relations theory and practice, science and religion, 62 Nationalism thus affected both conservative and liberal Protestants, and at the outbreak of war in 1914, many Protestant pastors and theologians greeted the events with enthusiasm. A manifesto expressing support for the war which appeared in October 1914 was signed by 93 intellectuals; amongst the signatories were 12 theologians, most notably

Adolf von Harnack, Wilhelm Herrmann, Adolf von Schlatter, and Reinhold Seeberg.171

Throughout the war, pastors preached sermons which depicted the German war effort as divinely sanctioned. Pastors interceded for the nation by asking God to bless the effort, and roused support by fitting the conflict squarely into the 'just war' paradigm.172

This picture of Protestant wartime nationalism is complicated by the fact that amongst the vast majority of Protestant pastors who were enthusiastic about the war, a liberal minority was more reserved in its support. These liberals did not share mainline

Protestantism's social conservatism, and envisioned a new Germany after the war which would be more democratic. For this reason, prominent liberal theologians numbered among the supporters of the Weimar Republic.173

in as pure a form as possible". Karl Bomhausen, "The Present Status of Liberal Theology in Germany", p. 193. Kulturprotestantismus is discussed in more detail below in terms of Karl Barth's rejection of the movement. 170 Jenkins, Christian Pacifism Confronts German Nationalism p. 29. 171 Georg Rupp, Culture-Protestantism: German Liberal Theology at the Turn of the Twentieth Century (Missoula, 1977), p. 11. The manifesto is reprinted in Bernhard vom Brocke, '"Wissenschalt und Militarismus': Der Aufruf der 93 'an die Kulturwelt!' und der Zusammenbruch der intemationalen Gelehrtenrepublik im Ersten Weltkrieg", in William M. Calder, III, ed., Wilamowitz nach 50 Jahren (Darmstadt, 1985), p. 718. Online translation by Jeffrey Verhey and Roger Chickering http://germanhistorvdocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/ene/817 Bernhard vom Brocke 156.pdf (Feb. 25,2010). Barth's reaction to the document is discussed in chapter 3. 172 See: Wilhelm Pressel, Die Kriegspredigt 1914-1918 in der evangelischen Kirche Deutschlands (Gottingen, 1967) and Karl Hammer, Deutsche Kriegstheologie (1870-1918) (Munchen, 1971). 173 See: Frank J. Gordon, "Liberal German Churchmen and the First World War", German Studies Review, (1981). For scholarship that deals with republicanism within the Protestant church in Germany, see: Claus Motschmann, Evangelische Kirche undpreussischer Staat in den Anfangen der Weimarer Republik: 63 By and large, however, the conservative Protestant majority was devastated by the unexpected defeat in 1918, which shattered the belief in a divinely sanctioned German cause and a superior German spirituality. It was widely believed that the war was being fought defensively, that Germany had been drawn in by aggressive neighbours.

Moreover, the German people were continually told that despite the odds, Germany was prevailing. Assured of victory, many Protestants saw God's hand of providence in the reports of German triumphs, their confidence founded on the experience of 1871.174

Understandably, given their belief about the validity of the war and the way in which the war had been fitted into a broader conception of God's working through the German people, many Protestants were unable to comprehend the defeat.

Compounding the effects of the German capitulation was the fact that it came in the context of revolution and the destruction of the monarchy, which, for conservative

Lutherans, was arguably worse than the defeat. German Protestants were now faced with the breakdown of the centuries-old connection of throne and altar and an empire that had been embraced by many as uniquely Protestant, through a revolutionary process that orthodox Lutheranism deemed illegitimate.175

Equally disturbing was the fact that the new republic was led by the Social

Democrats. Traditional apprehensions about socialist secularism were exacerbated by the anti-clerical attitudes of some leading socialists such as Adolf Hoffmann, who as the

Mdglichkeit und Grenzen ihrer Zusammenarbeit (Lubeck, 1969) and J.R.C. Wright, Above Parties: The Political Attitudes of the German Protestant Church Leadership 1918-1933 (London: 1974). 174 Martin Rade, "The Present Situation of Christianity in Germany", The American Journal of Theology, 24(1920), p. 341. 175 Dahm, pp. 30-2. 64 appointed Prussian Minister of Education and Public Worship, proposed to cut church funding, seize church property, and close the theological faculties. His removal of prayer in schools and mandatory religious education sparked a backlash from both Protestants and Catholics, leading to his resignation in January 1919. His legislation was overturned shortly thereafter, but the impact of his attempts at secularization was lasting.176

Many in the clergy were at odds with the Weimar Republic and "the secular artificiality of the new Germany", and resented Germany's truncated status after

Versailles, wishing to see the nation restored to former glory.177 Even church leaders who were sympathetic to the Republic such as Martin Rade, the cofounder and editor of the liberal periodical Die Christliche Welt, and Marburg professor, expressed how the peace process had hardened the general German disposition. Discussing the situation in

Germany for an American audience in 1920, Rade stated:

the fact is that the way in which peace was made with us, the way in which one hope after another was destroyed first by the regulations of the armistice and then by the articles of Versailles, placed insuperable obstacles in the way of any repentance on our part. The manner in which we were treated straightaway cured us of any inclination to repent.178

If there had been unity within German society in the summer of 1914, confessional differences and the polarizing effects of social democracy resurfaced after the war.

176 Kenneth C. Barnes, Nazism, Liberalism, & Christianity: Protestant Social Thought in Germany & Great Britain, 1925-1937 (Lexington, 1991), pp. 33-4; Dahm, pp. 33-4. 177 James A. Zabel, Nazism and the Pastors: A Study of the Ideas of Three 'Deutsche Christen' Groups (Missoula, 1976), pp. 14-15. 178 Rade, p. 349. 65 According to Rade, "the repudiation of the demand that we should repent is the only sentiment in which the German people are a unit".179

The impact of defeat and the initiation of the Republic were further exacerbated by the Versailles settlement, its pronouncement of German responsibility, the loss of

German territory and the severing of East Prussia, the limits placed on the German military, and the demand for reparations. Runaway inflation, the Ruhr crisis, resentment towards the Dawes and Young Plans, and the depression worsened German social instability and nationalist bitterness, despite periods of recovery and what appeared at times through the 1920s to be legitimate pathways towards stability. The conflation of material, political and intellectual crises within German society created an atmosphere that facilitated the rise of National Socialism.180

179 Rade, p. 351. 180 Karl Dietrich Bracher highlighted four factors facilitating the Nazi consolidation of power: "1. The radicalization of the German National Party once Hugenberg gained control made it possible for Hitler to share in the social respectability, the political influence, and the financial resources of these circles and simultaneously to become part of a broad 'National Opposition' to the Weimar Republic". "2. The economic crisis, bringing with it the collapse of small business and industry and rapidly rising unemployment, filled the middle class and peasantry with even greater panic than had the postwar inflation". "3. New governmental crises after Stresemann's death smoothed the road toward an extraparliamentary quasi dictatorship, which weakened the influence of the democratic parties and organizations in favour of the President, the Army command, and bureaucratic rule, and prepared public opinion for dictatorial solutions". And following fascist tactics, "The National Socialists pitted the technique of the fait accompli and of quick, propagandistically inflated sham successes against the effectiveness of institutional and traditional safeguards". Karl Dietrich Bracher, The German Dictatorship: The Origins, Structure, and Effects of National Socialism, trans. Jean Steinberg (New York, 1970), pp. 168- 9. See also: William Sheridan Allen, The Nazi Seizure of Power: The Experience of a Single German Town 1930-1935 (New York, 1965); Martin Brozat, Hitler and the Collapse of Weimar Germany, trans. V.R. Berghahn (New York, 1987); Fritz Stern, Dreams and Delusions: The Drama of German History (New York, 1987). 66 The challenge of National Socialism.

By the time Hitler consolidated his power, the general Protestant submission to temporal authority left it unable or at least ill-equipped to deal with National

Socialism.181 Ecclesiastical Protestantism had relinquished its political voice and had adopted a "patriarchal and authoritarian" mentality.182 Thus, once confronted by the Nazi platform of conservatism, militarism, and nationalism - trends it had also been a part of - the church was ill-prepared. In the words of Franz Feige, "Its silence in the face of the

Gleichschaltung of society and the accompanying ruthless and violent acts signified its past inability to help develop a sense of civic and political responsibility".183 This accounts, in part, for the state of the Protestant churches at the time of the challenge from

National Socialism, and the reason for the diversity in the Protestant response.

In terms of the divergent responses within German Protestantism to National

Socialism, we are really talking about two things: the division between the Bekennende

Kirche (Confessing Church) which sought to divorce itself from the influences and interference of National Socialism, and the Deutsche Christen movement (German

Christians) which embraced and integrated Nazi ideology and volkisch thought with contemporary theology; and the ensuing church struggle. Although social and political factors are of real importance, it may be contended that at its heart, the division within

1SI Franz G.M. Feige, The Varieties of Protestantism in Nazi Germany: Five Theopolitical Positions (Lewiston, 1990), p. 206; Robert P. Ericksen, "The Barmen Synod and its Declaration: A Historical Synopsis", in Hubert G. Locke, ed., The Church Confronts the Nazis: Barmen then and Now (Toronto, 1984), p. 42. As a point of comparison, in significant ways the Concordat subdued politicized Catholicism in Germany. 182 Feige, pp. 444-5. 183 Feige, p. 449. 67 German Protestantism was theological in nature, and hinged, to a large extent, on interpretations of the doctrine of the two kingdoms and God's revelation in history.

The Nazis certainly had totalitarian aspirations for the Third Reich, and the

National Socialist coordination of German society also included an important attempt at an ideological Gleichschaltung. As Ian Kershaw has demonstrated, the imprecision of the

Nazi worldview did not pose real barriers to conformity for those attracted to National

Socialism. "On the contrary: Weltanschauung meant for most Nazi sympathizers in 1933 nothing more precise than the engendering of a new spirit of sacrifice and struggle, necessary to combat the internal and external enemies of the German people in the interests of national unity and harmony".184 As we shall see, much of the Nazi worldview received a warm reception amongst significant sections of German Protestantism.

Considered in this light, the Protestant churches inhabited a particularly important position in German society because of their relative institutional autonomy - despite his attempts, Hitler was unable to fully coordinate the Landeskirchen into a Reich church.

Accordingly, the churches had the potential to act as a braking mechanism and to oppose

National Socialism's ascendancy through a unique position of institutional strength. As

William Sheridan Allen noted, the churches "were most important as independent formal organizations because of their size, their geographic extension, their emotional and ideological bonds, their deep organizational roots, and their ability to convey

184 Ian Kershaw, Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich: Bavaria 1933-1945 (Oxford, 1983), p. 1. 68 information".185 Thus, the German churches were well established organizations with substantial resources and a measure of sovereignty and protection from National

Socialism, which their legal status within the state and the sheer number of faithful

Christians in Germany provided.

Despite this degree of insulation, the church's autonomy was relative, and the

Nazi regime made continual attempts to take over the church structure. Nazi intervention into church affairs manifested itself in the appointment of "commissars for the

Evangelical Church"; the orchestration of Ludwig Miiller's election as Reich Bishop in

September, 1933; governmental interference in the elections of church officers, the appointment of committees, and control of finances; and Hitler's commissioning of a

Reich Ministry for Church Affairs in 1935.187

One of the mechanisms through which the Nazi regime was able to influence the

Protestant church was the German Christians. It is one thing to argue that German

Protestantism was unprepared or incapable of handling the challenges posed to it by

National Socialism because of its past. The fact that the German Christians and with them prominent Lutheran theologians anticipated and embraced National Socialism requires further explanation.

185 William Sheridan Allen, "Objective and Subjective Inhabitants in the German Resistance to Hitler", in Frank H. Littell and Hubert G. Locke eds., The German Church Struggle and the Holocaust (Detroit, 1974), p. 115. 186 Helmreich, The German Churches Under Hitler, p. 121. 187 Arthur Cochrane, The Church's Confession Under Hitler (Philadelphia, 1962), p. 37. Even though the German Christian success in the church elections of 1933 came, in part, due to Nazi intervention, as Shelley Baranowski has illustrated, Protestant accommodation to National Socialism played an important role. Shelley Baranowski, "The 1933 German Protestant Church Elections: Machtpolitik or Accommodation?", Church History, 49 (1980), pp. 289-315. For a history of the Reichskirchenministerium and Hanns Kerrl's ill-fated attempt to fuse National Socialism and Christianity see: Heike Kreutzer, Das Reichskirchenministerium im Gefuge der nationalsozialistischen Herrschaft (Dusseldorf, 2000). 69 The German Christian movement that developed in Germany in the early 1930s was a merging of groups devoted to melding Nazi ideology and nationalism with contemporary volkisch theology to produce a fusion of church and state, and eliminate any traces of Judaism from Christian thought.188 As Doris Bergen has illustrated, at the core of the German Christian movement was its aspiration for a populist, antidoctrinal,

f SO antisemitic, masculine, Germanic Christianity.

Perhaps the most disturbing example of the German Christian attempt to nazify

Christianity was the founding of the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish

Influence on German Church Life, which provided religious sanctioning for Nazi racial antisemitism, defended by Institute members after the war as traditional theological anti-

Judaism.190 Along with conducting lecture series and working groups, and a steady production of scholarly and popular literature depicting Jesus as 'Aryan', the Institute published new versions of the New Testament, hymnal, and catechism, purged of positive

Jewish references. As ludicrous as these measures may seem for learned theologians, members of the German Christian movement readily abandoned Christian orthodoxy to accommodate their dejudaized version of Christianity.191

188 Doris L. Bergen, Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movement in the Third Reich (Chapel Hill, 1996), p.5; Susannah Heschel, "Nazifying Christian Theology: Walter Grundmann and the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church Life", Church History, 63 (1994), pp. 587-8. For a history of the German Christian Movement see: Bergen, Twisted Cross, and James A. Zabel, Nazism and the Pastors: A Study of the Ideas of Three 'Deutsche Christen' Groups (Missoula, 1976). 189 Bergen, Twisted Cross. 190 Susannah Heschel, The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany (Princeton, 2008). The Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church Life was one of five antisemitic research centres set up to investigate Jewish influence on German culture. Koonz, The Nazi Conscience, p. 201. 191 Heschel, The Aryan Jesus, pp. 104, 3-4. 70 Despite earlier studies that minimized its role in the Third Reich, the German

Christian movement was highly influential throughout the entire Nazi period, winning significant regional church elections, and securing prominent positions in theology faculties. These positions gave the German Christians control over church finances, publications, and Protestant education.192 It was the German Christians that "unleashed the 'church struggle' in 1933".193

Early accounts of Protestant resistance during the Third Reich tend to depict an internally cohesive movement, motivated primarily by ethical concerns. Unlike these largely hagiographical accounts, the story of the Kirchenkampf is not of church opposition, but of an inter-Protestant conflict.194 As Arthur Cochrane has eloquently put it, the church struggle "was essentially a struggle of the Church against itself for itself'.195

Part of the reason for the intensity of the Kirchenkampf Is that the churches, like numerous other groups and organizations in Germany, had many commonalities with

National Socialist ideology, and largely supported Nazi anti-Bolshevism, anti-secularism, the emphasis placed on public morality, and what appeared to be the restoration of faith

192 Heschel,"Nazifying Christian Theology" p. 589. For the social impact of the German Christian movement see: Manfred Gailus, Protestantismus und Nationalsozialismus: Studien zur nationalsozialistischen Durchdringung des protestantischen Sozialmilieus in Berlin (K81n, 2001). Heschel's The Aryan Jesus demonstrates the close interaction between Jena's theological faculty and the Institute's antisemitic projects, and the prominence of German Christian theologians. 193 Bergen, Twisted Cross, p. 8; For a history of the Kirchenkampf see: Scholder, The Churches and the Third Reich. Vol. One, and Vol. Two: The Year of Disillusionment: 1934 Barmen and Rome, trans. John Bowden (London, 1988). 194 Bergen, Twisted Cross, p. 12. 195 Cochrane, p. 11. 71 in German life.196 Antisemitism was a more sinister commonality; Christian antisemitism was an ecumenical consensus shared by both factions within Protestantism and by

Catholics.197 As Susannah Heschel has argued, "Nazism did not present racial antisemitism as antithetical to Christian theological anti-Judaism; rather, Nazi ideology was a form of super-sessionism, a usurpation and colonization of Christian theology, especially its antisemitism, for its own purposes".198 Moreover, in the first weeks of his chancellorship, Hitler repeatedly utilized Christian symbolism and invoked God, and these initial references had a lasting impact on the church.199 So too did the NSDAP Party platform's reference to 'Positive Christianity', "an amazingly flexible term" that lent itself to a multitude of uses.200 It appeared as if National Socialism would solidify

Christian conservatism as the foundation of Nazi morality. Thus as National Socialism triumphed, those theologians who supported nationalist political theology interpreted the movement's ascendancy as God's will.

Beyond certain aspects of National Socialism that appealed to church leaders,

Richard Steigmann-Gall has argued that membership in the Protestant church is the social

196 Theodore S. Hamerow, On the Road to the Wolfs Lair: German Resistance to Hitler (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 134-5. 197 Doris L. Bergen, "Catholics, Protestants, and Christian Antisemitism in Nazi Germany", Central European History, 27 (1994), 331. 198 Heschel, The Aryan Jesus, p. 8. 199 Scholder, pp. 222,227-8. For Emanuel Hirsch's positive reception of Hitler's public prayer see: Emanuel Hirsch, "Nationalsozialismus und Kirche: Um die Berufiing des evangelischen Reichsbischofs", Das kirchlichen Wollen (Berlin-Steglitz, 1933), p. 24. First published in Volkischer Beobachter 26, 148/9, May 28/9,1933. 200 Tiefel, "The German Lutheran Church", p. 330. 201 Scholder, p. 168. 72 category with the strongest correlation to voting for the NSDAP. However, nominal church membership is a somewhat unsatisfactory category, since nearly everyone in

Germany belonged to either the Catholic or Protestant church. Steigmann-Gall maintains that the reason for the Protestant voting pattern is best described by Protestant religiosity - that contrary to the bulk of scholarship which depicts Nazism as anti-

Christian, the National Socialist Weltanschauung was derived from a Christian framework.204

According to Steigmann-Gall, when historians seek explanations for the reason that Christians supported National Socialism, they generally arrive at two conclusions: either the individuals were deceived, or they were, in fact, not Christians. John Conway and Klaus Scholder fall into the first category, while Doris Bergen falls into the latter by essentially creating a standard for Christianity which the German Christians fell short of.

Steigmann-Gall contends that calling those in the Deutsche Christen movement non-

202 Richard Steigmann-Gall, "Apostasy or Religiosity? The Cultural Meaning of the Protestant Vote for Hitler", Social History, 25 (2000), p. 268. On the importance of Protestantism as an indicator of voting patterns - even though Hamilton in not convincing in the historiography - see: Thomas Childers, The Nazi Voter: The Social Foundations of Fascism in Germany, 1919-1933 (Chapel Hill, 1983); and Richard F. Hamilton, Who Voted For Hitler? (Princeton, 1982). For an evaluation of the recent work on Nazism's social bases see: Detlef Miihlberger, The Social Bases of Nazism 1919-1933 (Cambridge, 2003). 203 Ernst Helmreich put the total at 95.66% in 1925. Ernst Christian Helmreich, The German Churches under Hitler: Background, Struggle and Epilogue (Detroit, 1979), p. 92. 204 Richard Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 (Cambridge, 2003). A commonality of the early, largely hagiographical accounts of the church during the Third Reich; later, more critical studies by church historians; and studies by non-Church historians and other intellectuals that emphasize an alternative faith system as an explanation for resistance to the Ersatzreligion of National Socialism, is that they predominantly depict Nazism as anti-Christian. Steigmann-Gall, "Apostasy or Religiosity?", pp. 268-9. 73 Christians because of their racism and misogyny is an unrealistic gauge for Christianity, as German Christians adhered to much of Christianity's established orthodox praxis.205

For Steigmann-Gall, the Positive Christianity espoused in the Nazi Party platform was "not a loose, unarticulated construct, but instead adhered to an inner logic".206

Protestant convictions about the superiority of Christianity to Judaism, a belief in the need for Jews to convert, unorthodox ideas devaluing the Old Testament, and an attraction to key aspects of the National Socialist social ethic, demonstrate similarities between contemporary lines of Protestant thought and positive Christianity.207

A reorientation of the discussion about the role religion played in the popular appeal of the party is needed, taking religion seriously by questioning whether Protestant

Nazi supporters did so in spite of, or because of their faith. Without overextending the scope of 'official' Nazi religiosity, for fear of diluting Christianity beyond the point of being a meaningful category, it is important to note that those who joined German

Christian groups by and large were not mere opportunists who anticipated National

Socialism and adapted their theology accordingly, or later responded to Nazi charges. In a comparison to Christopher Browning's 'ordinary men', Bergen maintains that the work done by German Christians was really "an explicit attempt to accomplish what most

205 Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich, pp. 5-6; Bergen argues that "German Christians jettisoned everything theological and moral about Christianity..." continuing that "The theological and moral bankruptcy of German Christianity was glaringly obvious, not only to Jews, non-Aryans, and sincere Christians, but even to cynics in the neo-pagan camp". Bergen, Twisted Cross, p. 229. For Bergen's response see: Doris Bergen, "Nazism and Christianity: Partners and Rivals? A Response to Richard Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich. Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945", Journal of Contemporary History, 42, 1 (2007), pp. 25-33. 206 Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich, pp. 14-5. Steigmann-Gall seeks to explore the interconnection between Nazism and its leaders, and Christianity. For a particularly critical review of the work see: Manfred Gailus, "A Strange Obsession with Nazi Christianity: A Critical Comment on Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich", Journal of Contemporary History, 42,1 (2007), pp. 35-46. 207 Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich, pp. 41,47-9. 74 Germans did implicitly: reconcile their Christian tradition with National Socialist ideology".208

Recognizing the heterogeneity within the German Christians, Emanuel Hirsch nevertheless best exemplifies the theological basis for supporting National Socialism. In the words of Klaus Scholder, "In some respects Hirsch, whose personal fate is surrounded with an aura of tragedy, is almost a symbol of political Protestantism in

Germany, in which passion and unawareness, higher moral claims and crass failure, spiritual breadth and political narrowness, are so oddly mingled".209

The origins of Hirsch's political theology.

Emanuel Arthur Friedrich Albert Hirsch was born June 14, 1888 in Bentwisch, in

Westprignitz. His father, Friedrich Wilhelm Albert Hirsch (b. 1856) was a pastor in

Brandenburg when Emanuel was born, but the family followed Albert's work in the

•j * /v church to Berlin, where Hirsch spent his childhood. Hirsch began his theological studies in Berlin during the 1906 winter semester at Friedrich-Wilhelm University, against his father's reservations about the liberal professors within the faculty. Reflecting on his life, Hirsch remembered that the decision to study theology was not arrived at lightly. As a pastor's son, he had seen what a life devoted to the ministry would entail,

Bergen, Twisted Cross, p. 10. 209 Scholder, p. 102. 210 Arnulf von Scheliha, "Anmeikungen zur Mhen Biographie Emanuel Hirsch: Stationen und Motive im Aufbau theologischer IdentitSt zwischen Wissenschaft und Kirche", Zeitschrift fur Kirckengeschichte, 106 (1995), pp. 99-100. 75 and had no grand illusions about the church. His father wanted Hirsch to follow him into the church, but had warned him of its hardships.

Hirsch's intellectual independence was evident already in his student years. He recalled that it was as a student that he discovered on his own that there were "fables and myths" in the Old Testament. Hirsch likewise applied critical readings to the New

Testament, where he noted discrepancies within the texts such as the "inconsistent legends" in the gospel accounts of the virgin birth. Significantly, these discoveries did not negatively affect Hirsch's faith. Rather, Hirsch developed early on the sense that he could leave no "dangerous questions" lie, regardless of the cost, and devoted himself to his work, forging his own path between liberalism and theological orthodoxy.211

Hirsch reflected that during his time as a student he was guided by central questions about how exactly human beings could come to know about the supernatural, and the historical conditions of Christian belief. Hirsch's epistemological questions led him to Kant, while the emphasis on historical study within the Berlin theological faculty guided his investigation into the material context of faith. According to Hirsch, it was this biblical criticism and historicism - and especially the influence of Karl Holl - that opened his eyes to the fact that the doctrines of the trinity and satisfaction through Christ,

Christology and eschatology were all human constructs, and needed to be subjected to the rigours of intellectual inquiry. These discoveries had an irreversible affect on Hirsch, and pushed him farther along in his pursuit of truth.212

2.1 Emanuel Hirsch, "Meine Theologischen Anf&nge", Freies Christentum, 3,10 (1951), pp. 2-3. 2.2 Hirsch, "Meine Theologischen AnfSnge", p. 3. 76 After completing his examinations in 1911, and a stint as a Hauslehrer, Hirsch transferred to Gottingen in the fall of 1912, where he took a position as a Stiftsinspektor.

He received his theology licentiate in 1914. As a Stiftsinspektor, Hirsch could not complete his Habilitation at Gottingen, but he received an offer from the faculty at Bonn for both a Stiftsinspektorat and the opportunity to complete his studies. Given the size of his remuneration, Hirsch was instructed not to think of marriage.

At the same time as the Bonn offer, church leadership presented Hirsch with the opportunity to fill a vacant position in Berlin, but turned down his suggestion to both work and study. Hirsch chose the Bonn offer, and thus entered the academic life. As

Hirsch recounted it, he laid the decision about what path his life should take in the hands of Karl Holl, who took the risk to give what Hirsch interpreted as a command from God to commit his life to academia.213

In the winter semester of 1914/15 Hirsch was finished his Habilitation, which had continued the work on Fichte that he had begun at Gottingen.214 Fichte's philosophy would have a lasting impact on Hirsch throughout his career, for it was Fichte who significantly influenced Hirsch's formulation of Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms.

Luther had divided the mediaeval unity of church and state into two distinct realms, the worldly kingdom and the kingdom of God. In his own way, Fichte realigned this divide by separating law from morality, thus making the two concepts mutually independent.

213 Emanuel Hirsch, "Mein Weg in die Wissenschaft (1911-1916)", Freies Christentum, 3, 11 (1951), p. 3. 214 Hirsch's Promotionsschrift was entitled "Fichtes Religionsphilosophie im Rahmen der philosophischen Gesamtentwirkung Fichtes", his Habilitationsschrifl,"Christentum und Geschichte in Fichtes Philosophy". 215A. James Reimer, Paul Tillich: Theologian of Nature, Culture and Politics (MUnster, 2004), p. 88. 77 Accordingly, Hirsch could conclude that outside of "outward discipline and order," moral-religious law is not able to dictate what is right in unfamiliar situations.216

Fichte also provided Hirsch an example during the dark times of the war. On the one hand, Fichte's thought had contextual parallels for Hirsch, for according to Hirsch's interpretation of the First World War, there were many similarities between it and the war against Napoleonic France. More specifically, Fichte's context and his connection of ethics with a practical sense of duty proved that his idealism was not detached from the realities of the national situation.217 Fichte's emphasis of the connection between an ethics based on duty and conscience, and cultural ethics was particularly important in helping Hirsch work through his understanding of the relationship between the personal

") 1 ft experience of God, and spiritual and earthly responsibility.

In terms of concrete forces that affected the early development of Hirsch's political theology, the events of the First World War and the German defeat were pivotal.

Unlike those who could enthusiastically join the German war effort, Hirsch was physically unfit for military service. He recalled that he was weak, limited by severe myopia, and weighed little over one hundred pounds. Unable to serve in a military capacity, Hirsch arduously threw himself into his scholarly work as his own form of military service, which restored to him a personal sense of "honour and solidarity".219

216 Hirsch, "Mein Weg in die Wissenschaft", p. 3. 217 Jens Holger Schjarring, Theologische Gewissenethik undpolitischen Wirklichkeit: Das Beispiel Eduard Geismars und Emanuel Hirschs (GSttingen, 1979), p. 55. 218 Heinrich Assel, Der Andere Aufbruch: Die Lutherrenaissance - Urspriinge, Aporien und Wege: Karl Holl, Emanuel Hirsch, Rudolph Hermann (1910-1935) (GSttingen, 1994), pp. 202-3; Reimer, Paul Tillich, pp. 88-9. Hirsch, "Mein Weg in die Wissenschaft", p. 4. 78 During the war both of the chairs of church history at Bonn were "orphaned".220

From October 1914, Wilhelm Goeters served as a military chaplain. In December of the same year Karl Sell died. His replacement, Heinrich Hermelink, served as an officer until he was seriously wounded, and then continued his service as a chaplain.221 By January

1915, Hirsch was a Privatdozent in church history, and because of the vacancies, was left as the only lecturer in the department.222 Hirsch's compensatory "Kriegsdienst" continued until the late fall of 1916.223

When the teaching situation at Bonn stabilized in 1916, Hirsch felt himself to be superfluous given the small number of students. Deciding to put his academic work on hold, Hirsch availed himself to church work in Baden because of the shortage of pastors caused by the war. This service was cut short in the winter of 1917/18 because of an eye affliction that would eventually leave Hirsch blind.224

The impact of the First World War on Hirsch's developing theology was profound, and it united Hirsch with the bulk of the German intelligentsia and cultural elite who similarly backed the war effort. Along with other intellectuals, Hirsch was supportive of the war both because of his theological perspective, from which he held the

220 Hirsch, "Mein Weg in die Wissenschaft", p. 4. 221 Martin Ohst, "Kriegserfahrung und Gottesglaube. Zu den 'Schopfheim Predigten' (1917) von Emanuel Hirsch", in Gudrun Litz, Heidrun Munzert and Roland Liebenberg eds., Frdmmigkeit, Theologie, Frommigkeitstheologie: Contributions to European Church History: Festschrift fur Berndt Hamm zum 60. Geburtstag (Leiden, 2005), p. 731. 222 Von Scheliha, p. 102. 223 Hirsch, "Mein Weg in die Wissenschaft", p. 4. 224 Hirsch suffered a detached retina in his left eye in the winter of 1917/18. In August 1919 his right eye was similarly affected. After a succession of unsuccessful operations, he finally underwent a new procedure and was "released as healed" in April 1920. He later credited God with the generous gift of 25 years of "light and work". Emanuel Hirsch, "Meine Wendejahre (1916-1921)", Freies Christentum, 3,12 (1951), p. 4. 79 campaign to be just, and because he was completely enamoured by the possibility for national renewal, solidarity and fraternity provided by the war.

While there is an extensive record documenting the opinions of Germany's cultural elite, popular sentiments have proven harder to ascertain. Working from contemporary media sources and propaganda campaigns, Jeffrey Verhey's study of public opinion of July and August 1914 counters arguments of scholars like George

Mosse, Modris Eksteins and Eric Leed that there was a broad consensus of support for

Germany's involvement in the First World War. Verhey argues that beyond the 'war enthusiasm' of intellectuals and the upper class, mainstream society was far more varied.

Instead of unanimity, competing sectors within German society attempted to appropriate war enthusiasm and use it to lend legitimacy to their specific causes. Verhey expounds that the myth of 1914 was manifested in two primary forms and served two distinct functions. First, enthusiasm served as a "social myth" which depicted Germany as a nation and a cohesive community. Second, enthusiasm was mobilized as a "transcendent myth", a "faith" in the German ability to triumph in the midst of overwhelming odds.225

Insofar as Verhey's revisions are instructive, they do not significantly change how we interpret Hirsch's reaction to the war. Blending the social and theological, Hirsch understood the war to be an opportunity for collective sacrifice and triumph, essentially spiritualizing the campaign. Hirsch's position therefore parallels the war enthusiasm of the Berlin crowds which mingled nationalism and religiosity, and the conservative

225 Jeffrey Verhey, The Spirit of 1914: Militarism, Myth, and Mobilization in Germany (Cambridge, 2000). For a comparison to Verhey see: George L. Mosse, The Nationalization of the Masses: Political Symbolism and Mass Movements in Germany from the Napoleonic Wars Through the Third Reich (New York, 1975); and Peter Fritzsche, Germans into Nazis (Cambridge, 1998). 80 ideology that Verhey claims mobilized the myths of mass enthusiasm to promote a national community. And yet a distinction needs to be drawn, for Hirsch was not manipulating an image of war enthusiasm for some broader purpose. Hirsch's theological work on behalf to the nation derived its urgency from Hirsch's perceived obligation to contribute to the war effort; it was an intellectual substitute for physical participation. If others were drafted into the war, Hirsch was 'drafted' into theological service.

Reflecting back on the turning points in his life through a set of short autobiographical accounts, Hirsch described his service to the German cause through church work and the things he was learning during the war years, but not his political stance at the time. These views become evident from his writings during the war. If

Hirsch could not fight physically, he would devote his intellectual energies to the German cause.

Beyond his conservative upbringing, Hirsch's political thought had already been influenced by the Christianity infused nationalism of the Wingolf fraternity, and his tutelage under Holl.227 But these relatively early influences do not fully account for

Hirsch's positive interpretation of war. Hirsch's enthusiasm is partly explained by the fact that he considered Germany's entrance into the war to be a defensive response to

"yyo England's hegemonic aspirations. Hirsch could thus disregard the theological reservations generally needed when contemplating war, because Germany was not fighting this campaign from the position of the false motive of greed. More importantly,

226 See: Eksteins, Rites of Spring. 227 SchjOTring, p. 56. 228 Emanuel Hirsch, "Der Pazifismus" (MQhlhausen, 1918), p. 6. 81 Hirsch arrived at a theological position that moved beyond a justification of this particular war, to deal with war in general. Hirsch understood war to be a tool of God's judgement; war is the opportunity for peoples to boldly question God about their fate. A result of this conceptualization is that war is necessarily spiritualized through the total demands it places on a people, and the perceived connection between its outcome and

God's judgement. 229

Throughout 1917 Hirsch sought to address the problems surrounding the

Christian's relation to the state. In an article published in the Wingolfs-Bldttern in January

1917, Hirsch attempted to work through a number of the theological issues pertaining to

Germany's involvement in the war through a reading of Luther. Hirsch began his interpretation of the political implications of Luther's theology with an explication of

Luther's concept of the two kingdoms. According to Hirsch's understanding of Luther, it is through the power of the gospel that sinful people are transformed into Christians with new convictions. While still subject to earthly authority, these Christians belong to the invisible kingdom of God, where no coercive force is needed. Christians are bound to one another freely through love, and therefore need no earthly law. They freely do what a just state would require of them of their own volition.230

Even though Christians need no earthly government, this fact does not negate the necessity of temporal authority, for without it the world would quickly degenerate.

Christians recognize the need for government and the reality that the state does not wield

229 Hirsch, "Der Pazifismus", p. 13; Schjerring, pp. 56-7. 230 Emanuel Hirsch, "Luthers Gedanken flber Staat und Krieg", Wingolfs-Blatter, 46, 7 (1917). 82 the sword in vain. God has instituted the worldly authorities, placing the responsibility for keeping peace and order in human hands. Accordingly, those who are placed in positions of authority are bound under a set of ethical guidelines specific to their calling, in which it would be wrong for them not to engage coercive force to keep the peace. As

Hirsch understood Luther, the call to use force extends beyond princes, to the point where

Luther concluded that being a bailiff or hangman are not just acceptable occupations for a

Christian, but that Christians are obligated to fill these roles if they remain vacant.231

Hirsch expanded further on the theme of the relationship between the kingdom of

God and the state in a sermon from July 1917. The text for Hirsch's sermon is John

18:36-8, where Jesus is brought before Pilate and questioned about the claim that he is a king. During their exchange, Pilate speaks in terms of worldly authority, whereas Jesus clarifies that his kingdom "is not of this world". This is the reason why his followers do not fight. Hirsch used the confrontation between Pilate and Jesus as a point of comparison for the current situation in Germany, in which the war had revealed the opposition between the kingdom of God and the earthly kingdom.233

Hirsch argued that God works in human history through both of the kingdoms, but that there is a great tension between the two. This tension also cuts through the hearts of individuals, who hold both Christian belief and a love of the fatherland simultaneously.

Christians belong to both kingdoms, but the inherent opposition between the invisible

231 Hirsch, "Luthers Gedanken fiber Staat und Krieg". 232 Hirsch returned to this text in Deutsches Volkstum und evangelischer Glaube (Hamburg, 1934), p. 21. 233Emanuel Hirsch, "Gottesreich und Staat", in Hans Martin Mailer, ed., Gesammelte Werke Band 36: Ihr Seid Christi: Schopfheimer Predigten 1917 (Waltrop, 2001), pp. 185-6. 83 kingdom of mutual submission that rules the soul, and the temporal authority that rules the body and wages all wars, raises doubts about the possibility of their reconciliation.234

While steadfastly stressing the sovereignty of the kingdom of God, Hirsch continually reiterated the divine right of the state and its absolute necessity. The state fulfills purposes that otherwise could not be accomplished, and as a result is governed by its own laws. The state utilizes force to create order, but only when there is outward order does the church have the freedom to preach the gospel. And it is only within a nation state that a national community can develop its God-given abilities.235 Christians, then, should acknowledge their indebtedness to the state, and even though they stand above it, willingly make themselves subservient to it.

Even Christians who occupy roles of civil authority should discharge their duties out of love. While it may be difficult for a judge to sentence people to punishment, the guilty verdict and sentencing serves as a precedent to keep others from similar offences.

The judge's ruling can thus be an act of love.236

For Luther, the doctrine of the two kingdoms provided a solution to what would otherwise be an insurmountable tension between the individual's calling to endure injustice and live peaceably as a Christian, and what Luther perceived to be the very real demands of civil society. Christian political involvement would not be possible without this compartmentalization of the inner-personal and outer-social ethical demands on the

234 Hirsch, "Gottesreich und Staat", pp. 186-7. 235 Hirsch, "Gottesreich und Staat", pp. 192-3. 236 Hirsch, "Gottesreich und Staat", p. 196. 84 individual. The reconfiguration of the ethical demands for the Christian also provided

Luther with a solution to the problem of war.

According to Hirsch's reading, Luther outlined two prerequisites for just war.

Firstly, Luther maintained a vital distinction between war and rebellion. A just war can only be waged between independent states. War cannot be directed against an established authority, for Christians are called to endure even corrupt government in "patience and love". Secondly, a war must be waged to fulfill the state's duty to defend its citizens in order to be just, and not be waged from a leader's selfish purposes.237

By starting from the position of Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms, whereby worldly authority is instituted by God and commissioned to preserve peace and order with recourse to violence and coercive force, Hirsch could argue, through Luther, that it is naive and childish to only see the destructive side of war. "Manly" eyes will see war differently, and understand the real motives behind it. Because it is a ruler's duty to protect his subjects, and it is a soldier's duty to obey the ruler, conducting a just war may properly be understood as obedience to God. Pushing these conclusions even further,

Hirsch maintained that because the state's defence of the rights of its citizens is a form of

'neighbour love', military service, like the office of judge, is itself an act of love.

Hirsch next addressed those who would understand war to be the German government's "contradiction against Christian ethics". By holding to such a position, these critics betrayed the fact that their own ethical standard was actually based on an

237 Hirsch, "Luthers Gedanken uber Staat und Krieg". 238 Hirsch, "Luthers Gedanken Qber Staat und Krieg". 85 Enlightenment Humanitatsideal, and not Christian ethics. Hirsch argued that this ideal reveals itself to be "only half an ethics," in that it holds to the legitimate or even requisite role of the state in furthering social objectives, but does not move through to Luther's solution to the inherent problem of Christianity's relation to government. Those that reject the idea of war from the purported position of Christian ethics have not understood

Luther.239 If the government's use of power is acceptable within the state, the logical extension of this conclusion is that it is also acceptable outside of it.240

Returning to Luther's concept of just war, Hirsch posited that the ideal of a defensive war is tied closely to what Luther determined to be the purpose of the state.

Because the state is to defend the peace, the only justifiable reason for war is toward this end. However, the understanding of the purpose of the state has widened since Luther, and must now be thought of in conjunction with the purpose of the national community

(Volk). God has given each Volk gifts and abilities that are to be displayed and exercised as a part of its maturation, and the purpose of the state is to facilitate this process.

Accordingly, God has given each Volk the necessary measure of strength. The implication of this development is that the justification of war in terms of whether or not it is defensive proves to be too narrow.

Hirsch offered the German seizure of Alsace as an example. While in French hands, Alsace provided France with a military vantage point, and politically emasculated

239 Along a similar vein, Hirsch argued that "Many that babble about war and peace make it clear that in their catechism there is only one command, the fifth. They have apparently never heard anything of the greatest and most distinguished command and the others that are equal to it". Hirsch, "Gottesreich und Staat", p. 192. 240 Hirsch, "Luthers Gedanken uber Staat und Krieg". 86 Germany as a result. Germany was essentially defenceless against French arbitrariness, and unable to fully realize its national potential. The fact that the German Volk would not be able to fulfill the task given it by God otherwise, justified a war of conquest against

France and the seizure of Alsace.241

Hirsch continued by arguing that what is most important in Luther's conception of war is not the claim that only defensive wars are justifiable, but rather that "only the justified objectives of the state justify the purpose of war". Essentially, Hirsch was attempting to rescue what he considered to be a proper Lutheran interpretation of war from the misappropriations of those who want the best of both alternatives - to still consider war justifiable only in terms of whether it is defensive, and yet to embrace the modern nation state.242

Many of these themes are taken up again in Hirsch's treatment of pacifism in a

1918 offprint from the Wingolfs-Blatter. Hirsch began by outlining the characteristics of what he considered to be the "pacifist ideal" in order to systematically refute it. As Hirsch understood the international pacifist movement, it was predicated on an ability of nations to trust one another based on their similarities. By implication, democracy, the self- determination of nations, and a world court of arbitration were prerequisites for there to be trust; in a world peace alliance, all the members needed to be democracies, and necessarily likeminded. As a spin-off, member states in a peace alliance would also be closely aligned in an economic system with central regulation, to the extent that in

241 Hirsch discussed this scenario in the 'past subjunctive', and argued that the example is not entirely valid since it was the French who started the war. "Luthers Gedanken iiber Staat und Krieg". 242 Hirsch, "Luthers Gedanken iiber Staat und Krieg". 87 Hirsch's estimation, the international integration of markets would actually be an intrusion upon domestic economic life.243

According to Hirsch, even though it espoused self-determination, the movement toward international pacifism would effectively dissolve national differences, replacing them with common economic, political, legal, and cultural structures. Essentially, the common culture would become the set boundary for the alliance itself. The limits and inconsistencies of the pacifist ideal were further exposed by national communities which had undergone a strong and independent spiritual and political development, and would not allow themselves to be subjugated by the artificiality of a world alliance. What is more, even though the alliance needed to be composed of democracies, "it will represent itself as an empire", and an empire, of necessity, will have an emperor.244

From an ethical perspective, the pacifist ideal wanted to elevate humanity beyond relations founded on power. However, for Hirsch, the ideal itself was fundamentally flawed from the outset. The ideal of perpetual peace could not be realized, for everything that exists in history has a beginning and an end. Furthermore, God's revelation throughout history demonstrates that it is not the destiny of every Volk to live out its particular existence in its own independent state. God can also intend for nations to rise to empires - God's sovereign will is unknown.245

243 Hirsch, "Der Pazifismus", pp. 1-2. 244 Hirsch, "Der Pazifismus", pp. 2-4. 243 Hirsch, "Der Pazifismus", pp. 5-6. 88 Even if a peaceful world alliance could be realized, Hirsch maintained that it would not be better, more just or moral than the existing world order.246 The state keeps the peace in society, but it is only an "apparent peace" in the sense that the state merely suppresses violence and disorder, and maintains peace through force. The essential nature of the citizens remains unchanged. This fact either escapes, or is ignored by Christian pacifists.247 The same holds true for states themselves. A powerful Volk will not partition its own land and curtail its potential for the benefit of a weaker national community's claim to self-determination. A world alliance will not reform greed or selfish ambition.

Economically, a weaker Volk will be at the mercy of powerful capitalist national communities., especially given a common political and economic structure.248

Hirsch attributed the misguided hopes for a world peace alliance to the fact that the pacifist conception of law was patently false. Laws allow civil society to exist, for even a bad law is better than no law. But because the law does not improve humanity morally, rather only curbs immoral behaviour, Hirsch "sharply distinguishes" the

"kingdom of law" from the "kingdom of love".249 Even the most successful attempts at coordinating society's behaviour cannot transform the kingdom of law into the kingdom of love.

The distinction between love and law, and his convictions about the specific function of the state, also partly explain Hirsch's aversion to democracy. A state cannot properly exist if it is subject to the whims of the people, or if a present fad moves even a

246 Hirsch, "Der Pazifismus", p. 6. 247 Emanuel Hirsch, "Ein Christliches Volk", Der Geisteskampf der Gegenwart 54, 7 (1918), p. 164. 248 Hirsch, "Der Pazifismus", pp. 6-7. 249 Hirsch, "Der Pazifismus", p. 8. 89 majority of citizens to enact drastic change. God instituted the state to stand above human society. A Volk that appropriates control of the state and subordinates it to the popular will, will destroy God within the Volk,250 There are hints of the hidden reality of the kingdom of God in people's inner convictions, but outwardly the Christian pacifist ideal is impossible.

Hirsch's rejection of the attempt to conflate the kingdom of law and the kingdom of God is closely connected to his rejection of what he considered to be pacifism's misunderstanding of the role of the Volk in history. According to Hirsch, a world alliance would destroy the Volk and the Volksgemeinschaft. The Volk would lose its particularity and uniqueness through common structures, for as Hirsch understood divine revelation in history, particularity is not the result of happenstance. The contemporary world culture was destructive, and would foster selfishness in the Volk. The Volksgemeinschaft, on the contrary, binds a national community together through a mutual mentality and set of aspirations - a "natural inner connection".252 God works in history by disrupting the existing national order to prevent stagnancy and complacency, so consequently, for

Hirsch, "It is no historical coincidence, that the creative power of the human spirit is always revealed strongest in young up and coming nation states"253

250 Emanuel Hirsch, "Demokratie und Christentum", Der Geisteskampf der Gegenwart 54, 3 (1918), p. 59. Hirsch acknowledged that there is a danger in speaking in terms of a Christian Volk, for no Volk is completely Christian; only a minority of members can be considered true believers. Still, Hirsch concluded that the Germans were a Christian Volk because the collective conscience of the Volk had been formed and educated through Christianity. Hirsch, "Ein Christliches Volk", pp. 163-5. 251 Hirsch, "Der Pazifismus", pp. 8-9. 252 Hirsch, "Der Pazifismus", p. 10. 253 Hirsch, "Der Pazifismus", p. 11. 90 Despite the trajectoiy of this thought, Hirsch maintained that war is not a blessing, especially given the contemporary context.254 At the same time, Hirsch suggested that an historical occurrence cannot rightly be judged based on whether its consequences are welcomed or not, for historical change is always "bitter and painful" for those who live through it. Even war "has its honour: it is the servant of justice". But in order to understand the justice of war, one must move beyond common social conceptions to think of war in the larger context of human history, where the forces of history do not act democratically, or with equanimity.

War provides the arena for national communities to be measured against one another, to assert themselves, and to carve out a sphere of influence. War thus serves as a barometer of sorts, to gauge the relative health of a Volk. In war, strengths and weaknesses come quickly to light, but Hirsch maintained that wars are not won purely by brute strength. Instead, the health of a Volk is demonstrated in its collective will to sacrifice, revealing that for Hirsch, "virtues of the will" were to be considered along with strength and numbers. Consequently, Hirsch could conclude that national communities

"that lose their independence in the fight, have as a rule, not deserved to have their own state".256

254 As a keen observer, Hirsch was acutely aware of die hardships caused by the war. At the personal level, Hirsch's brother Hans died in the war in 1915. Von Scheliha, p. 100. 255 Hirsch, "Der Pazifismus", p. 11. 256 Hirsch, "Der Pazifismus", p. 12. 91 Hirsch rejected international pacifism in general and Christian pacifism in particular257, but remained acutely cognisant of the seeming contradiction between the fact that war is fuelled by a longing to destroy the enemy, and the love ethic proclaimed in the Sermon on the Mount. Again, Hirsch solved this apparent incompatibility through the doctrine of the two kingdoms, which allowed him to conclude that the state functions by a fundamentally different set of assumptions than those espoused in the gospels. More specifically, Hirsch's defence of war and the whole two kingdom paradigm hinges on his conviction that there is an essential distinction between the Christian ethics applicable to the individual, and those for "worldly things" such as the state.258

For Hirsch, Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms was the only viable solution for the problems confronted by Christian ethics, but by aligning the idea of a God-given mission to the Volk with the purposes of the state, Hirsch opened up this interpretation to potentially dangerous conclusions. Hirsch addressed apprehensions that the broadened justification of war could be abused by situating Luther's discussion of war within the context of the larger treatment of duty and obedience: it is not a question of when war is permitted, but rather when war is a duty. Still, by suggesting that "Luther knew of no state obligation for which he would not also have used, if necessary, state power outside of the state", Hirsch provided the basis for a justification of war to fulfill a specific

257 Hirsch similarly rejected Tolstoy's ascetic pacifism, religious socialism, and Social Democracy as egotistical and godless. Schjerring, p. 60. Hirsch, "Der Pazifismus", pp. 14-5. 92 volkisch destiny. Moreover, Hirsch's treatment of the doctrine of the two kingdoms allowed him to endorse the Christian's participation in war as a "divine work".259

War, for Hirsch, could then be justified even if not defensive in a traditional sense. Essentially, Hirsch redefined defensiveness, expanding it to include measures aimed at preserving the Volk by protecting it from stagnation. But by circumscribing justified war with an appeal to 'duty' and 'obedience' properly understood - concepts easily misappropriated in their own rights - Hirsch's limitations are quite inadequate. In the same way, Hirsch worked against potential sympathies for an international community from the standpoint that eliminating differences would do no good for strong, vital national communities. They would only be hampered in their development.

Practically, pacifism was impossible, and theologically, perpetual peace was unjustifiable.

These themes are again repeated in articles from 1918, in which Hirsch addressed questions of identity for the German Volk, and the struggle over the proper form for a national constitution. It is significant for our purposes that Hirsch acknowledged the limits of scriptural direction with regards to a specific German national constitution. The

Bible simply does not state what form of government is best, only that authority is to be obeyed. Accordingly, Christian societies have historically instituted different governmental structures, and Hirsch suggested that not every community would be best suited to a normative constitution and governmental apparatus. Although it provides

259 Hirsch, "Luthers Gedanken iiber Staat und Krieg". 93 some direction, the gospel cannot dictate the proper form of government; that is determined by the specific situation of the Volk in history.260

While the development of the Volk is particular to its historical context, this was not to suggest a form of political relativism whereby each form of government was equally valid. Unlike Louis XIV's "godless" claim to embody the state himself, Hirsch maintained that indeed "Der Ftirst ist der erste Diener des St dates".261 For Hirsch, the state is far more than an organizational structure. Its identity stretches back into the past and extends forward to the future, belonging as much to the past and future generations as it does to the present.262 A national community and its concomitant state arise where people, related through blood and a common language, bond together as a collective through shared experiences, trials and triumphs. Common gifts and a shared purpose transform what would otherwise be a mass of humanity into a Volk. 263 For this reason,

Hirsch considered the democratic claim "Der Staat, das sind wir", to be as godless and egocentric as "Der Staat, das bin ich".264

Hirsch thought of the state holistically in the sense that it is "far more than the sum" of its parts, "the presently living citizens". It has a responsibility to those who formed it, and is entrusted with the fixtures of those who will inherit it. For this reason,

260 Emanuel Hirsch, "Demokratie und Christentum", pp. 57-8. Hirsch restated similar arguments about the lack of a New Testament doctrine of the state in 1935: "Dass man der Obrigkeit, wo sie rechtswahrende und-hutende Funktion ausflbt, zu gehorchen habe, und dass man ihr, wo sie einem Predigt des Evangeliums verbietet oder zum Dienst am G6tzen zwingt, nicht gehorchen dOrfe, das ist das Einzige, was aus dem Neuen Testament uber den Staat zu entnehmen ist." Emanuel Hirsch, "Drei Thesenreihen", in Christliche Freiheit und Politische Bindung: Ein Brief an Dr. Stapel und anderes (Hamburg, 1935), p. 89. 261 Hirsch, "Demokratie und Christentum", p. 58. 262 This theme was repeated again after the war. See for example: Emanuel Hirsch, Deutschlands Schicksal: Staat, Volk und Menschheit im Lichte einer ethischen Geschichtsansicht (Gdttingen, 1925), pp. 82-3. 263 Emanuel Hirsch, "Ein Christliches Volk", p. 164. 264 Hirsch, "Demokratie und Christentum", p. 58. 94 the German Volk was to ensure that future generations would have "room to live and work" as "free and proud" people, even if this demanded sacrifices in the present.

Hirsch's high esteem for the role of the state was not merely a theological expedient to alleviate the tensions between Christian ethics and the modern state, as

Hirsch moved beyond the benefits that the state provides civil society to suggest that the state itself has a divine content, as "the revelation and outcome of God's omnipotence, just as the Gospel and the kingdom of God are the revelation and outcome from God's holy love".266 This conviction that God's nature and purposes are revealed through natural processes and national histories would lie at the centre of Hirsch's dispute with

Karl Barth.267

Thus, by the end of 1918 we observe that Hirsch's early interpretation of the doctrine of the two kingdoms had allowed him to reconcile the Christian's full participation within modern civil society, including positions of authority that exert coercive force. It had also allowed Hirsch to move beyond justifying war to the point of glorifying the Christian's participation as an act of love. Undoubtedly influenced by the experience of the war, Hirsch rejected pacifism and democracy, and elevated the Volk - defined in terms of shared purposes and experiences, but also materially in terms of common bloodlines and language - to the extent that the state's purpose is aligned with providing the historical conditions needed for the Volk's full maturation.

265 Hirsch, "Demokratie und Christentum", p. 58. 266 Hirsch, "Gottesreich und Staat", p. 194. 267 The dispute between Barth and Hirsch will be taken up in chapter 3. 95 These theological developments demonstrate the extent to which we can already see in Hirsch's wartime writings the connection between themes that remained central to his later political theology, and paved the way for his acceptance of National Socialism.

Hirsch's wartime record gives credence to A. James Reimer's conclusion that "Hirsch's decision to give unqualified support to Hitler and National Socialism in 1933, as well as his ardent work on behalf of the German Christians ...was not an opportunistic one, as some have maintained, but was generally consistent with his prior intellectual and political development".268

The impact of defeat and Hirsch's developing volkisch theology.

Although Hirsch's thought was already markedly political during the war, the impact of the German 'catastrophe' on Hirsch's developing political theology can hardly be underestimated.269 If August 1914 had been, for Hirsch, the "proudest moment in our history", the monumental surprise of the defeat and revolution caused him to reconsider the "mystery of human history".270

According to Hirsch, the revolution was a misguided attempt to unify the nation from the outside. Instead of promoting unity, the revolution undermined German solidarity similarly to the way in which German patriotism had been undercut during the

268 A. James Reimer, The Emanuel Hirsch and Paul Tillich Debate: A Study in the Political Ramifications of Theology (Queenston, 1989), p. 52; Jens Holger Schjerring argues "Es besteht also eine grundlegend Kontinuitat im politischen Wirken Hirschs und seiner theologischen Begriindung vor und nach 1933". Schjem-ing, p. 177. 269 Gunda Schneider-Flume's study only begins after the war. See: Gunda Schneider-Flume, Die politische Theologie Emanuel Hirschs 1918-1933 (Frankfurt, 1971). 270 SchjOTring, p. 67; Hirsch, Deutschlands Schicksal, p. 3. 96 war.271 Moreover, the conditions imposed by Versailles had crippled Germany's potential. Hirsch lamented the fact that while the German state was once upheld as the nation's "highest earthly good", Germany could no longer be considered a state in this sense. Essentially, the loss of political and economic sovereignty, the military emasculation and forced parliamentary democracy, had rendered Germany a colony of the Entente. What was once a "noble Volk, perhaps the most thriving and best of all," now faced the very real possibility of being destroyed.272

Yet as much as the conditions imposed by Versailles and the unwanted republic caused Germany's misery, what was worse was the fact that, according to Hirsch, this fate was brought about by the German people's neglect of the fundamental needs of their national existence at the time of their greatest importance.273 The unity of the national community and its willingness to suffer had broken down, and betrayed the proud spirit of 1914. While Hirsch placed significant responsibility for Germany's fate on the Social

Democratic influence, he cast blame further to implicate the entire Volk in the catastrophe. The failing of the collective will brought about the German fate.274 This explanation echoed Hindenburg's November 1919 account of the home front's collapse before a Reichstag Committee of Enquiry, in which he compared the army to the

Germanic hero Siegfried: the army had not been defeated; it had been betrayed. In the hands of the Nazis the stab-in-the-back myth was pushed to most sinister ends, but for his part, Hirsch gave the myth theological context already in the 1920s.

271 Schjarring, p. 67. 272 Hirsch, Deutschlands Schicksal, pp. 141-3. 273 Hirsch, Deutschlands Schicksal, p. 143. 274 Schneider-Flume, p. 2; Hirsch, Deutschlands Schicksal, pp. 110, 145. 97 Because Hirsch interpreted war as an occasion for a Volk to question God about its destiny, he needed necessarily to consider the outcome of war to be God's answer. As a result, Hirsch could not accept the events of 1918 as historically finalized, as this would have admitted the failure of the German will as an historical judgement. Comparing a national community's questioning of God to Jacob wrestling the angel, Hirsch equated war to a struggle with God about the nation's destiny. Framed this way, war is a great risk, and was to be waged wholeheartedly with a will to sacrifice. Like Jacob, the Volk was not to let go in the struggle until God blessed.276 The solution to the German problem, then, was to be found in a national renewal that regained what the national community had lost during the war - an independent state capable of protecting German sovereignty and enabling a reinvigorated and religiously centred Volk to achieve its autonomous historic mission - irrespective of whether this was to take two generations, or two hundred years.

Although it might be tempting to compartmentalize Hirsch's work, and think of him strictly in terms of his political thought in the framework of the discussion of

Protestant responses to National Socialism, Hirsch must be considered both with regard to his theological work and his political engagement.278 For Hirsch, his acceptance of

National Socialism was a worldview; it was total. But his Christianity was paramount - it

275 Schjerring, p. 65; Schneider-Flume, p. 4. 276 Hirsch, Deutschlands Schicksal, p. 109. 277 Hirsch, Deutschlands Schicksal, p. 146. 278 Matthias Lobe, Die Prinzipien der Ethik Emanuel Hirschs (Berlin, 1996), p. 176. See also: Dietz Lange, "Der Begriff des Heiligen in den theologischen und politischen Schriften Emanuel Hirschs", in Joachim Ringleben, ed., Christentumsgeschichte und Wahrheitsbewusstsein: Studien zur Theologie Emanuel Hirschs (Berlin, 1991). 98 shaped all his thinking, including his nationalism. Hirsch believed a Christian could live in two spheres simultaneously, but his Christian thought dictated this understanding, demonstrating the extent to which his acceptance of National Socialism fitted into his pre-existing worldview. His Christian thought was not compartmentalized; that is, he never thought not as a Christian. In short, his desire for, and political work towards a national and volkisch revival were formed by his Christianity. The two spheres represent distinct realms of action, not modes of thought.

Following the war, Hirsch settled into his academic career. After consideration by five other faculties, Hirsch was called to Gottingen - as he recounted it, against the wishes of the majority of the faculty - in the fall of 1921 as a professor in church history, where he also assumed the editorship of the Theologische Literaturzeitung.279 In 1936,

Hirsch was named Professor of Systematic Theology, a position he held until his retirement in 1945.280 Because Hirsch's career at Gottingen stretched through the majority of the Weimar Republic and the entire Third Reich, the bulk of his church- political work took place within this context.

Hirsch's anticipation of, and work towards a national spiritual renewal remained closely intertwined with the centrality of the Volk in his thinking, and his use of the two kingdoms paradigm. While Hirsch had already expanded upon the traditional Lutheran understanding of the state's mandate, it was not until the Weimar Republic and the nascent National Socialist regime that his volkisch emphasis received its fullest treatment.

279 Emanuel Hirsch, "Meine Wendejahre (1916-1921)", p. 4. 280 On the conditions of Hirsch's retirement see: Robert P. Eriksen, "The Gottingen University Theological Faculty: A Test Case in Gleichschaltung and Denazification", Central European History, 17 (1984), pp. 355-83. 99 In Deutschlands Schicksal, Hirsch demonstrated similarities to Hegel's and

Ranke's depictions of the state as an individual by suggesting that the state is a personality "in a very concrete sense", to the extent that Hirsch asserted that the state could only be the creation of a "great personality" itself.281 Hirsch discussed the state in terms of it being the power and unity which stands behind the institutional implementation of the law; said another way, as the political will behind the established legal order. But the state has an essence that stands beyond its institutional role as the law-giver experienced by its citizens. The state manifests this other side of its personality in relation to other states, where it functions as an individual interacting with other individuals. Essentially, Hirsch understood the state to be an "organism" with a particular character and specific calling.282

Each state possesses territory over which it is sovereign, singularly unique from the territory controlled by other states. The same can be said of a state's constituent population, which, along with the land, forms a distinct and independent whole. It is this organic whole, the combination of the state's material reality and its spiritual personality that, according to Hirsch, confronts other states.283

Because Hirsch conceived of the state as an organism, he necessarily rejected

Rousseau's social contract model. Inheritance and lineage proved to be of far more

281 Hirsch, Deutschlands Schicksal, p. 67. 282 Hirsch, Deutschlands Schicksal, p. 79; Emanuel Hirsch, "Die Liebe zum Vaterlande", Padagogisches Magazin, 975, p. 24. 283 Hirsch, Deutschlands Schicksal, p. 80. 100 importance to Hirsch than any notion of popular consensus.284 Along similar lines, Hirsch further rejected the idea of community as a social contract by maintaining that individuals are differentiated by the 'other' to whom they must answer, and are formed in relation to, through struggle. In the same way that nations confront one another, community is formed through 'dialogue'. For Hirsch, community was not a collection of self-contained individuals amalgamating with other self-contained individuals.

Unity in the Volk, then, was not a question of the popular will. Rather, it is impossible for there to be a unity of state without a unity of nationality. Hirsch extended this volkisch understanding of national harmony to suggest that even in states within which there are numerous ethnicities and languages, a dominant Volk must take control of the others.286

Hirsch's volkisch paradigm moved the role of the state beyond its traditional function of providing safety and security, that is, protecting from chaos, to argue that the state's real purpose is to provide the means for the growth and maturation of the Volk, and the fulfillment of its divine mandate. Safeguarding social order is the bare minimum, as Hirsch suggested that if the price was right, the French would protect Germany from chaos.287

As Hirsch understood the "German hour" of the National Socialist revolution - a unique and unrepeatable divine opportunity - Germany was on the cusp of a great

284 Hirsch, Deutschlands Schicksal, pp. 82-3. Hirsch also rejected the idea of a social contract based on the argument that the German Volk includes past, present and future generations. See above. 28 Markus Hentschel, Gewissenstheorie als Ethik und Dogmatik: Emanuel Hirschs 'Christliche Rechenschaft' (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1995), pp. 92,98. 286 Hirsch, Deutschlands Schicksal, pp. 80-1. 287 Emanuel Hirsch, "Vom verborgenen Suveran", Glaube und Volk 2, 1 (1933), p. 12. 101 national rejuvenation.288 Therefore, the situation demanded a new evangelical understanding of the state. The Reformation principles in and of themselves were no longer sufficient; they needed to be adapted to the present circumstances, adjusted for the present context. However, a new conception of the relation to the state would be difficult for theologians to arrive at, for as Hirsch maintained, they would rather defer to the established authority of scripture, the catechism, or church dogma. But God had not prescribed a universal form of government, and had not released Christians from the hard work of struggling to establish the proper institutions and orders for their respective historical situations. Hirsch admitted that this work is a risk, but the effort would come to ruin if the church started from the assumption that God had ordered its reality in advance.289

By stressing risk and struggle, Hirsch placed the impetus on the church to come to an understanding about the relation between itself and the state, and on the Volk for determining the relevant new political structures. Not only did Hirsch consider the

German Volk to have a task given it by God, he understood it to be a partner with God in

"weaving his history, and in the struggle for a new space and new possibility and new form of state for our Volk'\290

288 James Zabel summed up the 'German hour' thus: "Both Althaus and Hirsch believed that peoples and nations had their hour when God's will touched the mundane course of history". Peoples were given one chance. "For Hirsch the hour came with the National Socialist revolution". Zabel, Nazism and the Pastors, p. 60. For an example of Hirsh's use of the term see: Emanuel Hirsch, "Brief an einen Schuler im Pfarramt iiber Evangelium u. Politik", Glaube und Volk 2,2 (1933), p. 30. 289 Hirsch, "Vom verborgenen SuverSn", p. 12. 290 Hirsch, "Vom verborgenen Suveran", p. 13. 102 If the Hegelian and Rankean treatments of the state as an individual lent themselves to a form of ethical relativism, Hirsch's doctrines of the state and the sovereignty of the Volk were susceptible to similar abuses.

Hirsch argued that under the Weimar system, its citizens were completely sovereign, as even the constitution was subordinated to the unfettered will of the citizens.

Everything, in turn, was responsible to the voters. Consequently, Hirsch and other

German Christians were triggered by the unacceptable situation in Weimar and the theological legacy of the conservative restoration that preceded it, to struggle to renew the state, and cultivate a "new, deeper and richer Volt?\291

Hirsch's rejection of Weimar stemmed from his theological aversion to democracy and pacifism, but was certainly reinforced by his conservative social and cultural milieu. As was common with the Protestant clergy, Hirsch had followed his father into the university. And even though its social exclusivity was lessening, albeit gradually as the classical curriculum of the Gymnasium lost its complete monopoly over university admittance, the university still afforded considerable social prestige in German society.292 At the same time, Hirsch belonged to a class that was lowering in German society.293 As a Prussian, a conservative, and a member of the cultural elite, Hirsch was

291 Hirsch, "Vom verborgenen Suveran", p. 5. 292 Charles E. McClelland, State, Society, and University in Germany 1700-1914 (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 249-52. 293 Fritz Ringer posited that there was a shared mentality amongst German academics in the decades before the Third Reich: "They considered themselves part of a threatened elite of German 'bearers of culture', members of a distinct cultured segment of the nation". Fritz K. Ringer, The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community, 1890-1933 (Cambridge, 1969), p. 3. 103 not used to mass democracy; he was used to, and supported, elite systems which defended against mass democracy.

For all its novelties, the 1871 constitution had built within it measures to guarantee inequality. Prussian control over the monarchy and chancellorship was obvious, but Germany was still a constitutional monarchy with a bicameral legislature.

However even though delegates to the Reichstag were elected through universal male

suffrage, representatives to the more influential Bundesrat - of which Prussia controlled

17 of the 58 votes - were elected according to individual state regulations. Because

Prussia retained its three-class voting system, conservative elites commanded a disproportionate influence both in Prussia and in the Reich.294 The Reichstag's strength

was further limited by the fact that the chancellor and ministers were not responsible to

parliament.295

Given imperial Germany's limited parliamentarianism, to which its constitutional

limitations, strong bureaucratic tradition, and the Prussian legislature's consistent refusal

to enact electoral reform contributed, for conservative elites like Hirsch, the popular democracy of the Weimar Republic was a complete disaster."JQf.

As Hirsch understood his contemporary context in the wake of Weimar's collapse, the evangelical church in Germany stood at the brink of an historically unique

294 Fourteen of Prussia's 17 votes were enough to constitute a veto to federal legislation, which needed to be passed by both houses. 295 Hans-Ulrich Wehler went so far as to call the constitutional monarchy "an autocratic, semi-absolutist sham constitutionalism". Hans-Ulrich Wehler, The German Empire 1871-1918, trans. Kim Traynor (New York, 1985), p. 55. 296 For a revised version of the Sonderweg thesis see: Jurgen Kocka, "Asymmetrical Historical Comparison: The Case of the German Sonderweg', History and Theory, 38 (1999), pp. 40-5. 104 third option to the traditional problem of church-state relations. The first option had been the Reformation's teaching on authority; the second, the nineteenth century conservative restoration's interpretation of the Reformation, and its refusal of revolution. The third option, as Hirsch saw it, was the movement gaining ground since the "critical turn" of

1929/30.297 Unlike the Reformation teaching about subjugation to the ruler, or the conservative transferral of this subjugation to a particular state structure, Hirsch argued that it is the Volk itself which is "the hidden and thus true sovereign".298

The Volk, then, is "the criterion for all political thinking and activity", and stands above every individual as such.299 By implication, each member of the Volk, ruling and ruled alike, is subject to its sovereignty.300 At the same time, each member of the Volk is also now an interpreter of this sovereignty, and must discern what is in the best interest of the state - pushing toward its proper manifestation. This, however, is not to suggest that

Hirsch's new understanding gave the Volk free reign. The hidden sovereignty of the Volk is voluntarily limited by God, and acts as the standard by which the powers within the state are measured.301

297 Hirsch, "Vom verborgenen SuverSn", p. 8. 298 Hirsch, "Vom verborgenen SuverSn", p. 7; Reimer, The Emanuel Hirsch and Paul Tillich Debate, p. 54. On the 'hidden sovereign' see also: Emanuel Hirsch, Die gegenwartige geistige Lage im Spiegel philosophischer und theologischer Besinnung: Akademische Vorlesungen zum Verstandnis des deutschen Jahrs 1933 (Gottingen, 1934), pp. 60-1. John Stroup has suggested that Hirsch's concept of the hidden sovereign is a combination of Luther's 'hidden God' and Carl Schmitt's "rhetoric of sovereignty". John Stroup, "Political Theology and Secularization Theory in Germany, 1918-1939: Emanuel Hirsch as a Phenomenon of His Time", Harvard Theological Review, 80, (1987), p. 350. 299 Reimer, The Emanuel Hirsch and Paul Tillich Debate, p. 54. 300 A. James Reimer, "Theologians in Nazi Germany" in Gregory Bautn, ed., The Twentieth Century: A Theological Overview (New York, 1999), p. 66. 301 Hirsch, "Vom verborgenen SuverSn", p. 7. 105 Christians in Germany, then, were bound as Germans to the "present hour of our

Volk'\ but not bound to any particular loyalty to a party. They were bound in service to the hidden sovereign, but not to a particular organization. The hidden sovereign is over and above all organizations, movements or personalities, and loyalty to the latter must be secondary to loyalty to the former.302

Yet even as the Volk subjects itself to God, Hirsch maintained that the

Reformation teaching on the illegitimacy of revolution needed to be amended to accommodate the Volk as sovereign. The nature of the national community's relationship to the state necessitates the right to revolution in particular circumstances. A Volk without a state cannot exist. It is only through the material apparatus of the state that a Volk can find self expression. Thus, a state that limits or suppresses the national community's ability to reach its full maturity is to be dismantled. Hirsch acknowledged that this is obviously an ethical-religious statement, as revolutionaries still must face the legal ramifications of their actions.303

According to Hirsch, the Reformation teaching on submission to authority prescribes that even bad government is to be tolerated, as it may be God's vehicle for punishment. Consequently, rebellion is sin because it is rebellion against God's anointed.

Non-compliance, therefore, is only justified when worldly authority makes total claims on the individual, that is, when it infringes upon the conscience. In the traditional

302 Hirsch, "Brief an einen Schuler im Pfarramt", p. 31. 303 Hirsch, "Vom verborgenen Suver3n", p. 7. 106 Lutheran framework, if these circumstances transpire, one may then justifiably disobey and suffer the punishment, or flee the jurisdiction to another state.

The implication of this teaching, Hirsch suggested, is that if it continued into the contemporary German context, the Reichsprasident would need to be suffered even if he was a Social Democrat, or worse, a Communist. The Reformation teachings, then, prove themselves to be an insufficient foundation for the new religiously informed state, for were they to be interpreted in this way, conservatives by and large would refuse them, and National Socialist politicians and theologians would reject them en mass. For under a strictly orthodox Lutheranism, Otto Braun and Carl Severing would command the same obedience as Hitler in the equivalent situation, a situation clearly unacceptable for

Hirsch.304

Hirsch's suggestion that a national revolution is justified when the Volk is being hampered is terribly imprecise, and in the case of National Socialism, justified the course of revolution to overthrow a democratic republic. By elevating the Volk to the extent that it stands above governmental structures, Hirsch introduced a dangerous relativism into his political theology. This relativism is pushed even further through Hirsch's understanding of God's revelation to humanity.

In terms of revelation, Hirsch cited the long tradition, including orthodox

Lutheranism, which almost without exception distinguished between natural and supernatural revelation. Natural revelation works through reason, nature and history, and

304 Hirsch, "Vom verborgenen Suveran", pp. 10-11. Hirsch also argued that the conservative use of traditional Lutheranism was no better, calling it a "delusion". According to Hirsch, it was essentially subjective; conservatives deemed as authoritative those forces that appeared beneficial for Germany. 107 reveals that there is a God who is to be served. Natural revelation reveals the nature of the relationship between God and people, that is, how humans measure up against the divine.

Supernatural - or specifically Christian revelation - alone reveals insight into the nature of God.305

If revelation is understood in the sense put forward by the Reformation, God's revelation reveals the gulf between humanity and God. Revelation demonstrates that humans are sinners, in that God speaks through universal natural law, convicting people of their imperfection. Through the gospel, people learn that they are loved by God and forgiven. Thus, there is a further distinction in addition to the difference between natural and supernatural, or general and specific revelation - the revelation in law and the revelation in gospel.306

Hirsch spoke of revelation as a "present" concept, meaning that the moment is of the utmost importance. By stressing the significance of the moment in history, Hirsch positioned his understanding of revelation against concepts of revelation which consider it a past phenomenon.307 Accordingly, Hirsch argued that "the whole reality of our lives is at the same time an encounter with God". God speaks continually in the various circumstances of life - giving life and taking life, judging and blessing.308

The political relativism that threatened Hirsch's political theology through the promotion of the Volk as the central political criterion is again accentuated because of the

305 Emanuel Hirsch, "Die Offenbarung und das menschlich-geschichtliche Leben", Der Offenbarungsglaube, Hammer und Nagel, 2 (1934), p. 26. 306 Hirsch, "Die Offenbarung und das menschlich-geschichtliche Leben", p. 27.; Hirsch, "Drei Thesenreihen", pp. 76-9. 307 Hirsch, "Die Offenbarung und das menschlich-geschichtliche Leben", p. 26. 308 Hirsch, "Die Offenbarung und das menschlich-geschichtliche Leben", pp. 32-3. 108 emphasis Hirsch placed on the present moment in revelation. Hirsch considered 'nation' to be an order of creation; that is, Hirsch understood the nation to be one of the original institutions God has given from the beginning to structure human life. As an order of creation, humans have knowledge of God through the nation without the need for specific divine revelation. Thus, Hirsch's understanding of the orders of creation is not

Christological. For Hirsch, the orders of creation are outside of Christ. Law is separated from gospel. We can know God through creation; we can understand the orders apart from Christ.309 Most importantly for our purposes, Hirsch argued that salvation only comes through Christ, but it is possible to have total allegiance to the state and to Christ simultaneously.

God is the Lord of history, and continually speaks into the human historical situation. Therefore Hirsch maintained that he had "sensed" God in the particular history of the German Volk, "in the call of war, in the curse of the defeat and the betrayal, in the storm of the present movement, in the joy of the new awakening".310 Building on his volkisch understanding of revelation, Hirsch argued that it is a "Jewish-legalistic misunderstanding" to think that obedience to Christ is incompatible with a God-given earthly loyalty. Christians who were fearful and weak in the faith questioned the possibility of having two loyalties concurrently; they were fearful of National Socialism and could not see the divine mandate. As Hirsch suggested, this fear was off-putting for young enthusiastic National Socialists. A proper ordering of allegiances would recognize

309 Reimer, Paul Tillich, pp. 52-3. 310 Emanuel Hirsch, Staat und Kirche im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Gottingen, 1929), p. 12. 109 that "Loyalty to the Lord becomes a sanctifying of the loyalty to blood, Volk, and

•j 11 movement".

Hirsch repeatedly asserted that all Christians belong to one spiritual family as brothers and sisters throughout time and space. Still, God places people in, and binds them together with, earthly orders and communities, such as family, vocation, bloodlines,

Volk, and state. These orders are rightly interpreted as gifts from God to be obeyed and to be sacrificed for.312

The centrality of the volkisch concept in Hirsch's understanding of the orders of creation and God's revelation developed during Weimar, and was clearly evident before the Nazi period. However, over time Hirsch's position hardened, as his previous social conception of the Volk was now defined racially. Thus, by the 1930s his understanding of the Volk had clearly shifted to equate it with a 'blood association'.313

Volk and race.

In "Die Liebe zum Vaterlande" from 1924, Hirsch presented the love of the fatherland as something innate, in the blood. It does not come from reflection; otherwise it could not be spontaneously awakened. Germans are bound to the Volk with body and soul. Hirsch suggested that this bond is stronger than gravity, and like gravity, it is not a choice. It is the Volk that determines an individual's nature and destiny, and this is why it

311 Hirsch, Deutsches Volkstum undevangelischer Glaube, pp. 20-21. It is ironic that Hirsch applied the term "Jewish-legalism" to a specifically Christian teaching. 312 Emanuel Hirsch, Das kirchliche Wollen der Deutschen Christen (Berlin-Steglitz), p. 19. 313 Gunda Schneider-Flume and Matthias Lobe both have argued that a shift occurs in Hirsch: Lobe, p. 192; Schneider-Flume, p. 154. 110 is so difficult to switch nationalities.314 According to Hirsch, because the connection to the national community is intrinsic, there the day an individual is born, to quit the Volk would be tantamount to abandoning oneself. To exchange fatherlands one would essentially need to create a new soul.315 This connection to the Volk tied into Hirsch's elevation of sacrifice beyond a duty to a privilege: "Each German has to a lesser or greater extent the ability to slow or promote the necessary national renewal". He or she is insignificant as an individual, and needs the national community to provide a sense of purpose, boundaries, and identity.316

It can be argued that the trajectory of Hirsch's volkisch thought was evident already throughout the 1920s; Deutschlands Schicksal appeared in three editions from

1920-1925. In 1929 Hirsch demonstrated his understanding of the German Volk as a

"natural community forged through blood and fate",317 but the extent of his racial conception of the national community is more explicitly revealed in his discussion of the

'Aryan Paragraph'.

On April 7,1933 the Civil Service Reconstruction Law came into effect in

Germany, effectively barring 'non-Aryans' from the civil service. The issue of an 'Aryan

Paragraph' proved to be highly contentious within the Protestant churches, as members of the German Christians sought to enact church legislation which mirrored that of the

314 Hirsch, "Die Liebe zum Vaterlande", pp. 6, 8. 3,5 Hirsch, "Die Liebe zum Vaterlande", p. 12. 316 Hirsch, "Die Liebe zum Vaterlande", pp. 14, 15. 317 Hirsch, Staat und Kirche, p. 58. Ill regime, and Confessing Church members - for various reasons - sought to protect the church from National Socialist intrusions.

Discussing the issue in articles from 1933 and 1934, Hirsch began by asserting that Christians from all races and nationalities all belong to the church of Christ.

Although necessary, church administration and order create divisions that are not founded in belief, an example of which being the qualification process for pastors, which elevates them above the laity. Church membership is also determined by circumstances unrelated to confession or belief.

Citing the segregation of black and white churches in the United States, the separate German speaking Lutheran churches outside of Germany, and segregated colonial churches, Hirsch argued that these divisions were not against the spirit of

Christian unity so long as they were pragmatic, that is, if linguistic and racial divisions expedited the church's smooth administration. The earthly church is necessarily bound by practical considerations.319

With regards to National Socialism's attempt to create a new national community and state, Hirsch argued that the seriousness of the project made it natural that the regime would seek to entrust positions of authority to those who were most trustworthy - in this case to those who had proven their connectedness to the Volk through their lineage. The church, therefore, could not remain indifferent during this process; it was to accommodate the broader social movements of the German state. In short, Christians

318 On the Aryan Paragraph see: Bergen, Twisted Cross, pp. 88-93. 319 Emanuel Hirsch, "Arier und Nichtarier in der deutschen evangelischen Kirche", Kirche und Volkstum in Niedersachsen, 1, 2 (1933), pp. 1-2. 112 were to affirm the regime's plan to differentiate between people of German and non-

German blood out of Christian responsibility, even when they were aware of the pain it might cause on the individual level. For according to Hirsch, "The actions of a people and a state cannot be determined by the consideration of the fate of the individual".320

Practically speaking, affirming the regime's orders would mean that the church would adopt similar measures within its own organization, albeit carried out in love, consistent with the church's unique character as a community of faith. According to

Hirsch, because the German Protestant churches had very few ministers of "Jewish or half-Jewish blood" at the time anyway, the problem would be relatively minimal. He later put forward that once the present generation of "half bloods" had died, the situation

39 t would be much easier, personal grievances gone. In terms of the future, Hirsch argued that the church would need a new selection process for pastors, and suggested the church only accept candidates who were members of the German fraternities. This way, the church would adopt the fraternities' strict standards regarding race.

While Hirsch argued that there were certainly pragmatic reasons for the distinction between the spiritual and physical unity of Christians in Germany, his basic assumption in the Aryan question was that Germans and Jews were not members of the same Volk. Germans had a different racial heritage, history, and natural and sociological makeup than Jews. As a result, Hirsch maintained that Germans had less in common with

320 Hirsch, "Arier und Nichtarier", pp. 2-3. 321 Hirsch, "Arier und Nichtarier", p. 3; Emanuel Hirsch, "Theologisches Gutachten in der Nichtarierfrage", Deutsche Theologie, 1 (1934), p. 184. According to Hirsch's figures, of the roughly thirty non-Aryan pastors in Germany, perhaps eighteen would not fall under the Schutzbestimmungen. "Theologisches Gutachten", p. 198 n. 322 Hirsch, "Arier und Nichtarier", p. 3. 113 Jews than they did with other European peoples. In short, Hirsch asserted that the Jews

belonged to a "foreign Volk'\m

To further demonstrate the differences between Germans and Jews, Hirsch cited the process of assimilation in Germany and its inherent challenges. For one, Hirsch asserted that the gulf between Germans and Jews was widened by the continued influx into Germany of eastern Jewish "reinforcements" that brought with them foreign culture and habits. Hirsch argued that the German "Blutbund" was weakened through their incorporation, and, moreover, that the assimilation process was de-Christianizing because it established religiously neutral organizations in place of Christian ones. Additionally,

Hirsch suggested that Jews in Germany had maintained the difference between Jews and

non-Jews themselves, and used strengths within the Jewish community to their economic

advantage in the capitalist system to the extent that by 1932, Germany was under the

influence of a foreign Volk.324

As Hirsch outlined, the National Socialist regime functioned from the assumption

that the Jews were a foreign Volk that could not be assimilated. Jews were treated as

"strangers" within the state, and while Hirsch admitted that this no doubt was a harsh

judgement on those Jews that had truly aligned with the German Volk, individual

considerations could not outweigh what was necessary for the greater good of the

national community as a whole.325 Therefore, the church could not condemn the regime's

policy on a subgroup that could not and would not be assimilated. Similarly, it could not

323 Hirsch, "Theologisches Gutachten", p. 182. 324 Hirsch, "Theologisches Gutachten", p. 182. 325 Hirsch, "Theologisches Gutachten", pp. 182-3. 114 maintain the fiction that the Jews in fact could be fully assimilated into the German Volk.

Demonstrating the extent to which the two kingdoms paradigm shaped his thinking,

Hirsch maintained that what had happened in terms of anti-Jewish legislation and practice was essentially a political process.

As the church tried to reconcile its calling to be a Volkskirche with the material reality that it had congregants in its midst that ethnically belonged to a "foreign VolA",

Hirsch argued that Christians had a twofold responsibility. On the one hand, Christians were to work against the extrapolation of given volkisch differences between Germans and Jews to the level of metaphysical categories. Jews, according to Hirsch did in fact belong to a foreign Volk, but were not to be considered inferior or corrupted. At the same time, it needed to be maintained that integrating Jews into the German national community would be detrimental.

Christians also needed to make sure that during the transition process from assimilation to segregation, the honour of those individuals who "stand between the two people" and were directly affected was preserved. In the course of his discussion, Hirsch seems to suggest that there is a way for individuals to be ethnically part Jewish, yet converted to Germanic Christianity. If a way for the responsible integration of these individuals was eventually found, "Christians will be joyful".

Because Hirsch distinguished so sharply between the earthly and heavenly kingdoms, he could hold to the position that while there are still inherent earthly

326 Hirsch, "Theologisches Gutachten", p. 183. 327 Hirsch, "Theologisches Gutachten", pp. 183-4. See also: Robert P. Ericksen, Theologians Under Hitler: Gerhard Kittel, Paul Althaus and Emanuel Hirsch (New Haven, 1985), pp. 147-9. 328 Hirsch, "Theologisches Gutachten", p. 184. 115 inequalities, all Christians belong to the community of God and the priesthood of all believers. This equality is expressed outwardly through baptism and the Lord's Supper.

At the same time, the unequal circumstances of life, such as training, talents, personal character and historical situation, create earthly differentiations that are not cancelled by

Christian equality.

Hirsch maintained that when an individual comes to faith, along with belief, God gives each person a particular calling to a specific task. Thus, for Hirsch, the observable disparity between Christians takes on a deeper meaning beyond the merely circumstantial. God has initiated the differences.329

Hirsch's volkisch paradigm did not extend so far as to cause him to deny the authority of the "general priesthood" or the ability in given circumstances to hear the gospel delivered from someone of another Volk. At the same time, Hirsch insisted that it was most 'natural' that in a Volkskirche preaching and Christian education be carried out by members of the same national community.330 To fill the office well, a pastor would delve into what it means to be German. He would be able to effectively relay the gospel because of the interconnectedness of the Volk and his ability to discern God's voice within the national-historical context.331 In Germany this had been the natural matter of course. In fact, Hirsch argued that it went beyond assuming a common Volk. Since the

329 Hirsch, "Theologisches Gutachten", pp. 186-7. 330 Hirsch, "Theologisches Gutachten", p. 192. 331 Hirsch, "Brief an einen Schiller im Pfarramt", pp. 31-2. 116 assumption was that pastors and parishioners share a common 'tribe', regional churches employed pastors from their own regions.332

Citing this past practice, Hirsch could not comprehend why there were Christians voicing opposition to churches implementing a prerequisite for the pastorate based on race. Hirsch laid out reasons why this prerequisite was necessary. Firstly, the connection through preaching is established through shared experiences or commonalities. Hirsch acknowledged missionary and New Testament examples of cross-cultural evangelism, but as a rule, those were exceptional circumstances. Hirsch continued by referencing the ancient church, where it was quickly established that people from the same ethnic groups should minister to each other. Thus, there was no argument from church history to preclude using ethnicity as a criterion for holding church office. Going further, Hirsch asserted that theological arguments against segregation similarly fell short. The biblical record does not support their conclusions; their motivation was a refusal to think of

Jewish Christians as belonging to a foreign Volk.m

Even though Hirsch supported the application of the Aryan Paragraph in the

Protestant churches on both pragmatic and theological grounds, his position is complicated by his belief in the equality of Christians within the kingdom of God. He referred to Jewish Christians as brothers - albeit brothers in faith, and not according to natural-historical or ethnic categories - and reiterated the fact that "Christ knows no

332 Hirsch, "Theologisches Gutachten", p. 193. 333 Hirsch, "Theologisches Gutachten", pp. 193-4. 117 difference between Germans and Jews".334 Significantly, in his justification of the position that church leadership demand uniformity - specifically, that it conform to the position that the pastorate be restricted to members of the German Volk - Hirsch argued that this position could not be maintained dogmatically. It was not legalism. The argument was founded in the needs of the German hour.335

The gravity of the context of the National Socialist revolution made it obvious to

Hirsch why questions of race were so prominent in German society, and why they were so influential in the formation of state and Volk behaviour. According to Hirsch,

Germany was squeezed in the middle of a western neighbour that no longer maintained the feeling of separation between the races,* and "racially diverse" eastern neighbours that threatened Germany's volkisch integrity with their foreign influence.336

In a recent study, Christopher Hutton has characterized Nazism as "fundamentally an attack on assimilation"; it was an embrace of difference, not uniformity, fuelled by a pervasive fear that racial and cultural distinctives would be erased. Specifically,

Hutton's study questions previous representations of Nazi science in which pseudo- science is depicted as dominating the National Socialist worldview. Rather, Hutton asserts that Nazi academics understood that there was no scientific backing to theories about an 'Aryan race'.338 'Aryan' was a problematic concept racially and linguistically.

334 Hirsch, "Theologisches Gutachten", p. 195. 335 Hirsch, "Theologisches Gutachten", p. 197. * Hirsch used the word "Neger". 336 Hirsch, Die gegenwartige geistige Lage, pp. 35-6. 337 Christopher M. Hutton, Race and the Third Reich: Linguistics, Racial Anthropology and Genetics in the Dialectic of Volk (Cambridge, 2005), p. 16. 338 Hutton, Race and the Third Reich, p. 80. 118 German Jews obviously spoke German, and Nordic racial elements existed throughout

Europe, also in populations such as the Finns that did not speak an Indogermanic (Aryan) language.339 The term ' Aryan' was eventually dropped from National Socialist legal language, and Nazi scientists distanced themselves from racial anthropology, which could not convincingly define the Volk in terms of race. However, racial anthropology proved highly useful in justifying the exclusion of undesirable populations from the Volk. For propaganda purposes, the Volk as a concept was easily mobilized and "relatively unproblematic".340 In this sense, Hirsch's theological arguments for the Aryan Paragraph tied into the broader National Socialist volkisch discourse. His theology dealt with

Judaism in a manner that sufficiently paralleled Nazi rhetoric to make it dangerous, and certainly contained enough vagaries for it to have been used to support Nazi racial policy.

Moreover, Hirsch's concern for the protection of the German Volk consistently emphasized natural inequality and distinction.

As Hirsch understood it, there was a transformation over time from a common assumption about the inequalities in human society, to a general levelling of society which denied the importance of bloodlines in the formation of social and political apparatuses. This levelling hindered the ability of the great European national communities to influence and determine the world around them. According to Hirsch, the

problem was that the human "boundary" was not honoured.341

339 Hutton, Race and the Third Reich, p. 90. 340 Hutton, Race and the Third Reich, pp. 92,34, 139. "The dilemma of Nazism was that it emphasized the fundamental importance of a scientific concept of race and a biological concept of heredity, yet the organizing concept of political Nazism, the Volk, was not defended in either of these terms", p. 138. 341 Hirsch, Die gegenwartige geistige Lage, pp. 35-6. 119 Throughout his work, Hirsch used the concept of the boundary (die Grenze) both in terms of the human historical, and the divine. On the level of the divine, the boundary refers both to the spiritual limitations imposed on humanity through the sovereign will of

God, and the function of the infinite itself as the limit to all temporal existence.

Historically, the boundary refers to the natural-historical realities that shape all facets of human life, both physically and intellectually, manifested most clearly in the Volk,342

By indicting the abandonment of the historical boundary, Hirsch challenged much more than what he perceived to be the erosion of ethnic and cultural distinctives. The

Volk is the central defining factor of human existence. Hence, in the midst of this troubling context, the German national community needed to be protected. Hirsch credited National Socialism for realizing this - Hitler understood the situation and proposed a solution.343

Therefore, speaking as a representative of the German Christian position, Hirsch asserted that what the German Christians desired was to serve the Volk with abandon, from a true feeling of love and connectedness. Hirsch identified the work for the Volk as a risk that the German Christians relished, going in new directions, trusting God that the church would remain connected to the gospel revelation, its authoritative tradition, and to

Christ. Those who would be capable of leading the church in a new direction had to recognize the "greatness of the hour" and recognize their fellow Germans, the "brave

342 Reimer, Paul Tillich, pp. 52-3. 343 Hirsch, Die gegenwartige geistige Lage, pp. 35-6. 120 fighters of the SA and SS" as their true brothers. That is, they had to recognize the historical moment and appreciate the importance of the Volk.344

The church's work was to bring the gospel into the new national revival. It needed to be convinced that this was in fact what God desired, and take the risk to shape the nature of the Volk along Christian lines. Drawing parallels to 1933, Hirsch used Paul and

Luther as examples of God's faithfulness through trials and afflictions.345

Hirsch's emphasis on the importance of the moment, the present German hour, and the concept of risk illustrates the significance of individual decision in his thought.

Hirsch conceived of history not teleologically, but as a struggle; the vehicle of history is the individual's choice arising from the individual conscience.346 There is unity and meaning in history, therefore, insofar as history is a relationship to God as a continuing sequence of individual moments of decision, demanded by God's revelation.347 For

Hirsch, history is ethical - and constitutes salvation history on the level of the individual

- because it is composed of continual choices between good and evil.348 Thus, the centrality of personal decision in Hirsch's thought, and his emphasis on the conscience, further illustrates Hirsch's understanding of the historicity of truth, and ties into his political experience from 1918-1933.349

344 Emanuel Hirsch, "Liebe zum Volk", in Hans Martin MOller, ed., Gesammelte Werke Band 39, (Waltrop, 2001), p. 298. 345 Emanuel Hirsch, "Luthers Berufung", in Hans Martin Muller, ed., Gesammelte Werke Band 39: Das Wagnis des Glaubens: Predigten undAndachten 1930-1964 (Waltrop, 2004) pp. 304-5. 346 Lobe, p. 168; Assel, p. 209. 347 Jochen Hose, Die "Geschichte der neuern evangelischen Theologie " in der Sicht Emaneui Hirschs (Frankfurt am Main, 1999), p. 152. 348 Schneider-Flume, pp. 26-34. See also: Schjarring, p. 73. 349 Schneider-Flume, p. 10; Stroup, p. 349. 121 The irony of Hirsch's historical thought is that on the one hand, it encouraged historical relativism by elevating the role of individual decision, and by asserting that

God speaks through the Volk as a unique historic entity. At the same time, because Hirsch understood the National Socialist revolution to be a vehicle of divine revelation, individual decision was, in fact, standardized by this specific historical context.350

In keeping with Hirsch's turn toward the standardization of decision, in light of the National Socialist ascension to power he also redefined freedom as the fulfillment of duty, as obedience. Fighting against what he perceived to be the dangerous currents of individualism and liberalism, Hirsch asserted that freedom is, in fact, responsibility, for

"Whoever does not hear the call of the flag, does not know what freedom is".351 For

Hirsch, the historical context and material connections of the Grenze defined human freedom. Unconnected individualism was not really freedom, nor was it any longer possible.352

Hirsch's turn to National Socialism.

Despite Hirsch's antidemocratic and elite driven concept of the state, and his overtly political theology, these factors in and of themselves did not predetermine his

350 Schneider-Flume, p. 144. Schneider-Flume argued that the centre of Hirsch's ethics changed from the 1920's emphasis on the independent conscience, to an ethics from 1933 standardized by the National Socialist reality. 351 Hirsch, Die gegenwartige geistige Lage, pp. 40-1. 352 See: Schneider-Flume, p. 155; Zabel, p. 64. John Stroup put it thus: "Therefore in 1934 Hirsch came to agree that true freedom must consist in bringing to consciousness the hidden harmony of human truth and human destiny with God's binding order. By psychologizing and subjectivizing revelation, Hirsch had established a theological harmony of divine revelation and critical thought. Likewise, Hirsch's political theology would make a bizarre claim to preserve an illusion of freedom even as it reasserted binding authority", p. 349. 122 acceptance of National Socialism. His social milieu and historical circumstances played

an important role. The year 1918 was a decisive turning point for Hirsch; so too was the

1932 presidential election, in which Hirsch backed Hitler's candidacy. And even though

he stayed a member of the DNVP until May 1933, the political right's vehement rejection

of, and political mobilization against, the Young plan in 1929, and the NSDAP election

success in 1930 mark significant steps along the way to Hirsch's support of National

Socialism.353

Furthermore, the year 1933 was a decisive turning point because it marked the

transition from expectation to the realization of the national renewal.354 Hirsch's

discontent was longstanding, stretching back to the common German experiences of the

war, which he argued awakened sentiments of resistance to the old system. Significantly,

Hirsch suggested that 1914 was the "hidden antecedent" of the National Socialist

revolution carried within Germans themselves, who later could see that those who died in

the 1923 Beer Hall putsch were witnesses to this political will for change.355

Consequently, Hirsch interpreted 1933 as a definitive God-given opportunity. Germany

would be judged if it did not use its opportunity for renewal after "the long night of

foolishness and sin".356

353 Assel, pp. 255-6. Assel used unpublished correspondence between Hirsch and Hans Grimm and Wilhelm Stapel to demonstrate the development of Hirsch's volksich theology, and movement towards National Socialism from 1929 to 1933. See also: Emanuel Hirsch, "Brief an einen Schiiler im Pfarramt fiber Evangelium u. Politik", Glaube und Volk, 2, 1933. 354 Schjerring, p. 177. 355 Hirsch, Die gegenwartige geistige Lage, p. 30. 356 Hirsch, "Luthers Berufung", p. 310; Emanuel Hirsch, "Der Weg unserer Kirche in unserem Volk", in Gesammelte Werke Band 39, p. 305. 123 Along with the historical circumstances and the trajectory of his political theology that encouraged Hirsch's gravitation towards National Socialism, we must also consider the very real attraction of National Socialism itself. Insofar as Hirsch asserted that the church had a duty to the national community that it had to fulfill, he argued that this service changed in accordance to historical circumstances. Therefore, in order to fulfill its mandate, the church had to stay relevant to the Volk, changing accordingly. In the present circumstances the church had the opportunity to work alongside the German renewal from a position of faith and love. If the church wanted to remain relevant it needed to participate in the work of the National Socialist state.357

According to Hirsch, the German Volk had been heading down the path towards destruction because the health of the Volk was not being taken into consideration.

Significantly, the church had not seized upon the opportunity to use the teachings on the orders of creation to rectify the situation by teaching the importance of the biological component of the national community. As important as it was, the issue of members of the church who were not Germans "according to blood" was only part of the question.

The church needed to reconcile what it meant to be German and Christian so that one could influence the other. Consequently, Hirsch suggested the Protestant churches adopt the Nazi leadership principle to increase efficiency within the church, and improve their

357 Emanuel Hirsch, "Das kirchliche Wollen der Deutschen Christen. Zur Beurteilung des Angriffs von Karl Barth (Theologische Existenz heute, Munchen 1933)", in Das kirchlichen Wollen (Berlin-Steglitz, 1933), pp. 6-8,11. 124 ability to relate to the state. For to Hirsch's regret, the new awakening happened without the participation of the church.

The German Christians' goal for German society was to have one church with one

Volk. Hirsch suggested that there had only been two previous opportunities in the German past where this aspiration could have been a reality: the Schmalkaldic Wars, and the War of Liberation. The National Socialist revolution was the third chance, not to be wasted.359

Together with concerns that German Protestantism remain relevant, Hirsch suggested that there were very real similarities between National Socialism and the church. Foremost, National Socialism recognized the spiritual component of the national revival and transformation, and thus partook in work similar to that of the church, specifically, the transformation of the individual. Furthermore, National Socialism functioned from a "positive inner relation to the basic ethical and religious assumptions of Christian belief': comradeship, brotherhood, and the willingness to sacrifice.360

According to Hirsch, "the National Socialist revolution is more than a mere restructuring of the state and economy"; it reached deeper and affected the inner life of the individual.

Likewise, the National Socialist revolution was not an immediate phenomenon; it would have a lasting legacy.361

358 Hirsch, "Das kirchliche Wollen der Deutschen Christen", pp. 11, 15; For Hirsch's views on leadership see also: Emanuel Hirsch, Schopfung und Sunde in der naturlich-geschichtlichen WirUichkeit des einzelnen Menschen. Versuch einer Grundlegung christlicher Lebensweisung. Beitrdge zur systematischen Theologie (Tubingen, 1931), pp. 3-5. 359 Emanuel Hirsch, "Die Wirkliche Lage unserer Kirche", in Das kirchlichen Wollen (Berlin-Steglitz, 1933), p. 22. 360 Emanuel Hirsch, "Nationalsozialismus und Kirche. Um die Berufiing des evangelischen Reichsbischofs", in Das kirchlichen Wollen (Berlin-Steglitz, 1933), pp. 23-4. 361 Emanuel Hirsch, "Freiheit der Kirche, Reinheit des Evangeliums. Ein Wort zur kirchlichen Lage", in Das kirchlichen Wollen (Berlin-Steglitz, 1933), p. 28. 125 It is important to note that despite his allegiance, Hirsch did not want a church commanded by the regime. Instead, he argued that the church needed to remain independent, but closely aligned with the National Socialist movement so that people were not pulled in two directions.362 At the same time, Hirsch repeatedly stressed that despite the fact that when conveying the gospel all human efforts are in vain unless Christ speaks through the individual, the speaker must make a human connection with the hearer. There is a "natural side" to the preaching of the gospel, grounded in temporal and historical context. In short, according to Hirsch, preaching is easiest where there is a connection through "blood and fate". Thus, if the church wanted to maintain the connection to the Volk and the attending facility of preaching from a common basis and understanding, it needed to accommodate to the National Socialist state, and align itself with Germany's new direction. Otherwise, it would become a foreign element itself.363

Not all Protestant church leaders shared Hirsch's optimism about the regime's intentions and the future of church autonomy within the Reich. In response to criticism of the Nazi movement that it was irreconcilable with Christianity, and that National

Socialism infringed on the mandate and sovereignty of the church, Hirsch commented that in his two positions - as a professor employed by the state, and as a pastor - he had felt no antipathy. Moreover, he had constantly stood in agreement with Hitler's desire to unite the Volk via worldview and social order.364

362 Hirsch, "Nationalsozialismus und Kirche", p. 24. 363 Hirsch, "Freiheit der Kirche, Reinheit des Evangeliums", pp. 27-8. 364 Emanuel Hirsch, "Kreuzesglaube und politische Bindung. Eine okumenische Zweisprache", in Christliche Freiheit und Politische Bindung: Ein Brief an Dr. Stapel und anderes (Hamburg, 1935), p. 53. 126 Against arguments that the church should oppose the regime, even if threatened with martyrdom, Hirsch replied that if the church rebelled against the state, it would translate into the destruction of the Volk. Hitler saved the Voik from Bolshevism, and in turn, saved German Christendom. If the church fought against the state and Germany fell to Communism, the church, according to Hirsch, would have to answer to God for its part in the destruction.365

Hirsch's support for the Third Reich, then, had both pragmatic and theological- intellectual antecedents. Reflecting on the relationship between Christian freedom and political duty, Hirsch argued that the National Socialist awakening was akin to

Lutheranism in terms of its understanding of the relationship of power in history. Both

Lutheranism and National Socialism, according to Hirsch, stood against the liberal concept of freedom in the unbound life.366

Luther understood the importance of the state for protecting humanity against a regression into chaos, and did so in an historical context where the state, according to

Hirsch, sought a closer connection between institutional order and a prevailing worldview than did the National Socialist regime. For his part, Luther did not reject the melding of state apparatuses to the Christian foundations of society, only the infringement of the state upon the church's freedom to preach the gospel.

By appealing again to Luther, Hirsch used the reformer's submission to state authority to bolster his arguments for a Volkskirche, and in so doing, also assuaged fears

365 Hirsch, "Kreuzesglaube und politische Bindung", pp. 54-5. 366 Hirsch, "Kreuzesglaube und politische Bindung", pp. 60,62-3. 367 Hirsch, "Kreuzesglaube und politische Bindung", p. 64. 127 about Nazi totalitarian aspirations by citing the Reformation context as precedent. At the same time, Hirsch maintained that Lutheranism did not blindly support every manifestation of state power, as he and other German Christians had been fighting against the spirit of 1918/19 and the attending danger of Bolshevism for over a decade.368 The turn to National Socialism was not an automatic loyalty.

Hirsch understood intellectual life as exhibiting two essential characteristics. On the one hand, there are broader shaping trends of thought that inform how individuals conceive of the world and historical reality. In essence, they shape social reality. On the other hand lie the personal convictions of the individual and the realm of personalized faith. According to Hirsch, insofar as National Socialism was a worldview, it only informed the former, and did not impede or determine the latter.369

Consequently, Hirsch had no fear that Nazi leaders would see Christianity as a threat. Underlings who might do so would be the exceptions that prove the rule.370 Hirsch was naively convinced that the church's freedom and ministry to the Volk were not endangered by the Nazi regime. Contrarily, its freedom was threatened by those opposing

National Socialism, by those who had not recognized the "present hour".371

Unlike a pagan Volksreligion or the Jewish 'law-religion', Christianity, according to Hirsch, did not set out to establish a common worldview or social structure. Thus,

Christianity could be found among very different cultures and settings, and a specific

Christian identity in the midst of a general worldview. Here, Hirsch differentiated

368 Hirsch, "Kreuzesglaube und politische Bindung", p. 64. 369 Hirsch, "Kreuzesglaube und politische Bindung", pp. 65-6. 370 Hirsch, "Kreuzesglaube und politische Bindung", p. 74. 371 Hirsch, "Freiheit der Kirche, Reinheit des Evangeliums", p. 28. 128 Christianity from the Jewish 'law-religion' and pagan religions of the Volk which attempt to be all encompassing, by contrasting them to the doctrine of the two kingdoms. It is this important distinction which, according to Hirsch, allowed the Christian to be a part of the

National Socialist worldview.372

Describing the history of the church's relation to the doctrine of the two kingdoms, Hirsch suggested that over centuries of European Christianity, distinctly

Christian teaching amalgamated with heathen influences. The church did not properly understand the separation between the earthly and divine realms, and attempted to create the kingdom of heaven on earth. All this stemmed from a compromised position which claimed to be biblically grounded. Hirsch argued that as a result, theologians needed to learn the doctrine of the two kingdoms anew, for as long as they did not properly understand the distinction between the inner and outer claims on the individual, they would treat the new German worldview as a threat.373

It is the doctrine of the two kingdoms that allowed Hirsch to reconcile the

Christian's full participation in civil society, including the administration of authority and coercive force. Moreover, the two kingdoms paradigm provided Hirsch with a justification of war and the Christian's participation therein, elevating both as acts of love. Hirsch's volkisch framework, acceptance of institutionalized power, fear of

Communism, and rejection of democracy, pacifism and internationalism, provided points of intersection with National Socialism. He was mistakenly confident that the regime

372 Emanuel Hirsch, "Weltanschauung, Glaube und Heimat", Zweifel und Glaube, (Frankfurt a.M, 1937), pp. 55-8. 373 Hirsch, "Weltanschauung, Glaube und Heimat", pp. 58-9. 129 would not infringe upon Protestant church freedoms, and failed to recognize the extent to

which the violence in Nazi antisemitism outstripped his own theologically justified antisemitism. These beliefs were bolstered by Hirsch's understanding that God is encountered in history in the decisions demanded of the conscience, thereby sanctioning

National Socialism as a vehicle of divine revelation.

In his study of theologians during the Third Reich, Robert Ericksen argued that

Hirsch "developed a consistent intellectually tenable political ethic and historical- theological philosophy which welcomed and then supported the National Socialist recipe for German society", but still maintained that "arbitrary factors of background and environment" go further in explaining Hirsch's political response than does his theological position.374 Without asserting a path of direct causality, it can be argued that

Hirsch's historical context informed his theology, and need not supplant it as a formative influence on his political response to National Socialism.

The experience of the First World War and his inability to join the campaign; the shock of defeat and revolution; the revulsion towards Versailles and the rejection of

Weimar all had a formative impact on Hirsch's political theology. At the same time, it must be maintained that Hirsch's anticipation of a national renewal was not an opportunistic turn towards an ascending Nazism, for Hirsch's volkisch theological positions were not politically advantageous prior to 1933. Rather, in many ways the volkisch trajectory of his thought paved the way for his acceptance of National Socialism,

374 Ericksen, Theologians Under Hitler, pp. 123,25-6. 3751 am in agreement with Reimer's conclusions about Hirsch's theological background and its importance in determining Hirsch's response to National Socialism. See: A. James Reimer, The Emanuel Hirsch and Paul Tillich Debate: A Study in the Political Ramifications of Theology (Queenston, 1989). 130 while his use of the doctrine of the two kingdoms justified - in fact demanded - his full participation from a Christian framework.

131 Chapter Three: Karl Barth and the theological rejection of National Socialism.

Emblematic as he was for the volkische wing of German Protestantism and its

support for National Socialism, Emanuel Hirsch's story would remain incomplete

without a careful consideration of Hirsch's relationship to Karl Barth and Barth's

antithetical interpretation of natural revelation and the doctrine of the two kingdoms.

More than contemporaries, colleagues, theological and political antagonists, in certain

key respects Barth and Hirsch consciously developed their theological positions in direct

opposition to one another while responding to the same historical circumstances. The

centrality of the Volk in Hirsch's theology and the significant emphasis he placed on the

revelatory nature of German history enabled Hirsch to reconcile, and in fact demand, full

voluntary and enthusiastic submission to the Nazi regime alongside the total claims of

Christianity. Hirsch's use of the doctrine of the two kingdoms produced this

reconciliation, which extended beyond theological formulations into political praxis.

Barth's vehement opposition to National Socialism on the other hand was fuelled by his

rigorous rejection of natural revelation, and what he believed to be a fundamentally

misguided Lutheran understanding of the state.

Karl Barth was born in Basel, Switzerland May 10,1886 to Johann Friedrich and

Anna Katharina Barth (nee Sartorius). Like Hirsch, Barth's father was a pastor - as had

been both his grandfathers - but at the time of Karl's birth, Fritz Barth was teaching at

376 Barth defined natural theology as "the doctrine of a union of man with God existing outside God's revelation in Jesus Christ". Church Dogmatics II, I, p. 168, in Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics: A Selection, ed. and trans., G.W. Bromiley (New York, 1962), p. 51. 132 the Evangelical School of Preachers in Basel.377 Although Barth would claim to "belong to Basel", his formative years were spent in Bern, as the family relocated when his father accepted a call to the Faculty of Theology at the University of Bern.378 As a youth Barth was fascinated with the military, and trained in a cadet corps for four years. Despite being a poor shot, he managed to reach the rank of sergeant; however his near-sightedness kept him from further military service.379

Barth had no love for mathematics or the sciences as a student, and on the basis of the interest aroused by his confirmation classes in 1901-02, made the early decision to pursue theology. Barth matriculated second class in the autumn of 1904, and on the advice of his father, began his university studies at Bern.380 It was at Bern that Barth discovered Wilhelm Herrmann's Ethics, and Kant's Critique of Practical Reason, which opened up for him a new understanding of the gospel.381

Upon passing his preliminary examinations in the autumn of 1906, Barth followed the Swiss custom of continuing his studies abroad. Fritz Barth was a theological conservative, and wished that his son would enrol at Halle or Greifswald; so instead of studying under the liberal faculty at Marburg as he would have liked, Barth compromised with his father and headed off to "the more neutral Berlin".382 At Berlin Barth enthusiastically studied under the church historian Adolf von Harnack. It was also at this

377 Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts, trans. John Bowden (London, 1976), p. 1. 378 Karl Barth, "Autobiographical Sketch", in Bernd Jaspert and Geoffrey W. Bromiley, eds., Karl Barth- Rudolf Bultmann Letters 1922-1966, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, 1981), p. 151. 379 Barth, "Autobiographical Sketch", p. 151; John Bowden, Karl Barth: Theologian (London, 1983), p. 19. 380 Barth, "Autobiographical Sketch", p. 152. 381 Barth, "Autobiographical Sketch", p. 152; Busch, Karl Barth, pp. 34-5. 382 Barth, "Autobiographical Sketch", pp. 151-2; Bowden, Karl Barth, p. 20. 133 time that Barth's intensive study of Kant led him to Schleiermacher: "after first having worked through Immanuel Kant's Critique of Practical Reason several times and (only then, but equally intensively) his Critique of Pure Reason -1 knew how to swear no higher than by the man, Daniel Ernst Friedrich Schleiermacher".383 Barth would engage

Schleiermacher throughout his theological career, albeit from a drastically different position than his early enthusiasm.

After an unproductive summer semester back at Bern where he 'worked' as the president of the student union Zofingia, and a time at Tubingen at his father's behest,

Barth was finally allowed to attend Marburg, where he "absorbed Herrmann through every pore" - his "happiest time as a student".384 After his examinations Barth was ordained by his father, but instead of heading straight into the ministry, he returned to

Marburg where he worked as Martin Rade's assistant in editing the Christliche Welt.

Barth eventually entered the pastorate as an assistant minister in the German Reformed congregation in Geneva - where he preached from Calvin's pulpit - until he accepted the call to the congregation in Safenwil in the Aargau, in 1911. It was here that Barth became aware of the realities of class conflict.385

Reflecting back on his time as a young pastor in Safenwil, Barth recollected that for the most part, his theological work did not extend beyond preparing sermons and classes. Instead, the bulk of his intellectual energy was spent on learning about "factory

383 Karl Barth, "Concluding Unscientific Postscript on Schleiermacher", in Dietrich Ritschl, ed., The Theology of Schleiermacher. Lectures at Gottingen, Winter Semester of1923/4, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, 1982), p. 261. 384 Barth, "Autobiographical Sketch", p. 153. 385 Barth, "Autobiographical Sketch", pp. 153-4; Bowden, Karl Barth, pp. 21-3. 134 acts, safety laws, and trade unionism", and instructing workers on labour organizations and socialism. Barth "became passionately involved with socialism and especially with the trade union movement", and engrossed himself in the campaign to improve the lot of

Safenwil's predominantly working-class population.386 Significant for his theological development, it was during this time in the Aargau that Barth came to know Hermann

Kutter and Leonhard Ragaz, and the Swiss Religious Socialist movement's emphasis on the parallels between Social Democracy and the imminent kingdom of God.

Although Barth did not immediately join the Social Democratic party, nor conflate Social Democracy itself with the kingdom of God, he did lecture to organized labour groups on the connection between Christianity and the social movement. In an address from late 1911, Barth equated the "movement for social justice" with an inherent characteristic of the person of Jesus. Acknowledging the reality of human sin and the shortcomings of socialists as individuals, Barth distinguished between the concrete actions of Social Democrats, and what it is that "they wan/".387 Without confusing Jesus' earthly ministry with the socialist programme, that is, anachronistically casting Jesus as a

Social Democrat, Barth still maintained that both socialism, with its concern for those dependent on others for their livelihood, and the life of Jesus could rightly be considered movements "from below".388 Barth supported this conclusion against what he criticized as the prevailing understanding of socialism within the church.

386 Barth, "Autobiographical Sketch", p. 154; Barth, "Concluding Unscientific Postscript", p. 263. 387 Karl Barth, "Jesus Christ and the Movement for Social Justice", in George Hunsinger, ed. and trans., Karl Barth and Radical Politics (Philadelphia, 1976), pp. 19,21. 388 Barth, "Jesus Christ and the Movement for Social Justice", p. 23. 135 According to Barth, the church had largely rejected socialism because of what it considered to be socialism's exclusive concern for the material conditions of human life.

Contrarily, the church had emphasized spiritual welfare at the expense of the physical from the conviction that the kingdom of God is an inward reality. More seriously, Barth suggested that the church had intentionally neglected the social movement because it had no intention of alleviating or eliminating social injustice. Rather, the church had accepted social inequality as an historical inevitability so that it could, in turn, reach people with the message of the interiority of the gospel. What is worse, the church had then condemned the emergent socialist programme for its materialism, and for attempting to initiate a "heaven on earth". Referencing biblical texts which seemingly downplay physical concerns by counselling the individual to entrust them to God, Barth charged that the church had instead "referred with smug horror to the little verse about angels and sparrows, and to similar expressions".389

From Barth's perspective, the church operated from the false conclusion that the inward-spiritual needs to stand in opposition to the outward-material. Barth rejected this reading by arguing that Jesus maintained no separation of the physical and the spiritual, or heaven and earth, in his proclamation of the kingdom of God; for the true opposite of

God is not the material realm, but evil. It then followed that while from the human perspective Jesus' work for social justice is a "movement from below", from the perspective of the divine, it is a movement descending from above - the coming of

389 Barth, "Jesus Christ and the Movement for Social Justice", p. 26. 136 heaven to earth.390 Thus, redemption properly understood "is not the separation of spirit from matter; it is not that man 'goes to heaven', but rather that God's kingdom comes to us in matter and on earth".391

Barth drew further connections between the ideals of socialism and Christianity by paralleling socialism's solidarity through communal goals, production, and organization with Reformed theology. According to Barth, Swiss Reformed theology following Calvin and Zwingli understood the concepts of cooperation and the sociality of religion better than Lutheran individualism. Working from Jesus' teachings, the parables, and the Sermon on the Mount, Barth maintained that the human spirit God values most is the "social spirit". This was evident for Barth in the use of collective pronouns in the Lord's Prayer. Jesus taught his followers to pray as a collective, and as such, acknowledges "only a social religion, a religion of solidarity".393

These conclusions allowed Barth to advocate the nationalization of the means of production and speak against private profit, going so far as to assert that Jesus wanted to abolish the sin of "self-seeking" private property. Accordingly, Barth could exhort his socialist audience with the claim that "Jesus says to you quite simply that you should carry out your program, that you should enact what you want. Then you will be

Christians and true human beings".394 During his time in Safenwil Barth's theological training was augmented by his political involvement, so that on the eve of the First World

390 Barth, "Jesus Christ and the Movement for Social Justice", p. 27. 391 Barth, "Jesus Christ and the Movement for Social Justice", p. 27. 392 Barth, "Jesus Christ and the Movement for Social Justice", p. 34. 393 Barth, "Jesus Christ and the Movement for Social Justice", pp. 28, 34. 394 Barth, "Jesus Christ and the Movement for Social Justice", pp. 32,36-7. 137 War, Barth's thinking was largely informed by a theological liberalism which followed

Hermann's emphasis on religious experience as the basis for knowledge of God, and religious socialism.395

The First World War and Barth's theological impasse.

Without engaging in a comprehensive account of Barth's theological development, we can roughly describe the trajectory of his thought through to the end of the 1930s as a break with the theological liberalism of his student days during the early period of the First World War, and a turn to an evolving dialectical theology.396 If the

First World War was significant for Hirsch in terms of the development of his volkisch theology, the war was equally significant for Barth's development, albeit in the completely opposite direction. Essentially, the war undercut the possibility of either religious socialism or theological liberalism serving as a foundation for Barth's theology.

Whereas Hirsch lamented the fact that he was physically unfit for military service, instead devoting his full energies to a compensatory intellectual Kriegsdienst, Barth was shocked by the aggressiveness of the Schlieffen Plan and the violation of Belgian neutrality, and what he considered to be international socialism's failure to oppose the war. Instead of clinging to a position of international solidarity, German Social

395 Bruce L. McCormack, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development 1909-1936 (Oxford, 1995), pp. 66, 80, 125. 396 For a "genetic-historical treatment of the whole of Karl Barth's theological development" see: Bruce L. McCormack, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development 1909- 1936 (Oxford, 1995). McCormack challenges the dominant historiographical trend which depicts two significant "breaks" in Barth's development: a "turn" from liberalism to dialectics, and a "turn" from dialectics to analogy. 138 Democrats in the Reichstag broke with tradition and actually voted in favour of measures to finance the war. And while Hirsch lauded the 'spirit of 1914' and the (disappointingly abortive) unity of German society, Barth was utterly dismayed by the war-enthusiasm, especially that shown by the intellectual elite.

The vast majority of Germany's intelligentsia, including its theologians, backed the war effort. And while all the participant nations depicted their involvement as defensive, German intellectuals defended the campaign as a dire attempt to preserve

Germany's threatened national culture. A public appeal from October 1914, addressed to

"the civilized world" and signed by ninety-three German cultural leaders, expressly sought to refute the portrayal of the war as a campaign of German aggression, and defend

German actions in Belgium.

The appeal began by rejecting the claim that Germany started the war, or even wanted it, maintaining instead that German leaders did all in their power to avoid it.

According to the appeal, Wilhem II had proved himself to be a "protector of the peace" throughout his reign, even at the expense of being mocked on the international stage for his pacifism. Germany entered the conflict "Only when the great force that has long lurked about us attacked our people from three sides, only then did we rise up as one man".397 The appeal continued by further rejecting accusations of German brutality in

Belgium. Germany only entered Belgium because the French and British were intent on

397Reprinted in Bernhard vom Brooke, '"Wissenschaft und Militarismus': Der Aufruf der 93 'an die Kulturwelt!' und der Zusammenbruch der internationalen Gelehrtenrepublik im Ersten Weltkrieg", in William M. Calder, III, ed., Wilamowitz nach SOJahren (Darmstadt, 1985), p. 718. Online translation by Jeffrey Verhey and Roger Chickering http://germanhist0rvd0cs.ghi-dc.0rg/pdf/eng/817 Bernhard vom Brocke 156.pdf (Feb. 25,2010). 139 doing so with the approval of the Belgians themselves. Thus: "It would have been suicide on our part not to anticipate their move". Moreover, the manifesto maintained that any

German violence that had occurred had been in justifiable self-defence against ambushes, assassinations, and crimes against German soldiers. International scorn should fall not on the Germans, but on the 'butchering' "Russian hordes" - those actually violating international law.

Perhaps most significantly, the appeal argued against the "hypocritical" claim that an attack against German militarism was not an attack against the broader German culture. Accordingly, German culture existed only because it had been militarily protected from the predatory powers that encircled it. Without German militarism,

German culture would have long been destroyed. Directly equating the German army and the German people, the appeal concluded with the promise that "we shall fight this war to the end as a cultured people to whom the legacy of Goethe, Beethoven and Kant are as sacred as hearth and land".399

Barth's self-described credulous belief that socialism would resist the prevalent war ideology left him horrified in the face of its international complicity with the war efforts. Instead of seeking the regeneration of social life, the Social Democrats chose

"moderation" and "opportunism".400 But worse still was Barth's discovery that amongst

400 Barth, "Autobiographical Sketch", p. 154; Karl Barth, "Past and Future: Friedrich Naumann and Christoph Blumhardt"(1919) in James M. Robinson, ed., The Beginnings of Dialectic Theology, trans. Keith R. Crim (Richmond, 1968), p. 39. Barth paralleled the collapse of the socialist ideal in Germany with Naumann's own "false" "religious and political thought-world", p. 40. 140 the ninety-three signatures on the 'Appeal to the Civilized World', were "the names of almost all my German teachers".401 Adolf von Harnack and Reinhold Seeburg from

Berlin, Adolf von Schlatter from Tubingen, and Wilhelm Herrmann from Marburg had all signed. Martin Rade was the "honourable exception". As Barth recounted, the effect was that "An entire world of theological exegesis, ethics, dogmatics, and preaching, which up to that point I had accepted as basically credible, was thereby shaken to the foundations, and with it everything which flowed at that time from the pens of the

German theologians".402

Barth's pessimism about the state of German theology was punctuated by the fact that the "Appeal to the Civilized World" was not the only petition originating from, or signed by theologians supporting the war, in a string of documents illustrating German academics' support. In June 1915, the Berlin theologian Reinhold Seeberg - himself originally from the Baltics - issued a Pan-Germanic petition advocating the incorporation of Belgium and parts of France into the Reich. The petition further advocated eastward

German expansion and the expulsion of Slavic populations from the newly obtained territories, and their replacement with ethnic Germans either from newly annexed regions, or those relocated from Germany proper. Among the 1,347 signatures were those of 351 professors. Harnack - who had been called on by the Secretary of State to help draft Wilhelm II's August 6,1914 "Call to the German People"- and Ernst Troeltsch signed a more moderate petition led by Theodor Wolff, the publisher of the Berliner

401 Barth, "Concluding Unscientific Postscript", pp. 263-4. 402 Barth, "Concluding Unscientific Postscript", pp. 263-4. 141 Tageblatt, and the historian Hans Delbruck, which appeared in July of the same year.403

While it rejected the annexation of western territories, it did not reject expansion at the expense of Russia.404

Despite the "hopeless impasse" confronting his continuation with theology, Barth continued to preach. He also felt compelled to remain aligned with the Social Democrats, joining the party in January 1915.405 At the same time, Barth's theological assumptions were increasingly challenged, especially his understanding of the transcendent nature of the kingdom of God.406 Taking stock of the intellectual heritage that had influenced the

German theological faculties, Barth suggested that had they been alive, Fichte would have signed the October appeal, and perhaps Hegel with him. Although Barth believed

Schleiermacher would not have, "Nevertheless, it was still the case that the entire theology which had unmasked itself in that manifesto, and everything which followed after it (even in the Christliche Welt), was grounded, determined, and influenced decisively by him".407 There was thus no possibility of continuing theology from this foundation. With Eduard Thurneysen, Barth concluded that what was needed "was a

403 J.C. O'Neill, "Adolf von Harnack and the entry of the German state into war, July-August 1914", Scottish Journal of Theology, 55 (2002), p.3 404 Heinrich August Winkler, Germany: The Long Road West 1789-1933, trans. Alexander J. Sager (Oxford, 2006), p. 307; John A. Moses, "The Mobilisation of the Intellectuals 1914-1915 and the Continuity of German Historical Consciousness", Australian Journal of Politics and History, 48 (2002), p. 350. This is not to suggest that militaristic sentiments were unanimous within German academia, as there were significant voices counselling peace; but these were the minority. See Moses, "The Mobilisation of the Intellectuals 1914-1915". 405 Barth, "Autobiographical Sketch", p. 154; Busch, Karl Barth, p. 82. Barth would join the SPD in Germany May 1, 1931. 406 Barth, "Autobiographical Sketch", p. 154. 407 Barth, "Concluding Unscientific Postscript", p. 264. 142 'wholly other' theological foundation".408 They had to abandon Schleiermacher and the course of liberal theological optimism and anthropocentrism, and start from scratch in "a fresh attempt to learn our theological ABCs all over again".409

A new direction.

Without retelling the better known of Barth's biographical details, it was his commentary on Romans - which he started shortly after his epiphany with Thurneysen and his address at the Religious Socialist conference at Tambach in Thuringia in

September 1919 which really thrust Barth onto the German theological scene. Although he quite quickly judged his original commentary on Romans to be flawed, and started on a second edition "in which the original has been so completely rewritten that it may be claimed that no stone remains in its old place," it was on the strength of Der Romerbrief that Barth was offered an honorary chair in Reformed systematic theology at Gottingen in

February 1921.410 Barth joined the faculty for the winter semester - the same semester as

Hirsch - and thus began a theological opposition which would span their careers.

Even the circumstances of their appointments highlight Barth and Hirsch's divergent paths. Upon finishing his Habilitation, Hirsch had lectured as a Privatdozent in church history at Bonn during the war. Barth's appointment on the other hand, was to an honorary chair; he had not earned a doctorate, and did not have teaching experience. This was a point of concern for Barth, who initially felt under-qualified. Not only did he not

408 Barth, "Concluding Unscientific Postscript", p. 264. Barth credits Thurneysen with the phrase from 1916. 409 Barth, "Concluding Unscientific Postscript", p. 264. 410 Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 6 ed. trans. Edwyn C. Hoskyns (London, 1933), p. 2. 143 own the Reformed confessional texts on which he was to teach, he had not read them, and this was "quite apart from other horrendous gaps" in what he considered to be crucial prerequisite knowledge. Barth's sense of his own under-preparedness is contrasted with his early astonishment at Hirsch's exceptionally broad knowledge and academic discipline.411 Accordingly, Barth worked very hard to catch himself up to speed, in the process discovering that his theology "was more Reformed and Calvinistic than I realized". It came as a great relief, and gave him a sense of credibility when Barth was made a doctor of theology by Miinster in early 1922.412

It was natural that as colleagues within the same faculty Barth and Hirsch would come into theological opposition. Beyond the traditional confessional differences between Hirsch's Lutheranism and Barth's Reformed theology, and their initial reception of the war, its disastrous outcome affected both of their theologies profoundly, but in different directions. Barth did not suffer the devastation of the capitulation and revolution as Hirsch did. His was not a nationalistic disappointment; rather Barth found his prior theological assumptions more or less immediately invalidated. Hirsch further entrenched his volkisch theology while Barth began to work through what it meant for God to be

God.

411 Barth, "Autobiographical Sketch", p. 156; Karl Barth to Eduard Thurneysen, December 11,1921, Barth- Thurneysen Briefwechsel, 1921-1930 (Zurich, 1974), p. 23. Apparently Hirsch could read 100 pages of Latin in an hour and retain its contents. Walter Buff, "Karl Barth und Emanuel Hirsch: Anmerkungen zu einem Briefwechsel" in Hans Martin MQller, ed., Christliche Wahrheit und neuzeitliches Denken: zu Emanuel Hirschs Leben und Werk (Tubingen, 1984), p. 20. Barth would later write: "Now when everything is quiet round about me I am much more conscious of my thorn in the flesh, my dreadful theological ignorance, sharpened by my quite miserable memory that constantly retains only quite decisive things". Karl Barth to Eduard Thurneysen (circular letter), March 26, 1922, in Revolutionary Theology in the Making: Barth-Thurneysen Correspondence, 1914-1925 trans., James D. Smart (Richmond, 1964), p. 92. 412 Barth, "Autobiographical Sketch", p. 156. 144 Already in 1916 we see Barth repeatedly utilizing the concept of the "Wholly

Other" when speaking of the divine. "God is God''' is not a simplistic truism.413 For Barth it was a new theological foundation and a rediscovery of a proper understanding of God, which even in its simplicity reflects the profundity of the concept of the Wholly Other.

Because God is God, God cannot be human, either existentially or epistemologically;

God cannot exist or be known as a human.414 Thus in the preface to his second edition of

Romans, which he worked on from the fall of 1920 until the summer of 1921, Barth suggested that if it may be said that he employed a theological system, it extended no farther than the Kierkegaardian formulation of the '"infinite qualitative distinction' between time and eternity", between God and humanity.415

Starting from this theological perspective, Barth depicted the ethical systems of the nineteenth century as essentially academic pursuits. No matter what philosophical or theological trend one followed, the question was essentially which system provided the best solution for what was obvious - "for it was obvious that what to do was to further this infinitely imperfect but infinitely perfectible culture".416 Theology avoided the New

Testament opposition to the cultural norm; ethics of that time asked what should be done, and the answer was something already being done.417 In short, theological ethics aligned with established cultural trends to the point that they had nothing new to say to culture

413 Karl Barth, "The Righteousness of God", in The Word of God and the Word of Man, trans. Douglas Horton (Boston, 1928), p. 24; Karl Barth, "The Strange New World Within the Bible", in The Word of God and the Word of Man, p. 48. 414 Barth later modified his position in The Humanity of God. Karl Barth, The Humanity of God, trans., John Newton Thomas (Richmond, 1960). 415 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 10. 416 Karl Barth, "The Problem of Ethics Today" (1922), in The Word of God and the Word of Man, p. 145. 417 Barth, "The Problem of Ethics Today", p. 146. 145 because they had become culture, and in so doing, failed to grasp the absolute

insufficiency of human systems.418

Barth's rejection of a culturally conditioned ethics followed along the same line as

the impetus behind his rewriting of Der Romerbrief. Even though Barth sought to discuss

the kingdom of God in terms of it being completely 'other', and the knowledge of God as

immediate and 'from above', the first edition came too close to identifying the kingdom

of God with socialism, and lent itself to misreadings which assumed it advocated natural

revelation.419

In the second edition of Romans Barth's focus was again the kingdom of God, but

he was deliberate in seeking to eliminate the possibility of misunderstanding his intent

and the groundwork of his new theological formulation of the relationship between the

temporal and the eternal.420 Too often when Barth is considered in the context of his

'turn' from liberalism and later in the church struggle, he is depicted as preaching with a

hammer, seeking only to destroy the liberal alignment of Christianity and culture. Too

great an emphasis on protest and destruction in Barth's work to free Protestantism of

418 T.F. Torrance "Introduction", in Karl Barth Theology and Church: Shorter Writings 1920-1928, trans., Louise Pettibone Smith (London, 1962), pp. 16-8; Considering Schleiermacher to be paradigmatic of cultural-Protestantism's failings, Barth would later argue that "The kingdom of God, according to Schleiermacher, is utterly and unequivocally identical with the advance of civilization". Karl Barth, Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century: Its Background & History (Valley Forge, 1973), p. 435. 419 Mark L. Lindsay, Covenanted Solidarity: The Theological Basis of Karl Barth's Opposition to Nazi Antisemitism and the Holocaust (New York, 2001), p. 145; McCormack, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology, pp. 182-3; Timothy J. Gorringe, Karl Barth: Against Hegemony (Oxford, 1999), p. 70. Gorringe interprets Barth's rewriting of the first edition of Romans as a rejection of any possible equating of the kingdom of God with socialism, and places it within what he considers to be Barth's continual opposition to hegemony. 420 Barth argued that "To suppose that a direct road leads from art, or morals, or science, or even from religion, to God is sentimental, liberal self-deception. Such roads lead directly to the Church, to Churches, and to all kinds of religious communities - of this the experiences of so-called 'religious' socialism provide an instructive illustration". Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 337. 146 anthropocentrism fails to recognize the fact that Barth had no intention of leaving a void behind his dismantling of contemporary religious systems.421 Barth's life work will be misunderstood if it is not interpreted as a continual attempt to replace false understandings with what he considered to be the proper understanding of God as God.

Consequently, when considering Romans 11, it should be read as Barth intended it, as a theological commentary.422

"God is God" is the fundamental assumption from which Barth proceeded in

Romans II, and from which he argued that the Apostle Paul's theme is the krisis of the relationship of time and eternity.423 Because of the infinite qualitative distinction - or diastasis - between time and eternity, humanity is utterly unable to know God of its own accord. As Mark Lindsay has illustrated, there are "three significant corollaries" to the centrality of diastasis in Romans II with regard to Barth's political thought. As a consequence of the diastasis, all human existence and achievement are necessarily imperfect, and fall under the perfect judgement of God. Considered in this light, an implication of the universal imperfection of humanity is that there is a fundamental equality of all people in relation to God. The absolute difference between God and humanity negates any relative differences between individuals with respect to their

421 John Webster discusses Barth's protest in the context of his gravitation towards classical Reformed texts and the beginnings of his positive theological contributions during his time at Gdttingen. John Webster, Barth's Earlier Theology: Four Studies (London, 2005). At the same time, we can agree with T.F. Torrance's conclusion that Romans II is "an all-out assault upon Neo-Protestant Christianity and Theology". Torrance "Introduction", p. 13. 422 Webster, Barth's Earlier Theology, p. 8; In his preface to the English edition, Barth commented that "My sole aim was to interpret Scripture". Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, p. ix. 423 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 11. 147 relation to the divine. Accordingly, no human social action can be equated with a divine programme.424

Standing under this collective condemnation, salvation must be initiated from

God to humanity, as nothing can be demanded of God from the human side. Therefore, according to Barth, the gospel is a gift from God out of graciousness and necessity.

Moreover, it is "ever new" in its immediacy; the gospel is not passive in its communication, but instead "demands participation, comprehension, co-operation".425 It then follows that God's initiation does not preclude human participation, albeit in a secondary function. The gospel is received in faith, which, paradoxically, is created by faith - it "creates that which it presumes" 426

Barth repeatedly used paradox throughout Romans II: there is mercy in judgement; "We know that God is He whom we do not know"; knowledge proceeds from our ignorance; faith is an impossible possibility; "life rises only from death; the beginning stands at the end".427 The point of Barth's use of paradox is to emphasize the ultimate direction of revealed knowledge and salvation, and definitively divorce revelation from any notion of the ability of the individual to deduce knowledge of God independently from history. For Barth, "The Resurrection is the revelation: the disclosing of Jesus as the Christ, the appearing of God, and the apprehending of God in Jesus". At

424 Lindsay, Covenanted Solidarity, pp. 107-10. Barth argued that "Everything which emerges in men and which owes its form and expansion to them is always and everywhere, and as such, ungodly and unclean. The kingdom of men is, without exception, never the Kingdom of God; and since there are no men so fortunate as to be incumbents in the Kingdom of God, no man can exonerate or excuse himself. Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 56. 4 5 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 28. 426 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 28. 427 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 41,45, 99, 112. 148 the same time, Barth equated the revelation of Jesus as the Christ to a tangent touching a circle.428 Unlike the first edition of Romans, Barth would avoid the possible misconception that 'immediate' direct revelation 'from above' somehow meant that God was in constant contact with humanity, and that revelation was a matter of human perception.429 There is a point of contact, but no intersection. Thus Barth maintained an eschatological dialectic throughout Romans II. Revelation takes place in history, but it is not the result of history. The resurrection is an event, but in no way is it conditioned, before or after, by history. The gulf between history and eschatology can only be bridged from God's side.430

By 1921 Hirsch had also already published his early seminal work Deutschlands

Schicksal, which espoused a doctrine of natural revelation to support his volkisch theology. Contrarily, in Romans II Barth maintained that all that can be humanly known through "religious contemplation" is the "divine 'No'".431 Humanly speaking, there is no inherent ability to know God positively or negatively. From nature or national history an individual can only know his or her inability to know God. This is humanity's guilt, and justifies God's wrath. If the individual is honest, nature can lead him or her to a crisis, revealing the powerlessness to come to God. "And God is unknown, apart from the knowledge which He Himself - as the Unknown - gives to us in Christ. This is the

428 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 30. 429 McCormack, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology, p. 183. 430 McCormack, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology, pp. 253-5; Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 98, 102. 431 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 46. 149 tribulation of the Church".432 The implications of Barth's developing theology would make it virtually impossible for Barth and Hirsch to arrive at a common theological, let alone political ground.

The basts of a theological dispute.

The seeds of Barth and Hirsch's protracted theological dispute are evident even before their simultaneous arrivals at Gottingen; yet their relationship did not necessarily start off as combative. It is clear that Hirsch had read Der Romerbrief and positioned himself against Barth's socialist leanings. In Die Reich-Gottes-Begriffe, Hirsch took issue with Barth as a representative of religious socialism in the context of a larger critique of the internal contradictions in French thought about the kingdom of God.433 In a somewhat humorous turn, in a letter written to Barth in June 1921, Hirsch sought to clarify these arguments. He asked Barth to please see past his unintentional harshness and not take it as unfriendly or against the spirit of collegiality, since he only learned once the book was in print that they would be working together.434

Barth and Hirsch's correspondence continued through the summer of 1921. In a letter from August, Hirsch began by describing his connection to the German Volk as a natural love, and compared this love to his and Barth's love for their wives, arguing that

432 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 361. 433 Emanuel Hirsch, Die Reich-Gottes-Begriffe des neueren europaischen Denkens. Ein Versuch zur Geschichte der Staats- und Gesellschaftsphilosophie (G5ttingen, 1921), p. 32, fn. 61. 434 Emanuel Hirsch to Karl Barth, June 28, 1921. The original copies of the Barth-Hirsch correspondence are in the Karl Barth Archive in Basel. Barth's letters to Hirsch before 1928 are missing. The existing letters from Barth to Hirsch are Barth's carbon copies. Buff, "Karl Barth und Emanuel Hirsch", p. 16, fn. 6. I am indebted to A. James Reimer for allowing me to use transcribed copies of the Barth-Hirsch letters he received from Walter Buff. 150 it had moral implications. Specifically, Hirsch found a connecting point to the eternal in the earthly reality, to the eternal life that he was intended, and being prepared for. God speaks through the temporal circumstances of life, and yet while they are insights into eternity, they can admittedly be misunderstood.435

With reference to the paradox of eternity in the finite, Hirsch stressed the ability of earthly events to spontaneously cause people to worship, in effect constituting the invisible church on earth. As Hirsch understood things, God's purposes continually move towards community, or the kingdom, and not towards individualism. At the same time, however, he stood in disagreement with Barth's strict opposition to the self-centredness of individual religious experience that he expressed in his exegesis of the seventh chapter of Romans in Der Romerbrief Unlike Barth, Hirsch adopted a pietistic reading of

Romans 7, and could not understand how the concept of community could be thought of outside of the framework of the individual conscience.436

Hirsch then shifted to the expressly political, addressing himself, the 'German

National', against Barth the Socialist. In terms of political parties, Hirsch maintained that he was not 'German National', even though he was a nationalist, and stood opposed to internationalism. Although Hirsch's political attitude shared practical similarities to the

Deutschnationale Volkspartei, as a Christian he had doubts about its political structure,

435 Hirsch to Barth, August 9, 1921. 436 Hirsch to Barth, August 9, 1921; Buff, "Karl Barth und Emanuel Hirsch", p. 19. 151 and was critical of its economic policy. Accordingly, Hirsch argued that he voted for the

German nationals because he felt there was not a better alternative.437

Returning to his points of contention with Barth, in terms of the connection between the religious and the political, Hirsch argued against all pseudo-religious systems, particularly against socialism. More than a workers' movement, Hirsch asserted that socialism was an attempt to establish the kingdom of God on earth. It is not that

Hirsch was against all concerns of the worker movement - he noted that he was in favour of land reform - but he certainly could not justify it religiously. Maintaining that in the natural organization of human life, in which individuals are connected to family, tribe,

Volk and nation, Hirsch argued that the best form of social relations would follow the hierarchical model of the leader and those who are led.438

Hirsch's criticism of socialism hinged on a number of key aspects. Beyond its internationalism and pacifism, socialism had overvalued the importance of the war.

Elevating this particular moment in time ignored the immediacy of the eternal in history.

Moreover, Hirsch stood opposed to Marxist deconstructionism. Humanity cannot exist outside of the divinely ordained orders of life. Human society exists within the state.

Outside of the orders humanity is only an abstraction.

Yet without minimizing their points of disputation, there are legitimate points of agreement between Barth and Hirsch. Both agreed that life must be in service to God, and

437 Hirsch to Barth, August 9, 1921. 438 Hirsch to Barth, August 9, 1921. 152 that commands from God are contextual.439 Perhaps most significant in the context of socialism, both Barth and Hirsch opposed socialism as a purported kingdom of God on earth.

Once they became colleagues, Barth and Hirsch continued the theological debating that had begun in their correspondence: "Lively battles alternate with appointments for further meetings but the feeling remains intimate and stimulating".440 A particularly lengthy debate, lasting from nine o'clock one evening until four the next morning, resulted in the production of 11 theses and antitheses about scripture. Barth forwarded Hirsch's theses along with his own antitheses to Thumeysen in a circular letter.441

On first glance it may appear that Barth's rejoinders to Hirsch's theses are fixated to a large extent on semantics. Barth responded to Hirsch's first thesis that "The Holy

Scriptures are witness to a life which should also take shape in us", with "The Holy

Scriptures are witness not to a life but to the eternal life which should take shape in us.

But insofar as this latter happens to me, I am not I but the new man in Christ".442 In reality, Barth was carving out a precise usage for the concepts employed in the debate.

Whereas Hirsch presented scripture as basically open for interpretation, whereby the examples of biblical characters and their relationships to God are normative, Barth strictly rejected any notion of an analogous or normative knowledge of God deduced

439 Hirsch to Barth, August 9,1921; Buff, "Karl Barth und Emanuel Hirsch", pp. 16-19. 440 Barth to Thumeysen, May 9, 1922, in Revolutionary Theology in the Making, p. 99. 441 Karl Barth to Eduard Thumeysen (circular letter), February 26,1922, in Revolutionary Theology in the Making, pp. 82-7. 442 Barth to Thumeysen, February 26, 1922, p. 83. 153 from the biblical narrative. Insofar as scripture does contain a normative word from God, it becomes known through God's initiation. God speaks; God prepares the "addressee" of the word; and it is God's perception through the individual that allows the individual to in fact perceive.443

Although the debates took place in an academic setting, their content remained far from merely academic. Much more than theologians striving to understand subject matter, both Barth and Hirsch had incorporated their theologies into personal faith systems which were integral to their identities.444 On several occasions Barth remarked that he had been type-cast by Hirsch and discredited indirectly in the lecture room, his theology projected onto other theologians engaged by Hirsch.445 Therefore, in commenting to Thurneysen about the particularities of the debate, Barth referred to "this duel", which "constitutes only a narrow sector of the whole front". Seemingly anticipating their impending confrontation, Barth concluded that "It is possible that I may yet have a fearful quarrel with H.".446

One of the reasons that both Barth and Hirsch anticipated that a larger quarrel was impending was the interconnectedness of particular contested theological issues.447 For

Barth, natural theology was a faulty doctrine in its own right; but perhaps equally seriously, it opened the door for concomitant false doctrines. Barth made this connection

443 Barth to Thurneysen, February 26, 1922, pp. 82-3. 444 Barth reflected the personal connection between theologians and their theologies in his forward to Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century: "To the degree to which one commends or rejects a work, one also condemns or rejects a man", p. 23. 445 Barth to Thurneysen, January 22, 1922, p. 82; February 26, 1922, p. 85; February 28, 1922, p. 139. 446 Barth to Thurneysen, February 26, 1922, p. 85. 447 While Barth spoke of this anticipation to Thurneysen, Hirsch spoke of it with Paul Althaus. Buff, "Karl Barth und Emanuel Hirsch", p. 25. 154 clear in his 1922 response to Paul Althaus's Religidser Sozialismns: Grundfragen der christlichen Sozialethik, which paralleled many of Hirsch's arguments.

For Barth, identifying the present historical moment with the will of God allowed human action that would otherwise be considered unethical to be justified on the basis that it is divinely sanctioned. "Now everything is possible. Now war can no longer be called murder, but rather a 'mighty self-measuring of the nations for leadership and for the future"'.448 Accordingly, the Christian's moral obligation shifts. It is no longer a question of abstaining from war; rather the Christian responsibility is to determine what wars may be fought justifiably, and to do so while maintaining a Christian disposition towards the enemy. Barth utterly rejected this formulation as an "unspeakably inadequate" interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount.449 In his opinion, Althaus completely avoided the doctrine of original sin. Moreover, Althaus created a false dichotomy between the inner, personally applicable social teachings of Jesus and outward human praxis, whereby the Christian could inwardly practice peace even in service to the state in war. According to Barth, "There is surely no difference: The inner life, even the religious, even the Christian religious life, stands under the same judgement under which

Althaus (and we agree with him) sees the outward life".450 Consequently, Barth's rejection of natural theology cannot be separated from his repudiation of the doctrine of

448 Karl Barth, "Basic Problems of Christian Social Ethics: A Discussion with Paul Althaus" (1922) in James M. Robinson, ed., The Beginnings of Dialectic Theology, p. 53. 449 Barth, "Basic Problems of Christian Social Ethics", p. 54. 450 Barth, "Basic Problems of Christian Social Ethics", p. 55. 155 the two kingdoms, from his "deep mistrust of the sinister connection between Lutheran inwardness and Lutheran worldliness".451

In several ways, the French invasion of the Ruhr highlights the main points of difference between Barth and Hirsch. Although not yet at hyperinflation levels, the

German currency was quickly being devalued. In January 1923, the same month as the invasion, the dollar was valued at 50,000 marks.452 Hirsch was naturally furious over the occupation, but so too was Barth. He saw the effects of inflation in Gottingen firsthand.

Students had already been forced to withdraw and Barth empathized with his new country. He stood against the violence of the invasion and was appalled by how it would compound the economic struggles in Germany.

In a case of bad timing, a letter from eighteen French theology students sent to nineteen German universities arrived at Gottingen early in the episode, bringing a

Christmas greeting. The students at Gottingen were incensed, and a meeting was held to determine how to respond. Professors spoke for both sides. Bauer, Hirsch and Stange rejected sending an amicable response, while despite his anger at the occupation, Barth joined Piper to advocate for civility. In the end, a letter composed primarily by Barth was sent in reply.* 453

Commenting on the events, Barth characterized German professors as "masters at finding ingenious, ethical, and Christian bases for brutalities", and depicted Hirsch as particularly passionate about the incident, threatening to have no more association with

451 Barth, "Basic Problems of Christian Social Ethics", p. 54. 452 Holger Herwig, Hammer or Anvil? Modern Germany 1648-Present (Toronto, 1994) p. 236. 453 McCormack, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology, pp. 299-300. 156 students who approved a genial response. The day after the meeting, Hirsch and Barth met in a "fearful scene.. .in which the words 'Swiss! Foreigner! Disturber of the peace!' went flying about my head but in which 'I too indeed' gave him tit for tat".454 Reflecting on the ramifications of the occupation a month later, Barth commented that his relationship with Hirsch had taken on a new character; it was now "somewhat flat and joyless". Nonetheless, Barth continued that given the circumstances, he would need to

"sound the religious-socialist notes here more strongly than before, and in doing that I will most likely part company with Hirsch.. ."455 The falling out came with Barth's reaction to Hirsch's "Nation, Staat und Christentum. 30 Thesenwhich Hirsch had prepared as the basis for a talk with the Gottingen German Christian Student Union.456

From Hirsch's note to Barth from March 21, 1923 we know that there was a falling out because Barth attacked Hirsch's Christianity. According to Hirsch, Barth had destroyed the rapport between them. And even though as far as he was concerned collegial relations would still continue, Hirsch accused Barth of breaking the trust between them by violating the conditions of a theological exchange - that is, that it be the work of the gospel. According to Hirsch, the reason for Barth's opposition was the fact that he could not come to terms with the reality that an individual can be obedient to God

454 Karl Barth to Eduard Thurneysen (circular letter), January 23,1923, in Revolutionary Theology in the Making, p. 124. 455 Karl Barth to Eduard Thurneysen (circular letter), February 28, 1923, in Revolutionary Theology in the Making, p. 139. 456 Buff, "Karl Barth und Emanuel Hirsch", p. 25; Emanuel Hirsch, "Nation, Staat und Christentum. 30 Thesen", Mitieilungen zur Forderung einer deutschen christlichen Studentenbewegung 6, 1923, pp. 82-4. 157 through the embracing of particular earthly movements. Hirsch claimed that he was not angry with Barth, but the conditions of their exchange had been severed.457

In a letter discussing the falling out dated the next day, Hirsch maintained that his response had not been because of the form or sharpness of Barth's criticism. According to Hirsch, conversation up to this point - as per Barth's wish - had mainly centred on

Barth's theology; and Hirsch admitted that he had often been the one on the attack against Barth's counterattack. Hirsch had not held it against Barth that Barth had rejected his theology, and clarified that it was not his intention to cast doubt on Barth's determination to defer only to the gospel in his own work. The crux of the quarrel as

Hirsch saw it was that Barth thought of him as an idolater and an enemy of the true gospel. In fact, according to Barth, Hirsch espoused a phoney gospel. Thus the exchange had been broken because Barth did not consider Hirsch to be sincere in his quest for theological truth. Instead, Barth rejected what he considered to be Hirsch's false theological underpinnings of an idolization of the state.458

Without Barth's written responses to Hirsch, we can glean his perspective from his letters to Thurneysen 459 In a letter from March 31, 1923 Barth remarked that he and

Hirsch had fallen out over his attack on Hirsch's nationalistic Christianity. However according to Barth, he had been compelled to rebuke Hirsch's faulty theological

457 Hirsch to Barth, March 21,1923. 45S Hirsch to Barth, March 22,1923. 459 See note 434 above. 158 formulations. Their rapport had been broken because Hirsch took his censuring badly, out of "self-pitying pietism".460

Barth presented the same picture in a circular letter to his friends in Switzerland months later. Here he recounted his conflict with Hirsch, and included Hirsch's theses

"without comments" for their evaluation. Barth admitted that he was coarse in his handling of Hirsch, having implied that his theses were a "theological paraphrase of

LudendorfPs Kriegserinnerungen", but given the line of Hirsch's theological argumentation, they could judge for themselves how else he should have responded to

Hirsch's "Christianity betrayed to Prussianism".461

Barth did not take what he considered to be the responsibilities of a theologian lightly, and was willing to pronounce judgement on, and part company with, those who in his opinion should have known better.462 The lively debates with Hirsch turned into stricter professional relations, and Barth accepted the call to Professor of Dogmatics and

460 Karl Barth to Eduard Thurneysen, March 31, 1923, in Eduard Thurneysen ed., Barth-Thurneysen Briefwechsel 1921-1930. Gesamtausgabe 4, Band 2 (Zurich, 1974) p. 158. 461 Karl Barth to Eduard Thurneysen (circular letter), May 18, 1923, in Eduard Thurneysen ed., Barth- Thurneysen Briefwechsel 1921-1930. Gesamtausgabe 4, Band 2 (Zurich, 1974) pp. 163-4. 462 Barth would eventually distance himself from the group surrounding the journal Zwischen den Zeiten (published from 1923 to 1933) which he started with Thurneysen and Friedrich Gogarten, over suspicions that his former theological allies had succumbed to natural theology. Barth distanced himself from Gogarten and Rudolf Bultmann from the fear that they were reducing dogmatics to ethics. He was particularly wary of Gogarten's appeal to the 'orders of creation' and his proximity to German Christian thought, and (wrongly) concluded that Bultmann would join the German Christians because of his use of anthropology and existentialist philosophy. Perhaps most dramatically, Barth condemned Emil Brunner in a public exchange over Brunner's acceptance of natural theology. Karl Barth to Rudolf Bultmann, February 5, 1930; May 27,1931; July 10, 1934, in Karl Barth-Rudolf Bultmann Letters 1922-1966, pp. 50, 58, 76; Karl Barth, "No!", in Natural Theology, trans., Peter Fraenkel (London, 1946); Busch, Karl Barth, pp. 145- 224. In an exchange with Barth, Harnack questioned whether Barth's dialectic in the end was able to "build a community" or whether it was necessarily alienating, striking "wild blows...with which it beats down everything else that appears as Christian experience?" Harnack proceeded to question: "And if he who perceives Christian faith in this way and never otherwise is able to find footing on its glacier bridge, is there room on it for even his children and friends?" Adolf von Harnack, "Postscript to My Open Letter to Professor Karl Barth" (1923) in James M. Robinson, ed., The Beginnings of Dialectic Theology, pp. 186-7. 159 New Testament Exegesis at Munster in 1925.463 In a letter from October 1925, Hirsch wished Barth God's blessing in Munster. Neither would forget the years at Gottingen, and Hirsch suggested that they in fact were closer personally than their theologies would suggest.464 Even still, their correspondence dropped off, containing little of real theological importance through the rest of the 1920s. It would pick up again with force years later.

The dispute intensifies.

During the 1920s Barth went through another significant shift in his theological perspective. Romans //offered a systematic critique of Neo-Protestantism from Barth's theocentric position, but its emphasis on God's ultimate transcendence - in particular the depiction of the revelation in Christ as tangential to human history - was problematic for a fully articulated understanding of the incarnation. Barth solved this problem in May

1924 with the appropriation of an enhypostatic-anhypostatic Christological model. This shift allowed Barth to move past Romans //without reworking his conclusions about the infinite qualitative difference. Barth's new Christology helped solidify his position on revelation, and made it possible to understand God's revelation as existing in history, but not conditioned by history.465 The formula allowed Barth to discuss the figure of Christ as both fully human and fully God, meaning that God always remains the revealing

463 Barth's call to Munster has added significance since he received German citizenship as a member of the Prussian civil service. 464 Hirsch to Barth, October 25, 1925. 465 McCormack, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology, pp. 19-21; Lindsay, Covenanted Solidarity, p. 147. 160 subject despite possessing human objectivity. Furthermore, this Christological emphasis

preserved Barth's separation of history and revelation.466

Essentially with the categories enhypostasis and anhypostasis467 Barth could

speak of revelation dialectically. The humanity of Christ only exists in connection with

the divinity of Christ; it has no independent or prior existence. Thus, following Romans

II, God's incarnation in Jesus is still a secret; God is 'veiled' in Jesus, revealed though

hidden.468 Beyond theological subtleties which further distinguish Barth's Christology

from a Lutheran understanding of the direct relation of the divine and human nature,469 as

Metzger has argued, Barth's formula provided him with the basis for a "constructive

engagement of human culture". By becoming human, God is connected to humanity. It

then follows that Barth's Christological and Trinitarian thought guarded both against a

theological deification of the world, and the secularization of the world caused by

separating it from God.470

466 Lindsay, Covenanted Solidarity, pp. 153-4. 467 Without discrediting the actual content of Barth's formulation, Shults has argued that enhypostasis and anhypostasis are not suitable theological categories to describe it. F. Le Ron Shults, "A Dubious Christological Formula: From Leontius of Byzantium to Karl Barth", Theological Studies, 57 (1996), p. 446. 468 Paul Louis Metzger, The Word of Christ and the Word of Culture: Sacred and Secular through the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids, 2003), pp. 44-5; Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 98. 469 Webster emphasizes Calvin's early influence on Barth's thought, as opposed to studies which overly stress Luther and Kierkegaard. Webster, Barth's Earlier Theology, p. 58. The Lutheran understanding served as the basis for the doctrine of the real presence in the Eucharist. Metzger, The Word of Christ and the Word of Culture, p. 49. 470 Metzger, The Word of Christ and the Word of Culture, pp. 47-9, 58,60-1. Barth argued that "There can be no thought of a general sanctifying of cultural achievement, such as Schleiermacher accomplished with his idealism, but there is even less place for a basic blindness to the possibility that culture may be revelatory, that it can be filled with the promise. The Church will need to consider carefully whether it knows what it is doing when in a concrete case it affirms the presence of the promise". Humanity's struggle to realize the promise in and of itself is in vain. In Christ it is possible. Karl Barth, "Church and Culture" (1926) in Theology and Church, p. 344. 161 Significant for our purposes, Barth's developing Christology and Trinitarianism

further reinforced his total rejection of natural revelation and the doctrine of the two

kingdoms, and the continued divergence of his theology from Hirsch's.471 The extent of

the antipathy between Barth and Hirsch's political theologies came to a head through the events which became known as the Dehn Affair.

In November 1928 Giinther Dehn was invited by Gerhard Jacobi to speak in the

Ulrich's Church in Magdeburg, and delivered a lecture on the theme "The Church and

Reconciliation between Nations". Dehn, a pastor of 20 years in a working class congregation in Berlin, had been a religious socialist, and had also been at the Tambach conference, from which point he was influenced by Barth. In his address Dehn argued against the glorification or divinization of war, referring to the common practice in

Germany of the church considering those who gave their lives for the Fatherland in war as martyrs under the biblical understanding that "No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends". (Jn. 15:13) Without negating the dignity and greatness of such sacrifices, Dehn maintained that the nature of killing in war needed to be properly interpreted. Depicting war deaths as martyrdom disregarded the fact that those who died were themselves engaged in war and were willing to kill. This rendered a direct equation of war casualties and Christian martyrdom impossible. It therefore followed that the question should be asked as to whether it was appropriate that churches constructed war

471 In a letter from December 1929, Barth remarked that he and Hirsch had not corresponded in sometime for various reasons, none the least of which was the fact that their theologies were growing further apart. Barth to Hirsch, December 18, 1929. 162 memorials within their walls, or whether the honouring of war dead was better left to the civil authorities.472

The implications of Dehn's comments were obviously offensive within nationalist circles, and their initial impact saw protests lodged by offended individuals who had attended the lecture and by the Volkisch Committee of the German National

Volkspartei of Magdeburg-Anhalt. More significant repercussions from Dehn's comments were yet to come.

Dehn was called to the Chair of Practical Theology at the University of

Heidelberg in December 1930, and after visiting the faculty, accepted. Significantly, the political atmosphere on German university campuses had intensified in the time since

Dehn's Magdeburg address, due in no small part to the vociferous agitation of National

Socialist student unions. Shortly after Dehn's call an article ran in the rightwing Eiserne

Blatter, which again brought up Dehn's contentious lecture and its fallout. Cowed by nationalist students, the Heidelberg faculty voted overwhelmingly not to back Dehn's appointment, and Dehn withdrew.

Early the next year Dehn received another call, this time to the theology faculty at

Halle, on account of the Minister of Culture's insistence that the position be filled by a candidate who could identify with the proletariat. However Dehn got off to an abortive start, as he spent his first semester on leave amidst a student pamphlet campaign against him. When he did begin teaching in the 1931/2 winter semester, he was confronted by

472 Barth quoted Dehn in his letter to Halle's Rector. Karl Barth, "An den Rektor der Universitat, Prof. Dr. Gustav Aubin, Halle, 1931", in Diether Koch ed., Offene Briefe 1909-1935 Gesamtausgabe V.35 (Zurich, 2001), p. 158. 163 protesting nationalist students who had crowded the lecture hall for his first lecture on

November 3,1931. Dehn was shouted down and could not continue. University authorities intervened amidst continued agitation, and eventually the student protests tapered off. They resumed again in earnest the next month when Dehn published documentation of his ordeal with an epilogue depicting the events as an attack of

"modern demonized political thought" against intellectual freedom, and more importantly, against the church's sovereignty. The publication further denounced the student patriotism as idolatrous, claiming that "Distorted idealism is demonic".473

Without recalling all its events in detail, the Dehn Affair is instructive because beyond being representative of what Klaus Scholder has called the "anonymous, political mass terrorism against individuals which developed at the German universities in this period", it evoked a mixed theological response. Prominent theologians spoke out in support of Dehn, while others aligned themselves with the student protest.474

With an open letter originally published in January 1932, and later republished in

Deutsches Volkstum, Emanuel Hirsch and Hermann Dorries entered into the fray over the fallout from Dehn's comments 475 While they had remained silent to this point, they felt

473 GQnther Dehn, Kirche und Volkerversohnung: Dokumente zum Halleschen Universitatskonflikt (Berlin, 1931), pp. 81,90. 474 I have drawn on Klaus Scholder's and Jack Forstman's accounts of the Dehn Affair. Klaus Scholder, The Churches and the Third Reich vol. 1 Preliminary History and the Time of Illusions 1918-1934, trans. John Bowden, (London, 1987), pp. 171-8; Jack Forstman, Christian Faith in Dark Times: Theological Conflicts in the Shadow of Hitler (Louisville, 1992), pp. 180fT. 475 Hermann DSrries and Emanuel Hirsch, "Zum halleschen Universitatskonflikt", Die Wartburg, 31 (2) 1932, pp. 46-7. 164 compelled to speak out in light of the judgements against the students' behaviour made

by other theology professors.476

Claiming not to condone their behaviour, Hirsch and Dorries recognized the

passionate affirmation of the Volk that had guided the students' reactions to Dehn. From this perspective they proceeded to outline several main arguments. Firstly, the Dehn affair could not be equated with the concern for academic freedom generally, mainly

because the suitability of a professor called to an academic post remained the most important criterion involved in the appointment. As Hirsch and Dorries understood the circumstances surrounding Dehn's selection, the Prussian Ministry tailored its list of candidates according to a particular religious-political agenda, to which the faculty could not object. Dehn's appointment stood in the face of the reservations expressed by the rest of the faculty, and in this context, the students' protests could hardly be assuaged by appeals to academic freedom.

Secondly, Hirsch and Dorries maintained that they still wanted to protect the

freedom of academics to address the important questions pertaining to the German condition, especially given the "ethical confusion" of the Volk and German Christianity.

This freedom extended even to academics who fell victim to the confusion of the present situation, and reached faulty ethical conclusions like Dehn. Even so, Hirsch and Dorries argued that it could still be demanded that a theologian exploring pacifism recognize that the nation and national freedom are sanctified gifts from God which require complete devotion. The students acted the way they did because this realization was missing in

476 In November 1931 five professors, including Barth, publicly supported Dehn. 165 Dehn. Moreover, in his Kirche und Volkerversohnung, Dehn denounced the student's

passion for the Volk and its freedom as demonic. Therefore Hirsch and Dorries aligned themselves with the position of the students, who, in their view, had reinvigorated a new hope in the Volk*77

Roughly two weeks after Hirsch and Dorries' letter, the Frankfurter Zeitung ran an open response from Barth.478 Barth began by recalling that when the students at Halle threatened a mass exodus to Jena in protest of Dehn's appointment to the chair of practical theology, he, along with other colleagues, professed their personal and scholarly solidarity with Dehn. Despite expressing hesitancy to getting involved further in the conflict because of the political direction that the issue has steered towards and because of the fact that he was Swiss, the course the affair had taken had caused Barth to renew his solidarity with Dehn.

Barth began his rejoinder by questioning whether the conflict should not more appropriately be directed against "a much wider front" - that is against the 'dialectical' theology standing behind Dehn's assertions - and thus waged within a theological

framework. Specifically, Barth suggested that the concepts of Dehn's much criticized lecture were not new or specific to Dehn. Rather, Barth argued that he had covered similar themes himself in his 1928 lectures in Miinster and again in 1930 in Bonn,479 and

477 DSrries and Hirsch, "Zum halleschen Universitatskonflikt", pp. 46-7. 47S Karl Barth, "Warum ftihrt man den Kampf nicht auf der ganzen Linie? Der Fall Dehn und die 'dialecktische' Theologie". Frankfurter Zeitung 122, February 15, 1932 in Diether Koch ed., Offene Briefe 1909-1935 Gesamtausgabe VBriefe (Zurich, 2001), pp. 174-83. 479 Barth accepted the call to Bonn in 1930. 166 had drawn the connections between murder, the death penalty, killing in self-defence and killing in war.

Barth commented that remarkably, his lectures in Bonn were given to an audience of around 250, which included National Socialists and those of a similar position; yet there were no protests then. The real issue, as was illustrated by criticism levelled against both Dehn and Barth, was not Dehn himself, but the theology behind Dehn's position.

Therefore, given the fact that Dehn was just a representative of a larger position, it made little sense, and in Barth's estimation was not gentlemanly, to target only Dehn. The fight should have been taking place where it belonged - along the whole front of dialectical theology.

Specifically referring to Hirsch and Dorries, Barth asserted that to the best of his knowledge none of the judgements against Dehn was an actual theological critique.

Instead, Dehn's position had been made into a caricature. Again, speaking directly to

Hirsch, Barth claimed that his ultimate concern was that his and Hirsch's main interest would continue to be theology, and not politics.480

If Hirsch's support for the students' nationalism and Barth's solidarity with Dehn had started out as generalized arguments, they quickly zeroed in on familiar targets, and the debate shifted into an extended personal exchange carried out in the public sphere. In his "Offener Brief an Karl Barth", Hirsch openly questioned why it was that Barth had singled his theology out for particular scrutiny over Dorries', especially in terms of its

480 Barth, "Warum flihrt man den Kampf nicht auf der ganzen Linie?", pp. 174-83. 167 relationship to dialectical theology.481 Not only had Barth singled him out, but the debate had taken on a personal tone through Barth's (largely correct) suggestion that his

(Barth's) theology was in fact the source which informed Dehn's stance.

It was Hirsch's intent to clarify his position regarding his endorsement of a struggle for freedom, and his thankfulness for the students' embrace of the Volk. Barth wrote of his and Domes' "Parteijugend\ when in reality the students had not pushed party politics, but championed a German will. According to Hirsch, Barth continually failed to understand or accurately depict those theologies which did not align with his own. This was not necessarily the result of ill-will, but rather of the mental barriers Barth had constructed.482

A more important point for Hirsch was the issue of Barth's nationality, an issue that Barth himself acknowledged. Hirsch commented that he respected Barth's decision to retain his Swiss identity and differentiate it from "unserm Deutschtum". He appreciated that Barth had not naturalized as a German because he considered it incompatible with his identity as a Swiss. In consequence, at this point according to

Hirsch, it was fair to speak of Barth as a foreigner; Barth was not connected to the Volk and state personally or through his family. Essentially, as a guest, Barth was an observer rather than a participant in German theological affairs. Consequently, as an outsider,

481 Emanuel Hirsch, "Offener Brief an Karl Barth", Deutsches Volkstum l.Aprilheft (1932), pp. 266-72. 482 Hirsch, "Offener Brief an Karl Barth", p. 266. 168 Hirsch did not expect Barth to understand the German situation, and it was for this reason that what would otherwise be unacceptable judgements had been tolerated from Barth.483

According to Hirsch, a rooted connection to the German Volk was necessary in order to understand the present German condition and aspirations. Hirsch, and those like him, passionately affirmed the freedom of the German Volk, and their anger towards

Dehn as a fellow German was an attempt to bring him to the same position. A similar anger was not directed at Barth because he was a foreigner. Because Barth was not part of the Volk, his future and the future of his children were not bound up in the German fate. Subsequently, Barth did not approach God in the same manner as a German - in trepidation about the German future - and therefore could not judge whether or not the

German will was divinely sanctioned.484

As far as the commemorative plaques in churches were concerned, Hirsch argued that Barth could not grasp the gravity of the situation nor the importance of the memorials because he had never had to empathize alongside grieving mothers and wives who lost loved ones in the war, the bodies of whom were in mass graves somewhere, or had received unceremonious burials. According to Hirsch, Barth overstepped a boundary with his comments, and needed to leave the matter to Germans - those connected to the

German fate, and who would deal with the issue with the appropriate sensitivity. One cannot learn the "logic of the heart" by theologizing from behind a desk 485

483 Hirsch, "Offener Brief an Karl Barth", pp. 266-7. 484 Hirsch, "Offener Brief an Karl Barth", p. 267. 485 Hirsch, "Offener Brief an Karl Barth", pp. 267-8. 169 In terms of theology, Hirsch charged that Barth's personal challenge against him was inappropriate. Hirsch sought to work through his relation to 'dialectical theology' in

Schopfung und Siinde, including the ethical concerns brought forth in Dehn's lecture.

Hirsch wondered whether Barth was counting on his readers' unfamiliarity with current theological writings, and thus not to realize the pointlessness of his personal challenge.

No one could detract from the memory of Barth's contribution to continental theology in the last decade, especially his commentary on Romans. But Hirsch suggested that that particular moment was in the past, and grew more remote. According to Hirsch, the Dehn affair was not about dialectical theology. It was about two biased theologians who had made it an issue of theology and the church.486

Hirsch then addressed the paradox of his and Dorries' position. On the one hand, they advocated the free theological investigation into Volk and state. At the same time, it was imperative for him and Dorries that German theologians remain cognizant of their existential connection to the German Volk and the will-to-freedom of the present German hour. Irrespective of potential hardships, this connection was to be maintained. Hirsch challenged Barth as to whether or not he really wanted him to deny the fact that his existence was interconnected with the Volk, state, and their historical hour and task.

Theology would degrade to "inconsequential gossip" should this existential connection be denied, as theology is an expression of the concrete realities under God.487

In "Warum fuhrt man den Kampf nicht auf der ganzen LinieY' Barth quoted a

486 Hirsch, "Offener Brief an Karl Barth", pp. 268-9. 487 Hirsch, "Offener Brief an Karl Barth", pp. 270-1. 170 passage from Hitler recorded in the Hallischen Universitdtszeitung as a warning:

Wenn der Theoretiker sagt, die NSDAP sei eine oberflachliche Partei, dann kann ich ihm nur antworten: Sie sind eben nur Theoretiker: Es handelt sich im Augenblick um eine Feldschlacht und nicht um das Betreiben kriegswissenschaftlicher Studien. Da haben wir unsererseits keine Zeit, Menschen zu erziehen, die geistig hoch gebildet sind. Wir wollen die Uberzeugung erwecken, dass der deutsche Freiheitsgedanke herrscht. Das is unsere Aufgabe, nicht: Hinsetzen, um gerade jetzt geistige Vertiefung zu betreiben. Spater ja, wenn wir im Besitz der Macht sind. Jetzt muss unsere Sorge sein, dass uns niemand die Macht nimmt. Da haben wir fur theoretische Probleme keine Zeit. Die hatte das 19. Jahrhundert. Allerdings hat dieses Jahrhundert dann auch auf den Erfolg verzichten• i mussen. 488

Hirsch responded that he would understand Barth's fears if the statement had been written by a theologian. As it stood, Hitler's words were an admittedly one-sided rebuff of intellectual arrogance that had failed to appreciate the fact that abstract intellectual pursuits were only possible within a Volk healthy and strong enough to withstand it.

Hitler's bias could be forgiven, according to Hirsch, once the damaging effects of this culture of ethereal thinking and intellectual arrogance were understood. Intellectuals of this persuasion did not have the right to kick back against Hitler's position, only those who were conscious of their existential connection to the Volk and the present German hour.489

In one further public response, Barth refused to apologize for his circumstances - that he was a Swiss, but made his living in Germany - arguing that he had tried to be both a good German without ceasing to be a good Swiss. Contrary to the direction Hirsch had

488 Barth quotes from the Hallischen Universitatszeitung Nr. 4, 1932. 489 Hirsch, "Offener Brief an Karl Barth", pp. 271-72. 171 taken their exchange, Barth maintained that his letter to the Frankfurter Zeitung did not make it personal in that way.490

But what really struck Barth from Hirsch's response was the way in which he claimed Hirsch so totally evaded his request that as theologians their concern be primarily theological as opposed to politically partisan. According to Barth, Hirsch's letter was nothing more than a "piece of political agitation", and he was not comforted by

Hirsch's qualified interpretation of theological freedom. He was even less comforted by

Hirsch's insistence that he would not instruct his students along National Socialist lines, given the close similarities to National Socialist rhetoric throughout Hirsch's public statements. 491

Hirsch's theology was virtually identical with his politics. In the relation between

Volk, state, war and God's revelation, Hirsch clearly connected obedience to God to his

understanding of his "existential connectedness to the German Volk", which in turn was

informed by his political convictions. Given this position, Barth suggested that he could

not have expected Hirsch to react to Dehn's lecture any differently, or to respond to

objections other than from his defence of German 'freedom'. More pointedly, Barth argued that Hirsch's political theology lacked something over and above it to hold it accountable - such as God, the gospel, the church - which would not be subordinated to

Hirsch's theological nationalism.492

490 Karl Barth, "Karl Barth und Emanuel Hirsch. Antwort an Emanuel Hirsch", Deutsches Volkstum 2.Maiheft (1932), p. 391. 491 Barth, "Karl Barth und Emanuel Hirsch", p. 392. 492 Barth, "Karl Barth und Emanuel Hirsch", p. 393. 172 Through the course of their exchange the scope of Barth and Hirsch's letters narrowed, to the point that the Dehn affair essentially became an occasion for Barth to openly refute Hirsch's vdlkisch theology. By the end of the exchange Hirsch opted not to respond directly to Barth, instead addressing Barth's position vicariously through an open letter to his friend Wilhelm Stapel, the editor of Deutsches Volkstum.49* However, parallel to their public quarrel, Barth and Hirsch also maintained private correspondence.

In the context of a discussion about the proofs of their letters for Deutsches

Volkstum, Hirsch again expressed his disappointment over the deterioration of their relationship. At one point he believed that they would be able to come to an understanding. Now, because of the harshness of Barth's answers, Hirsch suggested that beyond the level of theology, he no longer knew him.494

If Hirsch was sincere with his hopes that he and Barth could reach some sort of amicable resolution, Barth's reply two days later dashed them. Countering Hirsch's accusation that he was now "hidden in darkness", Barth maintained that Hirsch was hidden from him within the first fifteen minutes of their meeting in October 1921: Hirsch was speaking to someone about the justification of unlimited submarine warfare. Four years later Hirsch was no clearer, as Barth was continually annoyed by Hirsch's national chauvinism justified by his particular understanding of creation and sin. At the time Barth attributed Hirsch's nationalism to Germany's recent hardship. Now Barth considered

Hirsch a bitter man trying to compensate for this hardship through his ethicizing, which

493 Emanuel Hirsch, "Antwort von Emanuel Hirsch an den Herausgeber", Deutsches Volkstum, 2.Maiheft (1932), pp. 394-5. 494 Hirsch to Barth (telegram), May 10, 1932. 173 itself turned out to be worse than the initial impetus. Given the grievousness of the errors in Hirsch's politicized theology, Barth wondered if he could be faulted for responding to

Hirsch not as a theologian, but as a "Parteimann".495

Hirsch's final letter reiterated his disappointment that Barth had not reciprocated the earnestness with which he tried to understand Barth theologically. Instead, Barth had thought of Hirsch only as an opponent consumed by politics, and accordingly drew conclusions about Hirsch's theology and personal character from his political opinions.496

In numerous ways Giinther Dehn's ordeal parallels other examples of National

Socialist grass roots agitation and intimidation that routinely took place near the end of the Weimar Republic and under the Third Reich. And yet the Dehn affair takes on greater significance because of Barth and Hirsch's involvement. This significance is not due merely to Barth and Hirsch's relative social importance, their intellectual prominence, or because of any representativeness they may have for the Confessing Church or German

Christian positions. Rather, the Dehn affair emphasizes the important space theological questions occupied in the broader discussion about nationalism, and theology's inherently political nature. Because Barth and Hirsch examined natural theology and the doctrine of the two kingdoms earnestly, the political ramifications of these theological formulae were exposed and necessitated responses. Each could have chosen not to engage in the discussion about the impact of church state relations on the individual, or retreated into theological quietism, but for Barth and Hirsch, who had decided to pursue theology from

495 Barth to Hirsch, May 16, 1932. 496 Hirsch to Barth, May 18,1932. 174 the conviction that Christianity makes ethical and behavioural claims upon the individual, they could not disengage from politics.

Equally important, the Dehn affair is a sign post on the way to the Third Reich.

Both Barth and Hirsch responded to the nascent National Socialist movement from previously established theological foundations. Hirsch anticipated and embraced the movement; and when Hirsch's volkisch interpretation of revelation is carried to its most dangerous, yet still generalized conclusions, there is not much separating it from Nazi racism.497 Contrarily, Barth eventually considered National Socialism the demonic result of a distorted theological system.

To a certain degree Hirsch's charge that Barth had hijacked the debate over the political content of Dehn's lecture to place the focus on dialectical theology is correct.

Viewed sceptically, Barth sought to control the terms of the debate and used it as a platform to centre attention on his own theological formulations. However when Barth's comments are considered in light of his great disappointment with the academic capitulation to nationalism during the First World War and his recognition of the hollowness and anthropocentrism of nineteenth century theology, it becomes clear that

Barth prefigured the chauvinistic implications of volkisch theology extrapolated to its limit. Hence it can be argued that in a sense Barth also anticipated National Socialism by recognizing the dangerous trajectory of natural theology, even though he considered

National Socialism itself ridiculous in its early forms, and doubted its ability to

497 For according to Hirsch's understanding, Barth was necessarily disqualified from the German Volk even though he spoke the language, was educated in Germany at one of the same institutions as Hirsch, was entrusted with the spiritual education of German students, and received citizenship as a civil servant. This is to say nothing of Hirsch's overtly antisemitic arguments. 175 materialize into anything of real significance. As he later admitted himself, he was wrong.498

Although Barth maintained a politically charged dispute with Hirsch throughout the 1920s, his overtly political action dropped off from the level of his involvement with the workers' movement during his years in Safenwil. Barth had been angered by the Ruhr occupation and the effects of the runaway inflation - demonstrating his continued concern for the poor - but things appeared to be getting better. The Locarno Treaty of

1925 settled territorial questions between France, Belgium, and Germany, and, significantly, had allowed German participation. Locarno and the agreements that accompanied it proved divisive with German nationalists who considered German concessions a failure. Still, despite opposition, and the fact that the treaty could not ensure Germany's eastern boundaries as it did those in the west, Locarno brought

Germany back into world diplomatic relations, and in 1926 Germany joined the League of Nations.

In hindsight Weimar's structural weaknesses become obvious, but from 1924-

1930 there appeared to be legitimate signs of stabilization. The Young Plan was established to finalize a plan for reparations payments, taking over where the Dawes Plan had left off. And although reparations were obviously unpopular in Germany, the Young

Plan reduced the total amount, and set a deadline for the completion of payments. The

498 Reflecting back on his early response to National Socialism Barth remarked: "I was thoroughly wrong at the time in not perceiving danger in National Socialism, which had already begun its ascent. From the very beginning, its ideas and methods and its leading figures all seemed to me to be quite absurd. I thought that the German people were simply too sensible to fall prey to that possibility". Karl Barth, "Zwischenzeit", Kirchenblatt fur die reformierte Schweiz, 118 (1962), p. 38. Quoted in McCormack, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology, p. 412. 176 Young Plan also demonstrated that German economic recovery was not precluded by the burden of reparations, a prospect possible because of the stabilization - albeit painful - of the German currency. As a spin-off, stabilization lessened the political appeal of rightwing groups working against the Republic.499 And even if the May 1928 Reichstag election did not produce a lasting consensus, the results contained reason for optimism.

Of particular significance for Barth, the SPD won 131 seats, a 22 seat gain from its

December 1924 results, while the DNVP lost 30 seats, and the NSDAP dropped from 14 to 12 seats. Barth's faith had earlier been disappointed, but he continued to back the SPD, which appeared to be making headway.

In a letter to Hans Asmussen in which he explained his 1931 decision to formally join the German SPD, Barth reflected: "After moving to Germany I imposed upon myself a political interlude which lasted nearly ten years. But early last year, in view of the fact that right-wing terror was gaining the upper hand, I thought it right to make it clear with whom I would like to be imprisoned and hanged".500 Compared to his later pronouncements against National Socialism, Barth's position in the 1920s was certainly less forceful and focussed, but it cannot be maintained that he was politically disengaged.

The whole of Barth's theological work, centred on a rejection of natural theology and the

499 Unfortunately, the Young Plan had only recently been agreed upon when the effects of the American stock market's crash began to be felt in earnest. 500 Barth refused to quit the SPD in 1933. His comments foreshadow Bonhoeffer's tragic fate at the hands of Nazism. Karl Barth to Hans Asmussen, January 14, 1932, cited in McCormack, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology, p. 414. 177 doctrine of the two kingdoms, prepared the ground for his opposition to National

Socialism.501

Thus, considered within the context of the eventual Nazi 'coordination' of

German society, Barth and Hirsch's theological dispute over the Dehn affair can be interpreted as an early episode in the broader church struggle over the church's political direction. Specifically, the Dehn affair demonstrates the intersection between politics and theology, and foreshadows the extent to which nationalist forces would seek to compromise the church's sovereignty by aligning it with the National Socialist

movement.

And yet the parallels cannot be stretched too far. The Confessing Church was seeking to protect the established church from National Socialist interference, and did not speak out against National Socialism in and of itself. In fact, it cannot be sustained that the Confessing Church opposed National Socialism.502 It can be argued, however, that

Barth eventually took his resistance much further. His concern for the integrity of the church extended from his overarching concern for the integrity of theology. Barth's

501 Bruce McCormaclc argues that Barth's "political awakening" most likely occurred after the September 1930 Reichstag elections. Timothy Gorringe maintains that Barth consistently stood "against hegemony" and backed the republic, but relaxed his position in the 1920s. He was then "one of the first back in action" in 1929. McCormack, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology, p. 414; Gorringe, Karl Barth: Against Hegemony, p. 86. Writing in 1935 Barth commented that the Confessing Church needed to be "reproached" for an almost "continuous series of errors, confusions, and disappointments". The Confessing Church "has fought hard to a certain extent for the freedom and purity of her proclamation, but she has, for instance, remained silent on the action against the Jews, on the amazing treatment of political opponents, on the suppression of the freedom of the press in the new Germany and on so much else against which the Old Testament prophets would certainly have spoken out". Karl Barth, The German Church Conflict, trans. P.T.A. Parker (Richmond, 1965), p. 45. 178 theology is therefore inherently political and ultimately led him to advocate open resistance.

Barth's political theology.

Barth certainly understood himself to have been politically involved.503 Yet there has not been a consensus within the historiography about the exact nature of Barth's political engagement. Earlier interpretations of Barth in the Anglo-American tradition tended to depict Barth's theology as "ethically passive".504 They also largely read Barth as neo-orthodox, namely that in his turn from liberalism Barth appealed instead to the

Reformation confessions and pre-Enlightenment models at the expense of theological historicism.505 This tradition of interpreting Barth both as politically quietistic and neo- orthodox was initially revised by Friedrich-Wilhelm Marquardt's reading of Barth from the left.506

According to Marquardt's interpretation, the most important category for understanding Barth's theology is socialism. First and foremost, Barth was a socialist, and remained one throughout his life. It then followed for Marquardt that Barth's theology is best understood as the product of his socialism. Barth turned to theology in

503 Discussing his letter to Josef Hrom£dka, which urged the Czechs to defend Europe and the church, Barth remarked that people were shocked. "They were astonished, first, when I began to become what they called 'church political', and later they were more astonished when I began to become out-and-out 'political'. But I should like to be allowed to say that anyone who really knew me before should not now be so very much astonished". Barth, How I Changed My Mind (Richmond, 1966), p. 48. 504 Lindsay, Covenanted Solidarity, p. 81. 505 McCormack, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology, pp. 23-7. 506 Lindsay, Covenanted Solidarity, p. 83; McCormack, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology, pp. 26-7. 179 order to mediate the relationship between God and the political world around him, and in so doing established and developed his concept of 'God as God'.507 Socialist praxis then lay at the centre of Barth's theology according to Marquardt.

As Dieter Schellong has argued, the irony of Marquardt's thesis is that despite

Barth's continued assault on Kulturprotestantismus, it turns Barth into a theologian of culture - albeit of socialist culture. Marquardt misunderstood Barth's critical distinction between 'true socialism' and the human experiment with socialism.508 Even though Barth was disappointed with the manner in which international socialism responded to the First

World War and its Soviet implementation, he did not stop thinking of the kingdom of

God in terms of "true socialism"; nor did he abandon his understanding of the need for transformation demanded by the gospel. Yet what is important is that Barth argued

Christians must strive for the things of God while maintaining the centrality of the infinite qualitative difference, and without confusing human socialism with 'true socialism'.509

Part of the reason scholars have argued that Barth's theology does not contain the framework for political activism is what they consider to be Barth's lack of historicity.

Werner Jeanrond has argued that the lack of a coordinated theological confrontation with

National Socialism in Germany was integrally connected to the fact that there was no

507 Friedrich-Wilhelm Marquardt, "Socialism in the Theology of Karl Barth", in George Hunsinger ed. and trans., Karl Barth and Radical Politics (Philadelphia, 1976), p. 47. See also Friedrich-Wilhelm Marquardt, Theologie und Sozialismus: Das Beispiel Karl Barths (Munich, 1985). 508 Dieter Schellong, "On Reading Karl Barth from the Left", in Karl Barth and Radical Politics, pp. 140, 146. 509 Helmut Gollwitzer, "Kingdom of God and Socialism in the Theology of Karl Barth", in Karl Barth and Radical Politics, pp. 79-80. 180 theological framework which could have supported such open resistance. Although

Jeanrond acknowledges the importance of the Barmen declaration and the personal positions adopted by Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and others, he importantly differentiates between Barth's individual response and what he considers to be the inadequacy of his theology to form a basis for organized resistance. In short, Barth's conclusion that all human praxis is imperfect and of necessity falls under God's judgement - arrived at in response to the uncritical alignment of Protestantism and contemporary culture - "makes the development of a political theology impossible". If Barth's theology holds all human political activity to be flawed, how can it in turn advocate a "positive" theological- political position? The attack on one system becomes an attack on all systems.510 The result, for Jeanrond, is that Barth's theology remained impotent and disconnected from

German society despite his desire to see that society transformed. Barth's overarching concern to distinguish the temporal world from God resulted in an eschatology separated from the world.511

Alister McGrath has advanced similar arguments, stressing Barth's emphasis on the resurrection rather than the historical life of Jesus.512 As McGrath interprets Barth,

Barth's trinitarian Christology is paramount to his understanding of revelation. According to McGrath's reading, the priority given to the eternal Christ over the historical Jesus is explained by the fact that for Barth revelation is "an eternal recapitulation". Because

5,0 Werner G. Jeanrond, "From Resistance to Liberation Theology: German Theologians and the Non/Resistance to the National Socialist Regime", Journal of Modern History, 64, suppl. (1992), pp. S188, S189. 511 Jeanrond, "From Resistance to Liberation", pp. S190, S196. 512 Alister E. McGrath, The Making of Modern German Christology 1750-1990 (Grand Rapids, 1994), p. 129. 181 Barth fundamentally abandoned anthropocentric theology, he could not work from the assumption of human existence to a realization of God. Barth had to start his theology with the presupposition of Christ's existence. Essentially, in revelation God reveals God through Jesus, but is not bound by human existence; the truth revealed in Jesus is eternal and has no need of the temporal world in order to be realized. It then follows for McGrath that if revelation in Barth's theology is 'recapitulation', human history - that is the life of

Jesus as a series of historical events - is only dealt with superficially.513

Most significant for our purposes, McGrath contends that by centring his

Christology on the issue of a proper human understanding of the nature of the divine,

"Barth has simply inverted the liberal Christology, without, it seems, in any way altering its fundamental point of reference or its preoccupations". Moreover, Barth's assumption of God's pre-existence reverts to pre-Enlightenment formulae, and ignores the necessity of historically based theology.514

In his discussion of theological ethics in the context of the development of a human being's personal "moral history", Stanley Hauerwas argues that rather than starting from the perspective of human action, Barth's ethics are really a description of

God's commands and human responses.515 It is not the case, for Barth, that humans await and subsequently appropriate God's commands; instead, the subject of ethics is how

God's word commands individuals. As Hauerwas understands Barth, his ethics are

"rigorously theocentric", teaching responsibility to God. Thus, Barth's ethics do not

513 McGrath, The Making of Modern German Christology, pp. 135-6. 514 McGrath, The Making of Modern German Christology, pp. 140,142-3. 515 Stanley Hauerwas, Character and the Christian Life: A Study in Theological Ethics (San Antonio, 1975), pp. 11,138. 182 prescribe a generalized system or programme of human behaviour, as the sovereignty of

God renders any such system utterly impossible.516 Barth's ethics, then, are fundamentally contextual. Rather than timeless generalities, God delivers specific commands into distinct human historical circumstances.517

The question remains for Hauerwas as to whether Barth's ethics preclude personal moral history that accounts for change over time. Barth suggested that human existence has consistency and continuity through God's commands. God's commands are not fickle, and as such, demand that the individual continually choose to obey.518 However,

Hauerwas maintains that even though Barth recognized the importance of continuity for the individual, human continuity was not Barth's concern. Rather, his concern was continuity as given by God, that is, in the individual's responses to the commands of

God.519

To a significant degree the criticism that Barth's theology is not sufficiently grounded in human history can be addressed by appealing to Barth's appropriation of an enhypostatic-anhypostatic Christological model.520 Moreover, Marquardt's position has

516 Hauerwas, Character and the Christian Life, pp. 139-40. As John Howard Yoder illustrated, Barth sought to avoid arguing from an ethical generality to the specific, leaving room for those 'exceptional' cases wherein God must be able to act with complete freedom, unbound by any prior normative pattern of action or human expectations. According to Yoder, despite Barth's aversion to, and pointed critique of war, he was unable to deny specific contexts in which war would be legitimate. Hence Yoder considered Barth's thought "relative pacifism": "The difference between Barth and Christian pacifism as he see it lies not in the general conviction that war is wrong, but in Barth's readiness to foresee exceptions to the generally admitted wrongness of war". John H. Yoder, "Karl Barth and the Problem of War", in Mark Thiessen Nation, ed., Karl Barth and the Problem of War & Other Essays on Barth (Eugene, 2003), pp. 23-4, 35,40. 517 Hauerwas, Character and the Christian Life, p. 142. 518 Hauerwas, Character and the Christian Life, pp. 144-6. 519 Hauerwas, Character and the Christian Life, pp. 174-5. 520 See discussion above, pp. 157-9. See also: John Webster, Barth's Ethics of Reconciliation (Cambridge, 1995), and William Werpehowski, "Command and History in the Ethics of Karl Barth", Journal of 183 been revised by scholars who emphasize Barth's use of analogy over any concrete

identification of a particular movement with the kingdom of God, bringing the

interpretation of Barth's thought closer to how he conceived of it himself, and for the

most part abandoning its interpretation as quietistic.521 And while the full implications of

Marquardt's interpretation are ultimately untenable, the emphasis on social praxis - like

the emphasis placed by some of Barth's interpreters on the role of the divine command in

his thought - usefully orients the discussion around Barth's continually contextual

theology.522

Jeanrond and McGrath appear to miss Barth's point. Parallel to his conviction that

the totality of human life stands under God's judgement, Barth refused to

compartmentalize his theology. Thus, the sum of Barth's thought is most accurately

understood as socially and politically engaged. And while the criticism that Barth's

theocentrism and emphasis on God's sovereignty negated categorical ethical imperatives

and the establishment of a generalized ethical system must be taken seriously, his

rigorous rejection of natural theology and the doctrine of the two kingdoms pushed Barth

Religious Ethics, 9 (1981), pp. 298-320. Webster refers to McGrath's assertion that for Barth, God relates to humanity only through epistemological revelation as "alarmingly unrestricted and under-illustrated". Instead, Webster maintains that for Barth, God's movement towards humanity is paramount. Individuals are called into relationship with God - a fellowship of obedience. Similarly, Werpehowski argues that contrary to criticism which alleges Barth's ethics leave no room for the history of the individual, the individual has a moral history in terms of his or her continued relation to God. 521 Lindsay, Covenanted Solidarity, pp. 83-4. Similar to the charge that Barth's ethics remain abstract, Hirsch accuses Barth of "ethical nihilism". See below p. 196. 522 McCormack, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology, pp. 26-7; For the "surprising corollaries to Marquardt's thesis" see: George Hunsinger, "Preface" in Karl Barth and Radical Politics, p. 9. For a critique of Marquardt's understanding of Barth's Christology see: Hermann Diem, "Karl Barth as Socialist: Controversy Over a New Attempt to Understand Him", in Karl Barth and Radical Politics, pp. 121-38. 523 Frank Jehle, Ever Against the Stream: The Politics of Karl Barth, 1906-1968, trans. Richard and Martha Burnett (Grand Rapids, 2002), p. 34. 184 towards his rejection of National Socialism irrespective of whether his theology afforded the basis for widespread opposition. Hauerwas' and John Howard Yoder's assessments are to the point. Barth's ethics are contextual in the sense that he rejected extrapolating generalities from specifics, and continually yielded to the sovereignty of God.524

However this need not be a criticism. Barth's theology is political even if it does not prescribe absolute patterns of action. He did not denounce tyranny as a generality, but did denounce the particular tyranny of National Socialism.525 In the end our concern is not whether Barth provided the theological context for resistance. At the same time it may be maintained that Barth's continual rejection of natural theology provided the framework for the specific act of rejecting National Socialism, and he certainly encouraged the church to follow suit. His personal theological responses were clearly political and demonstrate the extent to which responses to dominant trends within Lutheranism can help explain theological-political attitudes during the Nazi era.

Ultimately we can conclude that Barth's defence of the church was the result of his determined attempt to safeguard theology, and that Barth is most properly understood as he understood himself - as a theologian engaging contemporary culture. It then follows that his opposition to National Socialism can be fitted into a broader pattern of political action guided by theological conviction.526

524 See note 516 above. 525 Barth drew criticism after the war for not rejecting communism in the manner he rejected National Socialism. 526 Lindsay, Covenanted Solidarity, p. 90. As Timothy Gorringe has argued, it is important to understand Barth in terms of his own self-understanding as a theologian: "What cannot be doubted is that Barth believed that precisely as a theologian, he was making a contribution to the struggle against Hitler". Gorringe, Karl Barth: Against Hegemony, p. 20. Stressing the importance of interpreting Barth 185 Barth's rejection of National Socialism can only be understood in the context of

German Protestantism's internal struggle to control the fate of the church. The discussion about a united Protestant church organization within Germany was not new to the Third

Reich;527 the Deutscher Evangelischer Kirchenbundbad been formed in 1922 in

Wittenberg, loosely connecting the 28 Landeskirchen. However new impetuses pushed the churches towards greater unity once Hitler assumed power, and by April 1933 the

Kirchenbund's executive committee agreed to the need for a new, but still federal church constitution, motivated in part by the threat posed by the influential German Christian movement, and by a fear that if Protestantism did not unify itself, the regime would do so for it. A three man committee was appointed for the task, consisting of the president of the Kirchenbund, Hermann Kapler, August Marahrens, and Hermann Albert Hesse.

Although it did not arouse much initial worry, Hitler appointed the German Christian

Ludwig Mttller to the committee as his personal representative, confirming the regime's intent of involving itself in the affairs of the church.528

Negotiations about the exact nature of a Reich church foundered because of the divisions within German Protestantism, most significantly because of the pressure exerted by hardliners within the German Christian movement. Differences peaked over

theologically, Paul Metzger maintains that "Barth refuses to speak non-theologically about the church and broader culture". Metzger further illustrates the interconnectedness of Barth's theological development and his engagement of culture, arguing that "While culture does not dictate the content of Barth's theology, the concepts emerge in direct relation to his concerns for culture". Metzger, The Word of Christ and the World of Culture, pp. xvi, 33. 527 See: Richard Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 (Cambridge, 2003), p. 156. 528 Shelley Baranowski, "The 1933 German Protestant Church Elections: Machtpolitik or Accomodation?", Church History, 49 (1980), p. 303. Kapler was from the Union church, Marahrens was Luthren, and Hesse Reformed. 186 the issue of the selection of a Reich bishop. Against the German Christian candidate

Miiller, the leaders of the Young Reformation Movement, many of whom would later join the Confessing Church, nominated the head of the Bethel Institution in Bielefeld,

Friedrich von Bodelschwingh and aligned themselves with the church leadership committee. State church representatives elected Bodelschwingh Reich bishop in May

1933, against opposition from the German Christians and nationalist Lutheran state bishops.

From this point on events proceeded in quick succession. After Miiller's defeat those German Christians that had moderated their position and appeared willing to work with the church leadership dropped the appearance of cooperation. Von Bodelschwingh was openly harassed, and on June 24, Prussian Kultusminister Bernhard Rust appointed

August Jager state commissar for church affairs in Prussia. Almost immediately Jager began purging moderate church officers and replacing them with German Christians.

Recognizing the impotency of his position, von Bodelschwingh resigned the same day as

Jager's appointment. On June 28, accompanied by Storm troopers, Miiller seized the church offices in Berlin, assuming personal leadership.530 He appointed a new committee and oversaw the production of a new constitution for the Deutsche Evangelische Kirche.

The constitution became law in July 1933. Church elections of the same month resulted

529 Baranowski, "The 1933 German Protestant Church Elections", pp. 307-9. 530 Kapler had resigned June 21 due to health concerns. 187 in significant German Christian victories, and by the end of September, Muller was Reich

Bishop.531

German Christian control and Party interference within the church set the context for the formation of the Confessing Church. The Prussian General Synod in September imposed the 'Aryan Paragraph' for pastors and church officials, and inspired Martin

Niemoller to form the Pfarrernotbund.532 From these beginnings the Confessing

Church's theological opposition to the German Christians culminated in the Confessional

Synod of the German Evangelical Church in May 1934, and the Barmen Declaration.533

Reflecting back on the events of 1933, Barth commented:

In the summer of 1933, the German church, to which I belonged as a member and a teacher, found itself in the greatest danger concerning its doctrine and order. It threatened to become involved in a new heresy strangely blended of Christianity and Germanism, and to come under the domination of the so-called 'German Christians' - a danger prompted by the successes of National Socialism and the suggestive power of its ideas.534

Significantly, Barth saw other theological movements, whose emphases he had rejected, affirming or acquiescing to National Socialism. Holding fast to his rejection of these theological perspectives, Barth suggested that his theological position remained unchanged in the face of the Nazi consolidation of power. His political environment was revolutionized and necessitated a response; Barth's message about grace, revelation, and

531 For the interaction of church accommodation to the regime and Party interference during the 1933 church elections see: Baranowski, "The 1933 German Protestant Church Elections". 532 Arthur C. Cochrane, The Church's Confession Under Hitler (Philadelphia, 1962), pp. 90-116. See also Robert P. Ericksen, "The Barmen Synod and its Declaration: A Historical Synopsis", in Hubert G. Locke, ed., The Church Confronts the Nazis: Barmen then and Now (Toronto, 1984), pp. 27-91. 533 For a detailed history of the Kirchenkampf see: Scholder, The Churches and the Third Reich. Vols. I and II. 534 Karl Barth, How I Changed My Mind (Richmond, 1966), p. 45. 188 idolatry stayed the same. To the extent that his position did change, Barth maintained that his refutation of the anthropological basis for theology 'deepened,' while its 'application'

fir became more focused.

Accordingly, with respect to the debate about a national church headed by a Reich bishop, Barth addressed the issue from a fundamentally theological position. Barth's reaction in "Theologische Existenz HeuteH was not an instinctive rejection of the prospect of centralized authoritative leadership patterned after the NSDAP because it went against the church's established historical model. In short, Barth's rejection was not based on an intransigence or inherent reluctance to change the ecclesiastical status quo.

While Barth was most definitely concerned with the legality and formalities of such a proposition, his concern stemmed from the fact that the impetus for creating the office of

Reich bishop was politically reactive, and was essentially working in reverse. Great leaders in the Protestant tradition demonstrated their qualities in their mundane offices, and rose to positions of prominence. They were not inserted unproven into high offices in the hope that they would render effective service.

As far as Barth was concerned, there was a distinct difference in the manner with which leaders of the Reformed church had responded to the Reich bishop question as

535 Barth, How I Changed My Mind, pp. 45,43. Barth considered his book Anselm: Fides Quaerems Intellectum more significant to this development than even his rebuttal to Brunner in Nein! As Barth understood the ontological argument, Anselm proceeded from a belief in God's existence. Therefore 'proving' God's existence for Anselm was in fact an attempt at understanding God possible only through faith, by virtue of God's revelation. The presupposition of God's existence remained central throughout Barth's theology. Karl Barth, Anselm: Fides Quaerems Intellectum - Anselm's Proof of the Existence of God in the Context of his Theological Scheme, trans. Ian W. Robertson (Richmond, 1960), pp. 78, 170; Vincent G. Potter, "Karl Barth and the Ontological Argument", The Journal of Religion, 45 (1965), pp. 309-10. 536 Karl Barth, Theological Existence To-day! (A Plea for Theological Freedom), trans. R. Birch Hoyle (Lexington, 1962), pp. 38-40. 189 compared to Lutheran leaders. Whereas the Reformed church "took with gravity and in a theological manner the announcement of an authoritarian Bishop", refusing it on these grounds, Barth suggested that there was no such process within the Lutheran camp.537

According to Barth, the German Christian doctrines were "alien" to the Evangelical church and would eventually destroy it, "a small collection of odds and ends from the great theological dust-bins.. .of the despised eighteenth and nineteenth centuries".538

Ultimately the church is called to preach the word of God. It was not the church's mandate to foster a German calling; the church is not to serve people or Germans specifically, but only the word of God.539

With this line of arguing, Barth was not denying the church's subservience to the state. In fact, Barth appealed to the church's acknowledgment of the state as the provider of temporal law and order. However, Barth firmly maintained that the church's submission to the state was a submission to the institution of the state in general, and not to the National Socialist regime in particular. While the church was to perform its duties

"inthe Third Reich" it was not to do so "under it, nor in its spirit".540

Particularly striking is the fact that Barth wrote "Theologische Existenz HeuteT over two days in June 1933, finishing a day after Jager's appointment as church

537 Barth, Theological Existence To-day!, pp. 41-3. 538 Barth, Theological Existence To-day!, pp. 50, 53. Barth admits to borrowing this phrase. 539 Barth, Theological Existence To-day!, p. 51. 540 Barth, Theological Existence To-day!, pp. 51-2. Barth echoed this sentiment a year later in 1934 suggesting that the church "will give to Caesar what is Caesar's, but it can never give its unconditional sanction to any such form of mastery, to any form of state or trend of culture. It cannot join hands with any of them for better or worse". Similarly, "It is in no wise its office to undergird man and aid his ascendancy". Karl Barth, "Church", in God in Action: Theological Addresses, trans. E.G. Homrighausen and Karl J. Ernst (New York, 1936), p. 34. 190 commissar and von Bodelschwingh's resignation, at the peak of the dispute over the

Reich bishop. Yet despite the timing and the serious need for allies, we can still see the extent of Barth's uncompromising rigidity in his attempt to protect the theological foundations of the church.541 For as far as Barth was concerned, the Young Reformation

Movement, irrespective of its opposition to the German Christian programme, stood far closer to the German Christian position than may have been immediately evident. The

Young Reformation Movement was itself a threat to the church because even though it sought church independence and opposed the exclusion of 'non-Aryans', Barth considered it in fundamental agreement with the German Christians in terms of the nature of the church.542 The Young Reformers' opposition to the German Christian position did not reflect a broader rejection of National Socialist policies, as they were prepared to support the regime's political manoeuvrings and did not oppose the secular application of racial legislation. They wanted younger leadership while still supporting a Reich church.543 Moreover, in Barth's estimation, while the German Christians' appeal to modernism was explicit, theological modernism was hidden behind the Young

Reformers' "vociferous anti-Liberalism". Therefore Barth concluded that "both these opponents of yesterday come alike from the calamitous theology of the nineteenth century".544 What was needed, according to Barth, was the actual freedom to preach the

541 Barth sent a copy of Theological Existence To-day! to Hitler in the summer of 1933. 542 Barth maintained that church membership must be determined by baptism and the Spirit. Blood or race cannot divide the church: "If the German Evangelical Church excludes Jewish-Christians, or treats them as if a lower grade, she ceases to be a Christian Church". Barth, Theological Existence To-day!, p. 52. 543 Matthew D. Hockenos, A Church Divided: German Protestants Confront the Nazi Past (Bloomington, 2004), pp. 19-20. 544 Barth, Theological Existence To-day!, p. 69. 191 gospel, not the freedom proposed by the Young Reformers. "The prime need of our time is for a spiritual centre of resistance: one that would, for the first time, give a meaning and a content to Church politics".545 In many ways the Barmen declaration attempted to serve as this centre.

The Barmen Declaration and Barth's repudiation of natural revelation.

In the face of the struggle for control over the Protestant church, opponents of the

German Christians began convening their own free synods outside of the established ecclesiastical structure. It is significant that these members of the Confessing Church did not secede from the German Evangelical Church, but nonetheless regarded themselves as comprising the legitimate Protestant church in Germany.546 The Barmen declaration is the most significant outcome of these free synods, and served as a creed of sorts for the

Confessing Church in lieu of a church constitution.547

In January 1934,320 members of the Reformed church in Germany gathered for a free synod in Barmen-Gemarke and unanimously accepted a declaration composed by

Barth outlining the proper interpretation of the Reformation confessions of faith. Barth's declaration, which explicitly denied the fact that "the Church could or should be based

545 Barth, Theological Existence To-day!, p. 76. 546 Ernst C. Helmreich, "The Nature and Structure of the Confessing Church in Germany Under Hitler", Journal of Church and State 12 (1970), p. 419. 547 'Confessing Church' is a somewhat nebulous designation. In terms of its imprecision Ernst Helmreich has commented: "It was in fact simply a conglomeration of Intact Churches, of Brotherhood Councils on various levels, of Free (Confessing) Synods, of Pastor's Brotherhood Circles, of individual congregations and groups of such congregations, of small groups within parishes which as a whole were loyal to the official church administrations, and of individual pastors and laymen". Ernst C. Helmreich, "The Nature and Structure of the Confessing Church in Germany Under Hitler", Journal of Church and State 12(1970), p. 419. 192 upon, or should appeal to, a divine revelation in nature and history.. .other than the revelation of the Triune God", was subsequently accepted by synods in the Rhineland in

February, and Westphalia in March.548

Following in the course of the Reformed synod, the leadership of the Confessing

Church decided to convene a German Confessing synod in Barmen for May 1934. Barth was called upon, along with the Lutherans Thomas Breit and Hans Asmussen, to prepare a theological declaration in advance for the synod.549 The three met on May 16 in

Frankfurt, where according to Barth, he composed the declaration's theses as the other two slept.550

Barth's theological influence is evident throughout Barmen's "Theological

Declaration Concerning the Present Situation of the German Evangelical Church", which explicitly set itself again the "errors" of the German Christians and their "devastating" effects for the church as carried out through the control of the church administration.551

Demonstrating Barth's emphasis on the centrality of the word of God, each of the

548 Karl Barth, "Declaration Concerning the Right Understanding of the Reformation Confessions of Faith in the German Evangelical Church of the Present" in The Church's Confession Under Hitler, "Appendix V" p. 231. 549 For a synopsis of the background and drafting of the Barmen declaration see: Arthur A. Preisinger, "The Church Struggle in Nazi Germany, 1933-34: Resistance, Opposition or Compromise" (Ph.D. diss., Texas Tech, 1991); and Robert P. Ericksen, "The Barmen Synod and its Declaration: A Historical Synopsis", in Hubert G. Locke, ed., The Church Confronts the Nazis: Barmen Then and Now (Toronto, 1984), pp. 27-91. Hermann Sasse was later added to the committee on the Bavarian bishop Meiser's request, but became ill and did not contribute to the drafting of die declaration. 550 Busch, Karl Barth, p. 245. Beyond Barth's claim, the content of the text itself suggests that Barth was the primary author. 55'"The Declarations, Resolutions, and Motions Adopted by the Synod of Barmen, May 29-31, 1934" in The Church's Confession Under Hitler, "Appendix VII", pp. 238,239. 193 declaration's five articles begins with an appeal to scripture and a corresponding statement of faith, followed by a repudiation of false doctrine.552

The first article begins with two passages taken from the gospel of John, in which

Jesus proclaims that he is the way to God. Building on these passages, the first article declares that Jesus alone is the Word of God. From this fundamental Christological principle it then follows that the Confessing Church, insofar as it submitted to Barmen, rejected that there could be any legitimate claim to revelation in "events and powers, figures and truths" apart from that which is found in Jesus.553

By maintaining that God's revelation to humanity is only through Jesus, the

Barmen declaration positioned itself against the Lutheran dichotomy of law and gospel, severing the need for the gospel to be realized through the law. Instead of the individual experiencing conviction and then salvation, the first article follows Barth's belief that law is not separated from gospel. For Barth, God's grace is the "content of the Gospel", and is present in Christ already at creation. Because Jesus Christ "is grace", that is, the content of the gospel, and "has fulfilled the Law" through his sacrifice, Barth concluded that gospel and law are indivisible.554 Revelation through Jesus is an actuality in and through

552 Eberhard Jungel has argued that it is important to understand the Barmen declaration in terms of both its affirmations and rejections, for its repudiations have "no independent meaning" apart from its positive assertions. Eberhard Jungel, Christ, Justice and Peace: Towards a Theology of the State in Dialogue with the Barmen Declaration, trans., Bruce Hamill and Alan J. Torrance (Edinburgh, 1992), pp. 10-12. 553 "The Declarations, Resolutions, and Motions Adopted by the Synod of Barmen", p. 239. 554 Karl Barth, "Gospel and Law" (1935), in Community, State, and Church: 3 Essays, trans. A.M. Hall (New York, 1960), pp. 72, 77. 194 itself, and is not dependent on historical circumstances such as the orders of creation for

its realization.555

The second article follows the first closely, maintaining that Christ's claim on the

individual Christian is total. It is therefore rejected that there can be areas of life in which this claim is not supreme, or where it can be subordinated to other competing authorities.556 Barmen's second article thus takes aim at the doctrine of the two kingdoms and the assertion that individuals simultaneously inhabit two spheres which can be

divorced from one another, and in which different ethical standards apply. Essentially,

the second article understands the doctrine of the two kingdoms to establish a realm in

which the command to obey the teachings of Christ is subordinated to the potential

requirements of civil society and the command to obey temporal authorities. Therefore

taken to its logical conclusion, the doctrine of the two kingdoms threatens to elevate

worldly authority to the point where its claims supersede the claims of Christ, and must

necessarily be repudiated.557

The third and fourth articles are significant in the fact that they deny the church

the choice of abandoning or altering its witness through the alteration of its message or structure, and explicitly rejected the application of the National Socialist leadership

555 JQngel, Christ, Justice and Peace, pp. 31-2. 556 "The Declarations, Resolutions, and Motions Adopted by the Synod of Barmen", pp. 239-40. 557 Wolfgang Huber, "The Barmen Theological Declaration and the Two Kingdoms Doctrine: Historico- Systematic Reflections", in Ulrich Duchrow, ed., Lutheran Churches - Salt or Mirror of Society?: Case Studies on the Theory and Practice of the Two Kingdoms Doctrine (Geneva, 1977), p. 33. 195 CCD principle within the church. Arguably however, Barmen's fifth article established the most concrete basis for the theological opposition to National Socialism.

Building on the assertion that the church has no other grounds of authority than the Word of God, the fifth article expounds on the proper relation of the church to the regime. The church acknowledges that the institution of the state is divinely appointed to safeguard peace and justice within its jurisdiction. Moreover, in order to achieve these ends, the state has been entrusted with the responsibility of using violence and coercion.

Therefore insofar as the church is concerned, it is deferent to the state and grateful for its protection. Nevertheless, the authority of the state does not legitimately extend beyond the scope of its divine mandate to provide peace. As established by Barmen's second thesis, only the claim of Christ on the individual Christian is total. It then follows that

Barmen's fifth article must expressly reject that "the State, over and beyond its special commission, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church's vocation as well". Similarly, and in conjunction with

Barmen's sixth article prohibiting the church from backing arbitrary purposes, it is also rejected that the church, through its submission to the regime, could become "an organ of the State".559

At its heart the Barmen declaration was an attempt at confessional unity in preserving the integrity of the Evangelical church, yet without dissolving the separate

558 "The Declarations, Resolutions, and Motions Adopted by the Synod of Barmen", pp. 240-1. 559 "The Declarations, Resolutions, and Motions Adopted by the Synod of Barmen", p. 241. 196 confessions of the Lutheran, Reformed, and United churches in Germany.560 However once the German Christian threat to the church's sovereignty was lessened, particularly because of the movement's internal problems and the effects of the discontinuation of support from the regime from late 1933, opposition to the declaration increased.561

Despite its attempt at presenting a united front, the declaration had been contentious from the first and was opposed by conservative Lutherans, in particular from the 'intact' churches which had not been 'coordinated', over its treatment of the orthodox Lutheran doctrines of law and gospel, natural revelation and orders of creation, and the doctrine of the two kingdoms.562

Because the Barmen declaration was essentially a theological exercise, we can conclude with Scholder that "by its own understanding the Confessing Church which arose out of Barmen in fact had a theological and not a political task".563 For although

Barmen rejected the regime's totalitarian aspirations, the rejection of a deified state did not translate into opposition to National Socialism or Hitler explicitly. It was therefore possible for proponents of Barmen's resolutions to reject governmental tampering with

560 Declarations, Resolutions, and Motions Adopted by the Synod of Barmen", p. 237. 561 Having served their purpose in largely bringing the Protestant church under control, Hitler distanced himself from the German Christians. With no intentions of allowing the movement to rival NSDAP programmes, the party formally disassociated itself from church affairs in a decree delivered by Rudolf Hess on October 13, 1933. J.S. Conway, The Nazi Persecution of the Churches (Toronto, 1968), pp. 49-51. The movement itself suffered from the fallout from radical comments made by Reinhold Krause at the Sports Palace rally on November 13, 1933 in which he denounced the Old Testament, and the Jewish roots of Christianity. Krause's comments exacerbated internal divisions within the movement and contributed to a crisis in leadership. Bergen, Twisted Cross, pp. 17-18. 562 Hockenos, A Church Divided, p. 23. Werner Elert and Paul Althaus also led opposition against Barmen and its Reformed influence. 563 Klaus Scholder, The Churches and the Third Reich vol.11 The Year of Disillusionment: 1934 Barmen and Rome trans., John Bowden (London, 1988), p. 150. Barth's turn to Reformation sources in the Barmen declaration led John Yoder to conclude that its "rejection of Hitlerism is therefore not founded politically". John Yoder, "The Pacifism of Karl Barth" (Washington, 1964), p. 3. 197 the church, but at the same time remain supportive of the National Socialist regime itself.564

The Barmen synod and its resolutions belong to a pivotal episode in the broader church struggle. Irrespective of its omissions, its narrowness of scope, or whether it engendered outward dissent towards National Socialism, Barmen's theological declaration marked a significant attempt within the church at resisting Gleichschaltung.

More specifically, Barmen's theological declaration is indicative of Barth's rejection of key Lutheran doctrines, and demonstrates the connection between Barth's theological positions and his opposition to National Socialism.

From Barth's perspective, the dispute for a proper understanding of revelation in the early years of the Third Reich was so significant that he considered it possible that it was the third great historic contest over the nature of revelation in the church's history - after the fourth century dispute over the Trinity at Nicea, and the Reformation dispute over free grace.565 Given the gravity with which Barth considered the present situation of

German theology, it is little surprise that he so vehemently rejected Emil Brunner's attempt to draw parallels between his own understanding of natural revelation and

Barth's theology.

In his preface to "Nature and Grace", Emil Brunner commented on the suggestion that he "write a polemical treatise against Karl Barth" in the wake of Barth's open questioning of his theological integrity, and Barth's "great purge" of the circle

564 Ericksen, "The Barmen Synod and its Declaration", pp. 77-8. 565 Karl Barth, "Revelation", in God in Action: Theological Addresses, trans. E.G. Homrighausen and Karl J. Ernst (New York, 1936), p. 15. 198 surrounding the journal Zwischen den Zeiten.S66 In Brunner's (largely correct) opinion,

Barth had cut himself off from all other theologians, and in the process chastised what he considered to be the shortcomings of their theological projects. But despite the harsh treatment he received, Brunner considered Barth's zeal the result of an honest attempt to protect the foundations of the church and reorient Protestantism, with which he was in fundamental agreement. As far as Brunner was concerned, Barth had not been intentionally malicious in his treatment of other theologians; rather he was like a guard on night watch who shoots everyone who does not produce the proper password.

Unfortunately, in his fervour Barth had shot allies whose identification he had misunderstood.567 Nevertheless, in Brunner's estimation Barth had done a great service to the church by helping return it to its "proper theme", but had unnecessarily struggled alone: "In all this there is between me and Barth no difference of opinion, except the one on the side of Barth that there is a difference of opinion".568

Brunner began his treatise by outlining Barth's theological position ("false conclusions") on revelation as derived from Barth's belief in the unique standard of scripture. From this basis Brunner outlined his counter theses.

As far as Brunner understood the teaching that humanity is created in God's image, he argued that we must have a twofold understanding of how God's image is reflected in humanity. God's image is reflected both 'formally' in the humanness of humanity, that is, in what elevates us as chosen above the rest of creation, and

566 Emil Brunner, "Nature and Grace: A Contribution to the Discussion with Karl Barth", in Natural Theology, trans. Peter Fraenkel (London, 1946), p. 15. See note 462 above. 567 Brunner, "Nature and Grace", pp. 15-6. 568 Brunner, "Nature and Grace", pp. 17,18. 199 'materially' in our physical nature. This distinction is important, for according to

Brunner, the formal image of God in humanity is not corrupted by sin, even though materially humanity is completely "defiled".569 Moreover, it is the formal image of God preserved in "natural man" that acts as the "point of contact for the divine grace of redemption".570

By suggesting that humanity is not entirely corrupted by the fall - albeit not in a quantifiable sense - Brunner left a space for the untainted aspect of humanity to interact with God through natural revelation. This was all the more possible for Brunner because, like an artist, God's signature rests upon creation to the extent that we learn something of

God by considering "the imprint of his nature" left on the world.571 Thus, for Brunner there were without question two distinct sources of revelation - Christ and nature. The real question is their interrelation.572

According to Brunner, revelation through creation is imperfect and of itself cannot lead to salvation. Full revelation through creation is only possible through Christ.

Still, Brunner distinguished the "subjective-human-sinful" from the "objective-divine" within natural revelation rather than collapsing one into the other, concluding that "Only the Christian, i.e. the man who stands within the revelation in Christ, has the true natural

569 Brunner, "Nature and Grace", p. 24. 570 Brunner, "Nature and Grace", pp. 31, 32. 571 Brunner, "Nature and Grace", p. 25. 572 Brunner, "Nature and Grace", p. 26.

200 knowledge of God".573 Even though imperfect, knowledge of God is still attainable from nature outside of the revelation through the Word of God.574

As Brunner remarked, Barth had repeatedly critiqued his theology from the perspective of the Reformation teaching on revelation. In fact, from Brunner's perspective, denouncing rival theological perspectives as 'Thomist' or 'Neoprotestant' was Barth's "chief and practically sole argument". Therefore, if it was possible for

Brunner to demonstrate that his teaching was congruent with that of the Reformers,

Barth's criticism would be rendered invalid.

Without expanding on the subtleties of his argument, Brunner maintained that

Barth's criticism of natural theology from the assumption that it contradicts the theology of the Reformation was flawed, for Calvin had a natural theology which "In all essentials... is also that of Luther".576 In fact, Brunner suggested that Calvin's theology appeals more to natural revelation and natural law than did his own. According to

Brunner's interpretation of Calvin, Calvin did not consider the effects of sin to be so total as to have erased all trace of God's will from creation.577 "God can be known through nature", albeit only in part. Revelation through scripture completes this partial reflection obtained through nature by revealing the "heart of God", which otherwise is inaccessible.

Still, this does not negate the importance of natural revelation, by which we know the

573 Brunner, "Nature and Grace", p. 27. 574 Brunner, "Nature and Grace", p. 43. 575 Brunner, "Nature and Grace", p. 35. 576 Brunner, "Nature and Grace", p. 45. 577 Brunner, "Nature and Grace", pp. 36-7. 201 law; rather both sources of revelation work in conjunction with one another, as scripture illuminates what reason and the conscience have discerned.578

Paradoxically, Barth was intent on restoring the theology of the Reformation, but by categorically denying the possibility of natural revelation, Brunner maintained that

Barth had misunderstood the stance of Reformation theology itself. As far as Brunner was concerned, Barth's confusion stemmed from a "one-sided concept of revelation", wherein Barth "acknowledges only the act, the event of revelation, but never anything revealed, or, as he says, the fact of revelation".579 Moreover, Brunner suggested that

Barth's own theology actually affirms natural theology despite Barth's adamant denial.

According to Brunner, Barth rejects the use of analogy, but inadvertently admits it by discussing the Word of God as rationally perceived through language. In Brunner's estimation, this admits that as rational beings individuals are an analogy of God, retaining the 'formal' image of God.580 In consequence, Brunner maintained that he and Barth were in agreement about the need to prevent perversions of natural theology and its abuses. However the solution, and here Brunner separated himself from Barth, was not in

CO| the wholesale abandonment of natural theology, but its proper understanding.

In the preface to his reply to Brunner, Barth remarked that he was a generally passive person who avoided unnecessary conflict, and if it was possible, he would rather have found common ground with Brunner than engage in a theological dispute. However

578 Brunner, "Nature and Grace", pp. 38-9. 579 Brunner, "Nature and Grace", pp. 48,49. 580 Brunner, "Nature and Grace", pp. 54-5. 581 Brunner, "Nature and Grace", p. 59. 202 given the current crisis within the church, Barth could not remain silent.582 He had not shied away from confrontations with Hirsch, and could hardly do so now with Brunner, for adding to the gravity of the situation for Barth was the closeness of Brunner's position to his own. The threat posed by Hirsch's volkisch theology was very real, but Barth considered Brunner all the more dangerous because he was that much closer to the truth of scripture. Subtle heresy is far more insidious than that which is blatant.583

Barth began his "Angry Introduction" by outlining the terms of the dispute so he would not be misrepresented, defining his theological project since his 'recovery' from pre-war liberalism as an attempt to "learn again to understand revelation as grace and grace as revelation and therefore turn away from all 'true' or 'false' theologia naturalis

..."584 For despite their past history, he and Brunner were not the friends Brunner made them out to be, and Barth considered it a disservice that Brunner had not acknowledged the distance between their positions.585 In effect, Barth's condemnation of natural theology was so complete that he dismissed it as a legitimate topic for 'real theology', even if only to reject it. Comparing natural theology to a snake, Barth argued that one

582 Karl Barth, "No! Answer to Emil Brunner" in Natural Theology, trans. Peter Fraenkel (London, 1946), p. 67. Barth suggests that the current crisis over theological truth in the church is the worst in centuries. 83 Barth, "No!", pp. 67-8. Barth used similar logic in his commentary of Romans 12:21-13:7. Revolution is opposed far more stringently than conservatism for "The revolutionary Titan is far more godless, far more dangerous, than his reactionary counterpart - because he is so much nearer to the truth". Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 478. 584 Barth, "No!", p. 71. Barth defined 'natural theology' as "every (positive or negative) formulation of a system which claims to be theological, i.e. to interpret divine revelation, whose subject, however, differs fundamentally from the revelation in Jesus Christ and whose method therefore differs equally from the exposition of Holy Scripture", pp. 74-5. 58 Because Brunner depicted their exchange as collegial, Barth realized he would now come off as a "wicked man", "lacking all communal spirit and stubbornly refusing to allow even the least correction!" Barth, "No!", p. 72. 203 should not stare at it lest one be hypnotised and bitten. The only way to deal with natural

eo<: theology is to "hit it and kill it as soon as you see it!"

After dealing with what he considered to be the internal inconsistencies of

Brunner's counter theses and his significant misrepresentation of Roman Catholic doctrine, what struck Barth as most amazing is that Brunner "has dared to introduce the figure of Calvin".587 According to Barth, Brunner's mishandling of Calvin stemmed from a failure to properly position Calvin within the history of dogma. The Reformers did not foresee how the theological dispute with Catholicism would progress through time, and consequently could not appreciate how circumspect references to Augustinian thought needed to be in view of his centrality to subsequent Catholic doctrine. Similarly, because appeals to Aquinas were virtually absent from the sixteenth century disputes, the

Reformers did not recognize the force of the Roman Catholic connection between justification and the knowledge of God. Therefore Barth concluded that current readings of Luther and Calvin should actually extend their opposition to Catholicism further in order to capture their original intent about the human incapacity to know God apart from revelation.588 Brunner had failed to do this. In fact as far as Barth was concerned, Brunner had misread and misappropriated Calvin, and attempted to use Calvin to emasculate him:

"he has confronted me together with his 'Calvin' and has patted me on the shoulder and

586 Barth, "No!", pp. 75, 76. 587 Barth, "No!", p. 100. 588 Barth, "No!", pp. 100-1. 204 told me to be a good boy; he has seen to it that the 'German Christians' can, if they wish.. .quote now not only Luther but also Calvin in their support".589

At its most basic level, apart from the internal logic of his counter theses, his representation of Catholic doctrine, and his understanding of Calvin's arguments regarding the image of God in humanity, Barth rejected Brunner's work because it was

"incompatible with the third article of the creed". The Holy Spirit's 'point of contact' with humanity is the Spirit's own creation, not humanity's.590 Moreover, Barth rejected natural theology outright and totally because it always stems from a "false" line of questioning peripheral to, and distracting from, theology's main task. Natural theology is concerned with the 'how' of theology instead of the 'what'. "Hence it has to be rejected a limine - right at the outset. Only the theology and the church of the antichrist can profit from it. The Evangelical Church and Evangelical theology would only sicken and die of it".591

Barth again took up these themes in an extended set of lectures at the University of Aberdeen in 1937 and 1938, in which he systematically rejected natural theology's assumption that there is an unbroken connection between humanity and God through which people can learn about God by their own discovery, from the foundation of

Reformation teaching.592 The Gifford lectures had been established on the understanding

589 Barth, "No!", p. 105. 590 Barth, "No!", p. 121. 591 Barth, "No!", p. 128. According to John Webster, "revelation is in Barth's hands simply the doctrine of God in its cognitive effect". It does not pose the question 'How do we know God?' but 'Who is God?' John Webster, Barth (London, 2000), p. 58. 592 Karl Barth, The Knowledge of God and the Service of God According to the Teaching of the Reformation, trans. J.L.M. Haire and Ian Henderson (London, 1938), p. 4. 205 that their topic was to be natural theology, and that they in turn would serve to promote it.

Naturally, as "an avowed opponent of natural theology" convinced that it "owes its existence to a radical error," Barth was confused over his selection to give the addresses.593 Nevertheless, with the purported aim of honouring the original intention of the lectures, Barth worked through the Scottish Confession of 1560 in order to demonstrate the fallacies of natural theology, thereby addressing it "indirectly" - as the antithesis of true theology. By taking such a position, Barth suggested that he would in fact further natural theology indirectly, for his opposition would no doubt cause his listeners to further entrench their convictions in defence.594

Fundamentally Barth argued that the theology of the Reformation arrived at correct conclusions about the relationship between God and humanity. All created things have their origin in God, but God is not contingent on any other thing for initial or continued existence. God proceeds from God. Because God stands above all other things as infinite and omnipotent, Barth concluded that all knowledge of God must also come from God. God's personality and majesty cannot be thought of from a human epistemic base, for any thought of God starting from this point would necessarily be derived from the world and could not be God. In the end it would be a "disastrous reflection of human personality".595

Therefore on the eve of the Second World War we find Barth adamantly maintaining the rejection of natural theology which he had begun before the National

393 Barth, The Knowledge of God and the Service of God, pp. 6,5. 594 Barth, The Knowledge of God and the Service of God, pp. 6-7. 595 Barth, The Knowledge of God and the Service of God, p. 32. 206 Socialist takeover, and continued through the Nazi social-political revolution. Ultimately

Barth's continued basis for rejecting natural theology was theological, but it was without doubt a theological perspective informed by what Barth perceived to be the dangerous political ramifications of volkisch theology. By divorcing himself from Brunner, despite their friendship and how close they stood to one another theologically, Barth demonstrated how adamantly he clung to his established theological convictions.

Moreover, the continuity in Barth's thought further supports the claim that while his opposition to natural theology and the doctrine of the two kingdoms intensified in reaction to the National Socialist revolution, ultimately it was theologically derived and not reactionary to the political scene.596 Barth had recognized the militaristic implications of nationalist theology from the time of the First World War; these had only grown more dangerous in the Third Reich.

Barth's theological rejection of National Socialism.

Speaking to an audience in Oxford in March 1938, Barth described the context of the contemporary German church situation, suggesting that the church and National

Socialism did not at first recognize the other for what it truly was. The church therefore had been tempted in 1933 by the National Socialist state when it was offered the illusion of participating in the resurgence of German society by a regime which depicted itself as

596 John W. Hart, Karl Barth vs. Emil Brunner: The Formations and Dissolution of a Theological Alliance, 1916-1936 (New York, 2001), p. 2. 207 CQ"7 founded on 'Positive Christianity'. In return for its inclusion the church would have had to proclaim 1933 to be a moment of divine revelation in human history and place its ministries "at the service of the new State and therefore at the service of the will of its political and intellectual leader".598 The struggle over the Protestant church arose because there were those within the church who succumbed to this temptation and who enthusiastically wanted to accept National Socialism's offer, believing the occasion to be a unique opportunity from God which would not arise again.599

Over time the real nature of National Socialism's relationship with the church became clear. It was not the regime's intent to actually use Christianity - not even its nationalized version - as a pillar for the renewed Germany. Instead, Barth was convinced that Christianity was to be supplanted by a new Germanic religion ('Positive

Christianity'), centred upon the Volk and state.600

Considered in this light, it was Barth's conclusion that like the church, the state must be continually asked if it is fulfilling its task as ordained by God.601 Barth did not question the necessity of political order, but maintained that the state must be accountable, for either it is the minister described in Romans 13 or the beast of

Revelation 13. Barth appeared to offer no alternative: "It is either one or the other". It then follows that the manner in which individuals are to respond to the state is

597 Karl Barth, Trouble and Promise in the Struggle of the Church in Germany, trans. P.V.M. Benecke (Oxford, 1938), pp. 3, 5. 598 Barth, Trouble and Promise, p. 6. 599 Barth, Trouble and Promise, p. 7. 600 Barth, Trouble and Promise, p. 12. 601 Barth, The Knowledge of God and the Service of God, p. 223. 602 Barth, The Knowledge of God and the Service of God, pp. 226,227. 208 determined by the nature and behaviour of the state itself. According to Barth, Christians can refuse their cooperation only when the state's obstruction of the service of God is concrete. Otherwise they must be at the state's disposal.

However because God's commandments are contextual in that they apply to specific circumstances in particular settings, there may be times when the Christian is called to do more than refuse participation in the unjust state. Thus, "active resistance as such cannot and may not be excluded out of fear of the ultima ratio of forcible resistance".604 The question about active resistance is not about the use of force in and of itself, for according to Barth every responsible citizen participates in the use of force through the direct or indirect assent to its use by the state. But while Barth could not categorically deny the right to use force, he did indicate how ethically dangerous it is.605

Barth's comments about the legitimacy of forceful resistance as applied to the

National Socialist regime are indicative of a shift in Barth's opposition that became

increasingly evident after Barth's dismissal from his position at Bonn in June 1935, and

his return to Switzerland.606 Whereas Barth's earlier judgements were mainly levelled

603 Barth, The Knowledge of God and the Service of God, pp. 227-8. 604 Barth, The Knowledge of God and the Service of God, p. 231. 605 Barth, The Knowledge of God and the Service of God, p. 236. 606 Barth was dismissed from his post according to paragraph 6 of the Law for the Reorganization of the Civil Service after a dispute over his refusal to swear the oath of allegiance to Hitler without a caveat. Barth then almost immediately accepted a post at the University of Basel. Barth made his position on the oath to Hitler quite clear: "The oath to Hitler implies a total and unreserved, outward and inward obligation of the whole man (of his actions, his thoughts and his conscience) to this one man as the representative of the German State and the incarnation of the German people, and to his will, which is subject to no control or superior law". Hence, "...an oath cannot be given (with true respect for the State!) if it is a 'totalitarian' oath (that is, if it is rendered to a name which actually claims Divine functions)". This would align the one swearing the oath with forces against the Word. Barth, The German Church Conflict, p. 68; Karl Barth, "Church and State" (Rechtfertigung und Recht, 1938) in Community, State, and Church: 3 Essays, trans. G. Ronald Howe (New York, 1960), p. 142. 209 against National Socialism's intrusions into ecclesiastical affairs and the volkisch theology underpinning it - but not the National Socialist state itself - increasingly Barth's

fjfyi pronouncements became markedly more politicized. By October 1938, Barth's works were banned in Germany.

According to Barth, the church's task corporately, which then is also the task of the individual member, is to witness Christ. Understood concretely, the responsibility to witness is always contextual; it is a call to witness to the church's situation in the present, and therefore cannot avoid the political challenges facing the church.608 Consequently, the church in Germany needed to be a witness under the Third Reich. At the same time,

Barth suggested that it was essential that the church continue with its purposes "just as if nothing had happened". The mission of the church is to be unconstrained by its context, even as it engages with its surroundings and "what actually has happened". The theological mission of the church for Barth was thus not to "speak to the situation but in the situation - in the particular situation chosen and given its character by it itself.. .,,6°9

This is not tantamount to political quietism, for Barth was arguing that the church's witness had to continue unchanged and irrespective of its surroundings. By not being constrained to speak to a particular issue, the church is free "in principle" to speak to any context.610 Unfortunately, the church's praxis did not always align with what was possible "in principle".

607 See: Will Herber, "Introduction" in Community, State, and Church: 3 Essays, trans. G. Ronald Howe (New York, 1960), pp. 30, 38,44-5; Busch, Karl Barth, pp. 272-4. 608 Karl Barth, The Church and the Political Problem of Our Day (London, 1939), pp. 8-9, 14. 609 Barth, The Church and the Political Problem of Our Day, pp. 15-6. 610 Barth, The Church and the Political Problem of Our Day, p. 16. 210 That 'the political problem of our day' was National Socialism was quite obvious.

Moreover, as far as Barth was concerned, National Socialism was also a grave concern for the church, for by its very nature it represented itself as a movement for both political and Germanic-religious salvation. Therefore by its totalitarian claims, the regime itself effectively purported to be a church. According to Barth there are instances when the church will remain silent in the face of purely political change, but because the National

Socialist revolution was as much a religious matter as it was political, the church could neither remain 'neutral' nor abdicate its responsibility to speak to the situation.611

This was obviously a minority position within the church, for according to Barth there were many who considered the church's relationship to National Socialism to be a purely political question. Even within the Confessing Church, Barth suggested that the majority still believed the church could maintain a neutral stance to National

Socialism.612 Historically the church had proved that it could survive under a hostile dictatorship. And Barth admitted that at first, National Socialism appeared as a legitimate

"political experiment". Accordingly, Barth maintained that the church "had the right and the duty to confine herself to giving it, as a political experiment, first of all time and a chance, and therefore to adopting herself first of all a strictly neutral position".613

611 Barth, The Church and the Political Problem of Our Day, pp. 22,29-30. 612 Barth, The Church and the Political Problem of Our Day, pp. 30,37. The church struggle divided the Confessing Church from the German Christians, but the majority of Germany's Protestants fell into the category "neutrals". Yet Barth did not consider this 'neutrality' to be without consequences, for the neutrals effectively held the same line as the German Christians, albeit in a "more subdued tone": "The real danger and the worst enemy of the Confessing Church today is the army of neutrals in that non-confessing Church which is yet prepared for any compromise". Barth, Trouble and Promise, p. 9; Barth, The German Church Conflict, p. 75. 613 Barth, The Church and the Political Problem of Our Day, pp. 30,31. 211 In 1933 Barth considered the chief concern of the church in Germany to be its self-defence against the doctrine of natural revelation and the volkisch theology of the

German Christians, admitting "we simply did not react in that situation as we might have done, had we been political visionaries..."614 Insofar as National Socialism was a political revolution, and did not infringe upon the mandate of the church, Barth maintained that the church was in no position to deny its legitimacy. The regime's aim could be guessed, but the church did not have a theological basis to reject it. It was thus appropriate, according to Barth, that the church tried to work out its own "theological existence" at that time, and adopted a neutral position towards the state while it waited.615 Once

National Socialism had identified the extent of its totalitarian aspirations, there could be no neutrality for the church.616 Yet even the fact that National Socialism was a dictatorship did not translate into the categorical rejection of dictatorships. A regime becomes 'demonic' when it renounces its purpose and degrades into "Caesar worship, the myth of the State, and the like" 617 Yet the state's becoming demonic is not inevitable. It can remain neutral merely granting the church the freedom to preach the gospel, or it may

zi a actively seek to fulfill its duty. Thus Barth would not follow Augustine and out of hand identify the 'earthly city' with the 'city of Cain', for according to Barth even the most

614 Barth, The Church and the Political Problem of Our Day, p. 33. Barth wrote in December 1933: "I am withstanding a theology which to-day seeks refuge in National Socialism, not the National Socialist ordering of State and Society", p. 32. 615 Barth, The Church and the Political Problem of Our Day, pp. 34-5. 616 Barth, The Church and the Political Problem of Our Day, p. 37. 617 Barth, "Church and State", p. 118. 618 Barth, "Church and State", p. 119. 212 depraved state still has the potential of rendering service to God.619 It is the church's responsibility to determine what manner of state it is serving under, and at present the church had to deal with the particularities of the National Socialist regime, "a dictatorship which is totalitarian and radical, which not only surrounds and determines mankind and men in utter totality, in body and soul, but abolishes their human nature, and does not merely limit human freedom, but annihilates it".(\)(\

According to its own self-revelation, National Socialism was not a political experiment; it was a "religious institution of salvation". In short, it was an 'anti-

Church'.621 Moreover, because National Socialism had utterly rejected its divine mandate to appeal to violence and coercion for the protection of peace and the administration of justice, and to provide the church with the freedom to preach, "National Socialism in its deeds has fundamentally and absolutely denied and disowned this office". It was therefore appropriate that the National Socialist regime be deemed a 'non-State'.622

As a non-State, the instructions from Romans chapter 13 to submit no longer applied. Instead, National Socialism was to be rejected as the "Beast out of the abyss" of

Revelation 13.623 In his interpretation of Romans 13, Barth understood the call to be

"subject to" the state to mean that the church is not to submit absolutely to the state's authority, but rather to respect it as an institution and hope for the freedom within it to

619 Barth, "Church and State", p. 125. 620 Barth, The Church and the Political Problem of Our Day, p. 38. 621 Barth, The Church and the Political Problem of Our Day, pp. 41 46. Barth argued that it was evident that National Socialism was an anti-Church because of its numerous anti-Christian attitudes and its advancement of its own religious system, but especially because of its antisemitism, which struck against the roots of the church, pp. 50-1. 622 Barth, The Church and the Political Problem of Our Day, pp. 52, 55. 623 Barth, "Church and State", p. 143. 213 preach. The church is to be prepared to preach at the cost of injustice if need be - for this will acknowledge the legitimacy of the state - but the church must not abandon its calling.624 In giving to Caesar that which is Caesar's, the church must not forget that this obligation is subordinated to the command to give to God what is God's. Because the church seeks what is best for the state, it must in fact refuse its cooperation, openly rebuke the state, and suffer under it if necessary should the church's mandate be hindered. For according to Barth, this opposition to the state is not rebellion, but actually is service to the state by holding it accountable to its proper purposes; it is "defending the state against the state". It would be a disservice for the church to do otherwise.625

For Barth, there is a vital distinction between love and service. The church is called to serve the state, but under no circumstances should the state demand that it be loved. Once the state moves beyond 'outward' claims upon the individual to make 'inner' claims on the heart and mind, the state has overstepped its bounds and encroached on the realm of the church: "When the State begins to claim 'love', it is in the process of becoming a Church, the Church of a false God, and thus an unjust State".626

Barth acknowledged that in rejecting the regime a religious decision becomes deliberately political, but because the ministries of the church were fundamentally

624 Barth, "Church and State", pp. 137-8. 625 Barth, "Church and State", pp. 140,138-9. 626 Barth, "Church and State", p. 143. In Der Dienst der Kirche an der Heimat Barth outlined the service the church is meant to render the state by its full participation in the various facets which make up the homeland. Furthermore, Barth clarified what a properly oriented love of the homeland will look like as opposed to a coerced love of the deified state. Karl Barth, Der Dienst der Kirche an der Heimat (Zollikon- Zurich, 1940), p. 13ff. 214 incompatible with National Socialism, the church needed to pray for its destruction.627

Against those who would appeal to Luther and the doctrine of the two kingdoms in support of the regime, Barth argued that when Europe was threatened by a Turkish invasion, Luther prayed for its suppression. "And there we have it - we stand to-day, all

Europe, and the whole Christian Church in Europe, once again in danger of the Turks".62*

At the same time, Barth maintained that the church could not merely pray for

National Socialism's destruction. It needed to pray for the restoration of the just state, and in so doing, was to work towards what it prayed for.629 The church cannot and must not become a state; it cannot fight its own wars. In fact the church will need to stay neutral towards, or oppose some wars. But in a war between a just state - with which the church stands in solidarity - and an unjust state, the church's interests are defended vicariously through the defence of justice. Therefore Barth concluded that the praying church "must support armed defense against the advancement of the dissolution of the just State, just as she would support a police measure taken in the normal way. And further this is also certain: the members of the Church, in their capacity as members of the just State, have then surely in a military respect also to render to Caesar the things which are

Caesar's".630

* * *

By February 1938 Hitler had subdued the army and the Foreign Office, and had essentially completed the Gleichschaltung of German society. In a move to unite the

627 Barth, The Church and the Political Problem of Our Day, pp. 59,63. 62S Barth, The Church and the Political Problem of Our Day, p. 65. 629 Barth, The Church and the Political Problem of Our Day, pp. 67,74. 630 Barth, The Church and the Political Problem of Our Day, pp. 78, 79. 215 broader German territories and work towards his goal of Lebensraum, Hitler orchestrated the infiltration of National Socialists into the Austrian government in March 1938. When

Austrian chancellor von Schuschnigg thought better of his decision to capitulate to Nazi

Germany, Hitler mobilized plans for Austria's invasion, leading to von Schuschnigg's resignation and the Anschluss. Austria's incorporation into the Reich effectively encircled the western half of Czechoslovakia, and after months of speculation in Europe about

Hitler's intentions and the nature of a French and British response, Prime Minister

Chamberlain met with Hitler twice in September to work out the future of

Czechoslovakia's German territory. At the Munich conference, September 29th-30th the

Sudetenland was famously conceded to Germany.

In the midst of the Sudeten crisis Barth wrote to the Lutheran theologian Josef

Hromadka in Prague. Referring to a Europe gone weak in the face of Nazi Germany's brutalities, Barth expressed his hope that the descendants of the Hussites would prove that there were still men in Europe. For as far as Barth interpreted the crisis, the church stood on the brink of either being reduced to a mockery, or complete extinction. Barth therefore assured Hromadka that those Czech soldiers who fought for freedom would be fighting on behalf of the whole church.631

The church could not fight a crusade, yet insofar as Barth thought of National

Socialism as an abomination, he could advocate military action against Germany

631 Karl Barth to Josef L. Hrom&dka, September 19, 1938, in Diether Koch, ed., Karl Barth Offene Briefe 1935-1942 (Zurich, 2001), pp. 113-5. 216 "without reservation".632 Barth took this line again a year later in a letter to the Protestant church in France. Writing at the end of 1939, months after the German invasion of

Poland and the declarations of war by Britain and France, Barth maintained that if nothing was done to stop Hitler, those who sat idle would be judged harshly by history and would be held accountable for it by God. As it stood, war was the only viable recourse. More specifically, Barth suggested that the burden of responsibility for engaging Hitler rested with Britain and France, the powers responsible for allowing the

European situation to degrade as it has since 1919. In essence, Britain and France made

Hitler possible.633

As highly politicized as Barth's suggestions were, he continued to found his arguments theologically, strictly defining the proper role of the church. Barth reiterated his position that the church is prohibited from championing political causes as its own.

The church does not wage war; its service is praying and preaching the gospel. However, because God has instituted the state to keep the peace, and because the church is to advocate for justice, the church is obligated to stand behind the just state, even in war.

The just state commands obedience. Therefore, "The Church ought to-day to pray in all penitence and sobriety for a just peace, and in the same penitence and sobriety to bear witness to all the world that it is necessary and worth while to fight and suffer for this just

632 Barth to Hromadka, September 19, 1938, pp. 113-5. 633 Karl Barth, "First Letter to the French Protestants" (December 1939), in This Christian Cause (New York, 1941). 634 Barth, "First Letter to the French Protestants". 217 Even as it prayed for a just peace - which of necessity would entail the defeat of

National Socialism - Barth maintained that the church was not to be nationalistic or militaristic as it had been in the past. The church was not to support a war of annihilation, for Christ died also for Hitler and those serving Hitler. Therefore Barth argued that the church needed to witness to Germany, for the German people were sick and in need of rehabilitation. The Germans were no wickeder than the British or French, "But Hitler's

National Socialism is most certainly the wicked expression of the extraordinary political stupidity, confusion and helplessness of the German people". In the same way, the

Germans were no less Christian than other nations:

But the German people suffer from the heritage of a paganism that is mystical and that is in consequence unrestrained, unwise and illusory. And it suffers, too, from the heritage of the greatest Christian of Germany, from Martin Luther's error on the relation between Law and Gospel, between the temporal and the spiritual order and power. This error has established, confirmed and idealized the natural paganism of the German people, instead of limiting and restraining it.

According to Barth, each nation has a pagan past which it has had to leave behind, and in turn each nation has perverted Christian doctrine in ways which have strengthened its pagan legacy. Germany's unfortunate peculiarity is its relation to Luther, which left the German people susceptible to the temptations of National Socialism.636

Barth's words of counsel for the French did not go unnoticed by his opponents. In a publication from 1940 Hirsch took exception to what he considered to be Barth's attempt to justify the French and English war against Germany in the interests of

635 This is basically a Calvinist critique. Barth, "First Letter to the French Protestants". 636 Barth, "First Letter to the French Protestants". 218 humanity and Christianity.637 Barth spoke from the position of a Swiss Christian, referring to Switzerland as "provisionally" neutral in a military sense, but aligning

Switzerland with the Allies in two significant ways. Firstly, Barth accused Hitler's

Germany of being a terror state, and secondly, was thankful that France had undertaken the fight against National Socialism.

Barth's position raised a number of important questions for Hirsch. For one, when, according to Barth, would Switzerland's military neutrality expire? For Barth was clearly not neutral in any other sense. This brought Hirsch to the question about the ethicality of Barth's position. In short, Hirsch questioned whether it was ethical for Barth as a 'neutral' Swiss to openly take sides in this conflict, especially when it contained such an obvious spiritual component. Could Barth ethically use his safe position as a neutral to attack the German Volk and Reich while it was in a battle for its very survival?639

Hirsch next addressed Barth's portrayal of the German spiritual attitude, and quoted Barth's comments about Germany's pagan heritage and Luther's legacy.640

Because Hirsch was a Lutheran, and considered Luther to be one of the greatest Germans, he found it curious that Barth could make such claims about Luther's negative impact, when Barth himself relied on Luther so heavily in his 1922 commentary on Romans.

Furthermore, while he taught in Germany, Barth praised Luther's work as a reformer and for his renewing of Christian theology. Barth had thus earned the right to critically

637 Emanuel Hirsch, Karl Barth. Das Ende einer theologischen Existenz (Gottingen, 1940), p. 3. 638 Hirsch, Karl Barth, p. 4. 639 Hirsch, Karl Barth, p. 5. 640 Significantly, Hirsch edited out Barth's comment that every nation has it own peculiar pagan temptations. 219 engage Luther, but according to Hirsch, sullied his own reputation with his accusations of

Lutheranism's proximity to heathenism as a flawed Germanic form of Christianity.641

Furthermore, Hirsch took exception to what he considered to be the irresponsible ethical and religious foundation on which Barth constructed his judgements against

Germany. According to Hirsch, Barth's ethical system had always positioned itself against any ethical formation that holds finite action to be a divinely sanctioned duty.

Thus, according to Hirsch, Barth had always been an ethical "sceptic and nihilist" for whom ethics was a game that always carried with it a reservation or caveat.

Consequently, Barth's "ethical nihilism" drew him closer to internationalism rather than particularism.642

While Hirsch acknowledged that Barth had not divinized England and France,

Barth was able to bless those fighting against Germany because he saw in them a

"remnant of order and law, of free humanity, and above all, the freedom to preach the gospel". In Germany however, the "Beast from the abyss" had destroyed this remnant, and consequently, Germany had become a threat to the rest of Europe.643 So even though

Barth could not consider the war against Germany to be a crusade, he could maintain that it was right to fight against Germany. The political authority that strives to uphold law and order is just authority, and the church must take a stand to support it.644

In Hirsch's estimation, Barth's position sanctified English and French hegemony over Europe as the protectors of law and order, and justified their campaign to preserve

641 Hirsch, Karl Barth, p. 7. 642 Hirsch, Karl Barth, pp. 8-9. 643 Hirsch, Karl Barth, pp. 9-10. 644 Hirsch, Karl Barth, p. 10. 220 order beyond their borders. Essentially, Barth's sanctification of the Allied war effort in the name of God gave England and France "sovereignty over all of Europe".645

Hirsch then questioned what Barth meant by 'law' and 'justice'. What became clear through Barth's writing is that whatever law is, it is something the Germans had broken. But as Hirsch saw it, the Germans had only broken one so-called law - the impositions of Versailles. Hirsch did not consider Barth to be so nai ve that he would hold to this understanding of law. Rather, by accusing Germany of inhumanity and a culture of terror and fear, Barth demonstrated that his understanding of law corresponded to a democratic state order built on the ideals of the Enlightenment. It then followed that God established earthly authority to protect the democratic sense of law, and since the church could not remain neutral, it had to side with democracy.646 After summarizing Barth's

'sophism' with admitted "disgust and outrage", Hirsch suggested that Barth could not have argued these points in good faith, as this "clumsy handling" of the concept of the law was incongruent with his broader theology. Thus Hirsch concluded: "One can mock:

Finally, finally, one has found something wherein the great sceptic and dialectician Karl

Barth is not dialectical - it is 'the law'".647

Undeterred by criticism, Barth continued to advocate for the military campaign against Hitler. But unlike Hirsch's accusations that Barth's campaign was in service to the ideals of democracy, it is more accurate to understand Barth's appeals to Britain and

France as extensions of his opposition to Nazi Germany. Therefore, in a letter to British

645 Hirsch, Karl Barth, p. 10. 646 Hirsch, Karl Barth, p. 11. 647 Hirsch, Karl Barth, p. 12. 221 Protestants from 1941 Barth made an appeal similar to that which he made to the French, asserting that the present situation was different than it was twenty-five years prior.

Unlike that regrettable and unnecessary conflict, the present fight against Hitler needed to be supported as a righteous campaign, even after acknowledging its horrors, and ultimately desiring Christ's peaceable kingdom.648

According to Barth the war against National Socialism was justified, and was in fact necessitated by Christian thought. Moreover, it is for this reason that Barth was concerned with the rationale for the war that was emerging from Britain. In effect, Barth wanted to ensure that the basis for resisting Hitler was the same amongst all Christians,

"simply the resurrection of Jesus Christ". Accordingly, Barth was surprised that primacy had been given to the protection of civil liberties, intellectual freedom, and the ideals of western civilization. It is not that Barth rejected these causes; rather he supported their preservation, but maintained that there should be something intrinsically distinctive about the Christian response when compared to the concerns of "a pious Hindu, Buddhist or

Atheist".649

Ultimately Barth was convinced that there could be no possibility of equivocation in the resistance presented to National Socialism. Appeals to natural law or human morality were utterly insufficient, for they could be perverted: "All arguments based on

Natural Law are Janus-headed. They do not lead to the light of clear decisions, but to the misty twilight in which all cats become grey. They lead to Munich". Barth therefore

648 Karl Barth, "A Letter to Great Britain from Switzerland" (April 1941), in This Christian Cause (New York, 1941). 649 Barth, "A Letter to Great Britain from Switzerland". 222 asserted that the only suitable foundation for opposing Hitler was that upon which the

Barmen declaration was based. Only a complete denial of natural revelation and a submission to properly understood theology offered a true antithesis to National

Socialism.650

Barth founded his conclusion that National Socialism was antithetical to the

Christianity defined by the Reformation on the basis of scripture and the Reformation confessions, and argued that it was therefore natural that the first opposition to National

Socialism came from that segment of the Protestant church which had returned to the teachings of the Reformation.651 The Confessing Church and the Pastors' Emergency

League offered resistance to National Socialism, but only insofar as National Socialism interfered in ecclesiastical affairs. The Confessing Church was therefore marked by its conservatism and was inherently limited in its protest to a distinct line of engagement.

Barth admitted that he held to this line himself while he remained in Germany, maintaining that defending and defining the church, and determining whether it could be

'coordinated' and still retain its freedom to proclaim the gospel was a vital first step. The problem was that the majority did not advance beyond this stance.652 What little resistance that had been offered "had a spasmodic, personal, voluntary and therefore often arbitrary origin and character" because it had not proceeded from the fundamental

650 Barth, "A Letter to Great Britain from Switzerland"; Karl Barth, "The Churches of Europe in the Face of the War (A Review of Protestant Reactions to National Socialism)", in The Church and the War, trans. Antonia H. Froendt (New York, 1944), p. 5. 651 Barth, "The Churches of Europe", p. 6. 652 Barth, "The Churches of Europe", pp. 8-9. 223 understanding that the National Socialist worldview was an attack on the foundations of

Christianity.653

Because Barth considered National Socialism to be an enemy of Christianity, there could be no accommodation on the part of the church. Those who did not reject

National Socialism completely had "either failed to understand National Socialism, despite all its self-revelations; or they have not thought through the message of the Bible; or they have developed a kind of schizophrenia in which totally divergent yardsticks are adopted for the inner and the external life".654

Barth's initial theological rejection of National Socialism as a vehicle of divine revelation and his opposition to the violation of the Protestant church's sovereignty eventually grew into the conviction that National Socialism was a self-deified regime that needed to be resisted with force. Significant to Barth's development is the fact that his political engagement consistently displayed a formative theological component, demonstrating the intrinsic connection between Barth's theology and politics.

The First World War shattered Barth's confidence in his intellectual heritage, leaving him disappointed with the response of international socialism, and demonstrating the bankruptcy of liberal bourgeois optimism and anthropocentrism. Convinced of the insufficiency of the theological systems of his teachers, Barth then reoriented himself around the concept of the infinite qualitative distinction between God and humanity. The

653 Barth, "The Churches of Europe", pp. 16, 5. Barth spoke specifically of Hitler's antisemitism. 654 Barth, "The Churches of Europe", p. 12. 224 complete otherness of God necessarily destroyed the possibility that humanity could obtain direct positive knowledge of God by appealing to natural law or human reason.

In terms of the church's relation to the state, Barth concluded that all institutions are human constructions, corrupted apart from God's grace through Christ. Even though the state has a divine mandate to preserve human society, it has no intrinsic autonomous value. Therefore Christians cannot have two allegiances. There is only one realm and it is

Christological. Obedience to the state is subservient to Christ. The state will always exist, but it has a limited role; it is the church's duty to remind the state of this.

The fact that Barth and Hirsch arrived at such different conclusions about the nature of God's revelation and the historical-theological importance of National

Socialism despite the many similarities in their influences and experiences, demonstrates the political ramifications of the doctrine of the two kingdoms. For Hirsch, his nationalist conception of the doctrine allowed him to observe two ethical standards, one that governed his private life, and another that demanded his obedience to, and full participation in, the German state. According to Hirsch's understanding of revelation and the relationship of law and gospel, National Socialism disclosed God in history; God is revealed through the orders of creation which are outside of Christ.

For Barth, all revelation is Christological. God could (because of God's sovereignty) reveal Christ through the state, but this would have to be evaluated against the gospel. Clearly National Socialism was not a source of revelation because of its attempt to coerce love, command a total worldview, and usurp the loyalty due only to

225 God. Consequently, Barth's fundamental rejection of natural revelation and the doctrine of the two kingdoms led to his protracted theological dispute with Emanuel Hirsch.

To be sure, Barth's Swiss citizenship afforded him the ability to return to

Switzerland over his refusal to swear the oath of loyalty to Hitler. Already in 1932 Barth had alluded to the fact that joining those giving political resistance to National Socialism would cost him his life; but unlike Bonhoeffer, Barth avoided this fate. In 1935 both

Bonhoeffer and Barth returned home - Barth from Germany and Bonhoeffer from

England. However Barth had the luxury of continuing his protest against National

Socialism in safety, no matter how much he identified with Germany and the German church, while Bonhoeffer picked up his work directly under the Third Reich.655 Yet like

Bonhoeffer, Barth's resistance sprang from a similar theological source. Barth's Swiss roots can explain how he was able to be more assertive in his resistance, but do not fully answer why he was resistant in the first place. Nor does Barth's socialism account for the manner of his resistance, for even at the height of his pleas for solidarity against National

Socialism, Barth was adamant that resistance be theologically centred.

Both Barth and Hirsch were convinced that their Christian faith made ethical claims upon their lives. Both also believed that God's commands to the individual

Christian needed to be obeyed, and that these commands were specific to the context of the individual. However Barth maintained that the doctrines of the orders of creation and the law-gospel dichotomy were dangerous remnants of Luther's legacy in Germany. For

655 The irony is that Barth had earlier instructed Bonhoeffer to return to Germany from his pastorate in England. 226 Barth, the doctrine of the two kingdoms had likewise had disastrous effects, and resulted in the church's political quietism and a Christian resignation to the National Socialist regime through the misguided retreat from political responsibility in favour of a concentration on the 'inner' person. Given the seriousness with which Barth and Hirsch engaged theological doctrine, and the centrality of theological ethics in their political decision making, it follows that the responses given to prominent Lutheran doctrines can serve as a key to understanding theological-political attitudes during the Nazi era.

227 Chapter Four: Benjamin Unruh, Mennonite pragmatism and theological ambiguity.

Traditionally, historians who have treated the divergent responses within German

Protestantism to the Nazi ascendancy and the Third Reich have contrasted the Confessing

Church with the German Christian movement. The historiography has tended to focus primarily on this schism - more recently documenting common assumptions found across

German Protestantism - without extensively treating Germany's free churches. Given the numerical dominance and social importance of Lutheranism in Germany this focus is understandable, and it is little surprise that the German Mennonites have not featured prominently, when at all, in the broader narrative. Thus, while Barth and Hirsch, members of mainline Protestantism, were colleagues, long time correspondents and open theological opponents, who in significant ways constructed their theological formulations in response to one another, it might not be immediately evident why we should include

Benjamin H. Unruh and the Mennonites in our comparison. Beyond being contemporaries (all three were born in the 1880s) and sharing similar theological training,

Barth, Hirsch, and Unruh all had to negotiate the Third Reich and formulate personal theologies in response to the calamitous events of the early twentieth century, particularly the First World War.656 Additionally, Unruh provides an intriguing counterpoint to mainline Protestantism because of his self-identification as a Mennonite and his continual, often ironic, engagement with Anabaptism's theological legacy.

655 Unruh b. 1881; Barth b. 1886; Hirsch b. 1888. 228 Anabaptism emerged in Europe during the early sixteenth century in what George

H. Williams identified as the radical branch of the Reformation.657 In the context of the mainline reformers' attempts to transform the Christian church, Anabaptism shared the broader Protestant opposition to the existing Roman Catholic sacramentalism and clerical order, as well as the Evangelical emphasis on the authoritative nature of scripture and the belief that salvation comes from grace alone through faith. However despite these doctrinal similarities, Anabaptism's rejection of the Catholic formulation that grace is mediated through the sacraments pushed beyond Luther's understanding of'real presence' to conceive of the Eucharist as symbolic. More importantly, Anabaptist anti- sacramentalism led to the rejection of infant baptism and manifested itself in the movement's most obvious outward symbol and the reason for its name: the exclusive baptism of confessing believers.658

Under the mediaeval system in which politics and religion, and citizenship and baptism were intrinsically connected, the theological rejection of infant baptism and the concomitant decision of Anabaptists to renounce governmental proclamations and not baptize their children were considered both heretical and politically subversive.

Theologically, adult baptism challenged Christian orthodoxy. Politically, the movement's encouragement of individuals to reject traditional baptism, and instead be 're-baptized'

657 George Huntston Williams, The Radical Reformation (Philadelphia, 1962). Williams contrasted the 'radical Reformation' with the mainline Lutheran and Reformed 'magisterial Reformation'. 638 C. Arnold Snyder outlines what he identifies as the "theological and ecclesioiogical core of Anabaptism" in his Anabaptist History and Theology: An Introduction (Kitchener, 2002), pp. 83-98. 229 into a voluntary, yet closed church community enforcing its own rigorous ethical and economic discipline, was met with violent repression.659

Whereas the concept 'radical Reformation' is useful for understanding the origins of Anabaptism, its original intent needs to be refined. In terms of the Reformation itself,

James Stayer has followed Hans-Jurgen Goertz and Adolf Laube to emphasize the social component of Reformation radicalism. By concentrating on the social implications of

Reformation thought and action, it can be maintained that Luther's initial reforming

impulse, characterized by its anticlericalism and the empowering of the laity, was itself a radical break from the established religious-political structure. It then follows that

Anabaptism was not radical because it redirected the course of the Reformation; rather, it sustained the Reformation's radical impulses as the main lines of the Reformation

moderated. By this understanding, the radical Reformation ended with the transformation

of Anabaptist nonconformity into Mennonitism by the late sixteenth century.660

The conception of Anabaptists as radicals has also undergone revision. Because

German laws from 1528 onwards made the defence of Anabaptism punishable by death,

early depictions of the movement were dominated by its opponents, who labelled

Anabaptism heretical, branded its adherents fanatics, and identified them with the

Peasants' War of 1525, and the violent apocalypticism of Munster in 1534-35. These

largely hostile accounts then served as the source material for, and coloured subsequent

659 Snyder, Anabaptist History and Theology, pp. 177-8; James Urry, Mennonites, Politics and Peoplehood: Europe-Russia-Canada 1525-1980 (Winnipeg, 2006), p. 18. 660 James M. Stayer, "The Radical Reformation", in Thomas A. Brady Jr., Heiko A. Oberman and James D. Tracy, eds., Handbook of European History 1400-1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation. Vol. II: Visions, Programs, and Outcomes (Grand Rapids, 1995), pp. 249-251. 230 interpretations of, Anabaptism until around 1850.661 Luther himself had pejoratively called his radical opponents from as early as 1521 and 1522 "Schwarmer," and this designation became affixed to the Anabaptist movement.662

The availability of archival sources on Anabaptism from the middle of the nineteenth century ushered in new treatments of the movement which varied widely, from socialist interpretations investigating the Anabaptists as proto-revolutionaries, to sympathetic treatments postulating continuity with earlier heretical groups such as the

Waldensians. For our purposes the most significant shift in the historiography came with the twentieth century effort to reclaim the Anabaptist heritage.

Building on Ernst Troeltsch's religious typology which differentiated between sects and mystics, apologists of Anabaptism could counter the traditional Lutheran representations of the Anabaptists as fanatics by divorcing them from 'spiritualists' like

Thomas Muntzer.664 The most significant work on this front was done by the Mennonite scholar Harold Bender.

In his 1943 presidential address to the American Society of Church History,

Bender sought to delineate the "true essence of Anabaptism" against what he considered to be the historic false claims of its detractors. According to Bender, the Anabaptist movement had produced many of the ideals cherished by modern democratic states:

661 Harold Bender, "The Historiography of the Anabaptists", Mennonite Quarterly Review, 31 (1957), pp. 88-9. 662 James Stayer, Werner Packull and Klaus Deppermann, "From Monogenesis to Polygenesis: The Historical Discussion of Anabaptist Origins", Mennonite Quarterly Review, 49 (1975), p. 83. 663 For a brief overview of Anabaptist historiography see: Snyder, Anabaptist History and Theology, pp. 397-404. 664 Snyder, Anabaptist History and Theology, p. 399. See: Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, 2 vols., trans., Olive Wyon (Chicago, 1981). 231 "freedom of conscience, separation of church and state, and voluntarism in religion".665

Yet this is not the extent of the Anabaptist 'vision'. For Bender, the Anabaptist movement began with Zwinglianism in Zurich in the early stages of the Reformation and was utterly distinct from the mysticism, revolution or heresy of "Thomas Miintzer and the

Peasants War, the Munsterites, or any other aberration of Protestantism in the sixteenth century". Instead, "genuine" Anabaptism "maintained an unbroken course" until the

Mennonitism of the present, and in fact represents the actuation of the Reformation ideal

Luther and Zwingli eventually abandoned.666

Most importantly for Bender's vision, the suggestion that Anabaptism embodied an uninterrupted line of development advanced the argument that Anabaptism likewise had its own orthodoxy and orthopraxy. According to Bender, central to Anabaptism was the understanding that the Christian life was a life of discipleship to be patterned after the life of Christ - an emphasis on Christian works alongside faith. Secondly, and in opposition to the mainline of the Reformation, the church was not to encompass all of society; it was to be a voluntary assembly with adult baptism signifying its departure from the state church. As a corollary to the separation from the established church and an emphasis on Christian discipleship, Anabaptism entailed a separation from secular society and an adherence to an "ethic of love and nonresistance".667

Instead of Luther's conception of the two kingdoms, by which he sought to solve the seemingly irreconcilable ethical demands of the Sermon on the Mount with the

665 Harold S. Bender, "The Anabaptist Vision", in Guy F. Hershberger, ed., The Recovery of the Anabaptist Vision: A Sixtieth Anniversary Tribute to HaroldS. Bender (Scottdale, 1962), pp. 31,29-30. 666 Bender, "The Anabaptist Vision", pp. 35-6,37-8,41. 667 Bender, "The Anabaptist Vision", p. 42. 232 demands of civil society, Anabaptism taught that the Christian must remain separate from the world. Whereas Lutheranism provided a space where the Christian could participate in the use of coercive force, there was no scenario in which the Anabaptist could participate in evil. The personal and public spheres could not be compartmentalized so that different ethical standards were applicable in each. Moreover, society could not be

Christianized through the imposition of Christian ethics. The voluntary church would grow only when individuals were called out of the world and joined it. The Anabaptist then was to live within the community of believers.

While Bender's 'vision' found acceptance in numerous circles, its contention that a more or less homogeneous Anabaptism originated in Zurich and spread outward was challenged most notably by the 'polygenesis' paradigm and the thesis that Anabaptism was critically distinct from both Protestantism and Catholicism.

Critical studies from the 1970s of Anabaptist origins, views on temporal authority, and relationships to the state and violence called into question the

'monogenesis' paradigm. Instead, the 'polygenesis' theory demonstrated that Anabaptism arose in several distinct geographic areas in the German lands and Low Countries.669

Significantly, the challenges to a monolithic understanding of Anabaptism rejected the image of its uniform pacifism, and maintained that there was no Anabaptist consensus on

668 Bender, "The Anabaptist Vision", p. 53. 669 See in particular: James Stayer, Anabaptists and the Sword (Lawrence, 1972), and James Stayer, Werner Packull and Klaus Deppermann, "From Monogenesis to Polygenesis: The Historical Discussion of Anabaptist Origins", Mennonite Quarterly Review, 49 (1975), pp. 83-122. Research into the various origins of the Anabaptist movement has challenged both the understanding of Anabaptism as the fulfillment of the Reformation, and arguments that the movement was so radical it was "sui generis". For the latter see: Franklin H. Littell, The Origins of Sectarian Protestantism (New York, 1964). 233 nonresistance, even amongst the Swiss, until 1527. Instead, the various Anabaptist groups held differing teachings on temporal authority and the use of violence in the movement's early stages, and only later arrived at a consistent position of nonresistance.670 By the late sixteenth century, however, there was nearly complete uniformity amongst Anabaptists in

f\71 rejecting the sword, even if internal divisions remained.

A year after the publication of Stayer's highly influential Anabaptists and the

Sword, Walter Klaassen challenged the conventional linking of Anabaptism with

Protestantism.672 Klaassen effectively argued that the Anabaptists cannot correctly be considered Protestants or Catholics, since aspects of their beliefs and practices were borrowed from both confessions.

In many regards the Anabaptists can rightly be understood as iconoclasts; they denied the sacredness of words, things, places, persons and time. Moreover, Anabaptist writers displayed a "hostile distrust of traditional and contemporary theologians, theology, and theologizing," which they directed at both Catholics and Protestants alike.673 As Klaassen has argued, Anabaptism's radicalism is therefore to be found in its

"return to the prophetic understanding of the sacred".674 Thus without discounting all similarities, Anabaptism, in contrast to Catholicism and Protestantism, emphasized personal and communal discipline and radical discipleship for all believers, in the

670 Stayer, Anabaptists and the Sword, pp. 113,4. 671 Stayer, Anabaptists and the Sword, p. 328. 672 Walter Klaassen, Anabaptism: Neither Catholic nor Protestant (Kitchener, 2001). 673 Klaassen, Anabaptism: Neither Catholic nor Protestant, pp. 17,40. 674 Klaassen, Anabaptism: Neither Catholic nor Protestant, p, 19. 234 understanding that the church would suffer persecution because of it.675 Like Catholics,

Anabaptists stressed the importance of deeds as a proof of faith, and bore resemblance to the monastic ideal of communal authority, nevertheless adhering to the Protestant doctrine of salvation through faith, and breaking from the established church.676 Luther and other mainline Reformers charged the Anabaptists with legalism, reviving monasticism and attempting to earn salvation through works, while to Catholic authorities the Anabaptists belonged to the Protestant heresy.

While the early studies espousing the polygenesis paradigm served as an important corrective to a monolithic understanding of Anabaptism, their focus on origins

/\T7 did not systematically deal with Anabaptism's theological development. Recent research into Anabaptist confessions of faith has rounded out this picture and

/T"10 demonstrates the degree of unity that existed within Anabaptist theology.

A significant result of this scholarship is the assertion that the Anabaptist-

Mennonite tradition has an identifiable and distinct theological heritage, which although more heterogeneous than Bender's 'vision', nevertheless distinguishes Anabaptist theology from the broader Reformation. Furthermore, as Karl Koop suggests, this

675 Klaassen, Anabaptism: Neither Catholic nor Protestant, p. 28. 676 Klaassen, Anabaptism: Neither Catholic nor Protestant, pp. 30-1,73. 677 Snyder, Anabaptist History and Theology, p. 403; Karl Koop, Anabaptist-Mennonite Confessions of Faith: The Development of a Tradition (Waterloo, 2004), pp. 17-8. 678 In particular Karl Koop, Anabaptist-Mennonite Confessions of Faith: The Development of a Tradition (Waterloo, 2004) and Gerald Biesecker-Mast, Separation and the Sword in Anabaptist Persuasion: Radical Confessional Rhetoric from Schleitheim to Dordrecht (Telford, 2006). Writing decades earlier, Robert Friedmann argued that Anabaptism had a coherent theology against claims that it was "thelogically naive". Anabaptism's emphasis on discipleship placed a greater emphasis on the Synoptic Gospels than the mainline of the Reformation's focus on the Pauline writings, and while this 'theology of discipleship' was perhaps less sophisticated than the Pauline emphasis, Friedmann maintained it was a theology nonetheless. Rober Friedmann, "The Doctrine of the Two Worlds", in in Guy F. Hershberger, ed., The Recovery of the Anabaptist Vision: A Sixtieth Anniversary Tribute to HaroldS. Bender (Scottdale, 1962), pp. 105, 106, 108. 235 "identifiable and coherent Anabaptist-Mennonite theological tradition" cannot be divorced from either its Catholic or Protestant influences.679 Essentially, the study of

Anabaptist confessions of faith reveals that the tradition was "unified but not uniform".680

In terms of the substance of Anabaptist theology, Gerald Biesecker-Mast maintains that Anabaptism's nonresistance and pacifism are the movement's most distinctive features compared to the mainline Reformation. Yet as much as the

Anabaptists determined to separate their volunteer church of believers from the world, they continually needed to negotiate their way through secular society in daily life.681

Biesecker-Mast therefore rejects the interpretation of Anabaptist separateness as

"apolitical", instead maintaining that separatist nonresistance was in itself an engagement with established authority, and was not tantamount to a rejection of, or removal from, the state. In effect, Anabaptists could engage the state precisely because they separated themselves from it.

Positioned somewhere between Bender's 'vision' and those scholars who situate

Anabaptist pacifism outside of its theological core, Biesecker-Mast suggests that pacifism was not homogeneous amongst Anabaptists; but it certainly was not marginal. For those

Anabaptist groups that emerged intact from the sixteenth century and that practiced

679 Koop, Anabaptist-Mennonite Confessions of Faith, pp. 13, 19, 83. 680 Koop, Anabaptist-Mennonite Confessions of Faith, p. 149. 681 Biesecker-Mast uses 'separation' as synonymous with "boycott". Biesecker-Mast, Separation and the Sword in Anabaptist Persuasion: Radical Confessional Rhetoric from Schleitheim to Dordrecht (Telford, 2006), p. 103. 682 Biesecker-Mast, Separation and the Sword in Anabaptist Persuasion, p. 37. For interpretations of nonresistance as apolitical see: James Stayer, Anabaptists and the Sword (Lawrence, 1972), pp. 22, 93, 102; Alister E. McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction (Oxford, 1999), p. 219. 236 separation from society, the refusal of armed self-defence and participation in war was a defining characteristic, and was formed by the nature of their separation from society.683

In keeping with the general consensus that Meimonitism inherited Anabaptism's theological legacy, Biesecker-Mast distinguishes between 'antagonistic' and 'dualistic' rhetoric in Anabaptist confessions, and describes the process of Anabaptist "antagonistic" separation transforming into "Mennonite quietism".684 Over time "Mennonite nonconformity became less a critique of the surrounding social order and more an assertion of a unique place within that social order: marginal, quiet, and distinctive".685

Acknowledging the extended debate regarding its content, we can make some general conclusions about the Anabaptist theological tradition and its distinctives. Bender discussed Anabaptism in terms of it having a threefold emphasis: discipleship, the community of baptized believers, and nonresistance. Accepting the important qualifications to Anabaptist pacifism, namely that it was a position eventually arrived at as opposed to an original universal attribute, and admitting that there was not uniformity in terms of what the rejection of the sword would exactly look like, we can still conclude that a separatist rejection of violence and the swearing of oaths was central to Anabaptist theology. Similarly, Anabaptism distinguished itself from the rest of the Reformation by instituting a volunteer church made up of baptized 'regenerated' individuals, that is to say made up of individuals patterning their lives after the example of Christ. This corporate faith was further evidenced by the Anabaptist practice of scriptural interpretation through

683 Biesecker-Mast, Separation and the Sword in Anabaptist Persuasion, pp. 23-4. 684 Biesecker-Mast, Separation and the Sword in Anabaptist Persuasion, pp. 196-7. 685 Biesecker-Mast, Separation and the Sword in Anabaptist Persuasion, p. 198. 237 a church hermeneutic, and the submission to communal ethical and economic discipline.686

While the implications of the initial anticlericalism and laicism of the

Reformation were radical, Luther proved to be socially conservative. Beyond the political subversion inherent in Anabaptist reform, Anabaptist theology further rejected a number of critical Lutheran theological formulations.

The Anabaptist understanding of the nature of the assembled church on earth was that it was to be set apart from the secular world as holy. As Karl Koop has demonstrated, this understanding that the church should be 'without spot or wrinkle' dated back to the church fathers, but differed significantly from Luther's Augustinian conception. For

Luther, the church was sanctified through Christ, and this sanctification was eschatological in the sense that its fulfillment lay ahead. For the Anabaptists, the perfection of the church was to be obtained in the present - "an ontological and perceptible reality".687

This belief about the nature of the church corresponded to the Anabaptist call to discipline and discipleship. Because Anabaptist theology did not defer holiness to a coming age, it did not struggle with reconciling the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount with the demands of civil society as did Luther. The Anabaptist understanding of temporal authority developed in the context of Protestant anticlericalism, which denied

686 Klaassen, Anabaptism: Neither Catholic nor Protestant, pp. 53-4; Koop, Anabaptist-Mennonite Confessions of Faith, pp. 130, 148; Peter Brock, Pacifism in Europe to 1914 (Princeton, 1972), pp. 214- 221. In terms of the consensus across Anabaptist groups about economic discipline see: James Stayer, The German Peasants' War and the Anabaptist Community of Goods (Montreal and Kingston, 1991). 687 Koop, Anabaptist-Mennonite Confessions of Faith, p. 50. 238 the legitimacy of a separate "ecclesiastical magistracy". Therefore the Anabaptists rejected with Luther the formulation that two governments should exist parallel to one another. There was only one sword; only the temporal government had the power to use coercive violence. 688 However, unlike Luther, the Anabaptists did not consider the sword to be 'neutral'. Whereas Luther compartmentalized Christian ethics, the Anabaptists categorically rejected the use of coercive violence. Both Luther and the Anabaptists understood the sword to be 'outside the perfection of Christ', but whereas Luther provided a context for the Christian to wield it, Anabaptism considered it demonic.689

As the Anabaptists broke away from the established church they encountered violent persecution. Franklin Littell thus drew a parallel between the sixteenth century

Anabaptists and the adherents to the Barmen Declaration in Germany in the 1930s and

1940s, claiming that: "Just as the Anabaptist forefathers rejected the claims of the persecutors and warded off the false leadings of the spiritualizers and revolutionaries.. .so did the men of Barmen in loyalty to the Master of the church reject Nazi pressure and

/•AA spiritualizing accommodation". Littell's comparison is noteworthy for we know that the early Anabaptist movement was not immune to "spiritualizers and revolutionaries" even though nonresistance eventually won out. Similarly, we know that the Confessing

Church did not categorically reject National Socialism. Yet Littell's comparison, while inaccurate, is still provoking, for the parallel seems to assume that Anabaptism would

688 Stayer, Anabaptists and the Sword, p. 34. 689 Stayer, Anabaptists and the Sword, pp. 39-41, 122. 690 Franklin H. Littell, "The Anabaptist Concept of the Church", in Guy F. Hershberger, ed., The Recovery of the Anabaptist Vision: A Sixtieth Anniversary Tribute to Harold S. Bender (Scottdale, 1962), p. 129. 239 have been immune to the temptation presented by National Socialism. The story of the

German Mennonites is the closest answer we have to this speculation.

It is significant for our purposes to establish that by the time Mennonitism became the heir of the Anabaptist tradition, there was a consensus within the movement about nonresistance, nonconformity, and separation from the world.691 This was the theological heritage of the German Mennonites during the Third Reich, and the point of reference

Unruh repeatedly turned back to.

The challenges of nationalism and Mennonite assimilation.

Although Mennonitism developed in different regions of what would become

Germany, the specific Prussian Mennonite example is the most instructive. The Prussian congregations of the Vistula delta not only constituted the largest Mennonite population in Germany, but also practiced the most cultural separation.692 Unlike the Mennonites that remained in the Netherlands, the Mennonite refugees that migrated east and began settling in the area around Danzig/Gdansk as early as the 1520s did not assimilate to the degree their Dutch coreligionists did. Consequently nonresistance remained important in these communities much longer.693 Moreover, Mennonite attempts to maintain traditional separatist nonresistance took place within the context of Prussia's growing military and

691 In Peter Brock's words, "Mennonitism became identical with the sectarian impulse originally generated by the Swiss Brethren in the second half of the 1520s". Peter Brock, Freedom from Violence: Sectarian Nonresistance from the Middle Ages to the Great War (Toronto, 1991), p. 97. 692 Mark Jantzen, "'Whoever Will Not Defend His Homeland Should Leave It!' German Conscription and Prussian Mennonite Emigration to the Great Plains, 1860-1890", Mennonite Life, 58 (3) (2003), pp. 1,13. Prussian Mennonites numbered approximately 12 000 out of a total 20 000 Mennonites in Germany in 1864. 693 Brock, Freedom from Violence, p. 112. 240 political dominance in central Europe, and therefore most aptly demonstrate the challenges posed to German Mennonitism by modern nationalism and the nation state.

Following trade routes, North German/Dutch Mennonites moved east through northern Germany, eventually ending up in the more tolerant Poland.694 But with the

1772 partition of Poland and the 1793 seizure of Danzig, the Vistula delta Mennonites now fell under Prussian rule. The experience of Prussia's stronger, centralized administration and developing nationalism would dramatically shape the course of

Mennonite history. In numerous ways, the emergence of modern nationalism was a challenge for Mennonites, for as modern states developed, the rights and duties of citizens - as opposed to subjects - were standardized and codified in law. The most challenging aspect of this development for traditional Mennonites was the universal requirement of military service and its linking to the rights of citizenship. Thus the history of the Mennonites in Prussia is a history of an evolving relationship within

Mennonitism itself, and with the government. Eventually Mennonites accepted military service, but not without the issue being a divisive point within the culture, and a cause for

Mennonite emigration to Russia and North America.695

The Mennonites' interaction with governing authorities in the Vistula delta was characterized by the attempts of Mennonite leaders to secure legal charters outlining

Mennonite obligations in return for exemptions from military service and other privileges. As Peter Brock has suggested, a pattern emerges throughout the interactions

694 On the importance of the Polish context see: John Friesen, "Mennonites in Poland: An Expanded Historical View", Journal of Mennonite Studies, 4 (1986), pp. 94-108. 695 Marie A. Jantzen, "At Home in Germany? The Mennonites of the Vistula Delta and the Construction of a German National Identity, 1772-1880" (Ph.D. diss., Notre Dame, 2002). 241 under the ancien regime in which exemptions were, in point of fact, purchased.

Collectively, money was paid to avoid military service. This arrangement could also

include exemptions from swearing oaths and the civil service. Perhaps most commonly, exemptions were secured through the payment of a determined fee by an individual

himself or his parents. As a final resort, an individual could hire a direct substitute to take

his place in war; however this final alternative was highly unfavourable, considered tantamount to being an accessory.696

The Mennonite practice of acquiring exemptions through payments and taxation continued under Prussian rule, lasting well into the nineteenth century. In 1780 Frederick

II granted Mennonites military exemption 'forever' in exchange for 5000 Reichsthaler

per year to fund a military academy at Culm. In fact, the tax had already been in place for a number of years; Mennonites began funding the academy in 1773, paying for the

majority of building costs and the school's budget. Payments for the school extended

until 1786 when the war ministry assumed funding, but Mennonites continued to pay for

military exemption until 1868 697

In their attempts to secure freedom of conscience and exemptions from armed service, Mennonites found themselves reacting to Prussian social changes and the direction set by the government.698 While a significant concession, the 1780 promise of

military exemption was restricted to existing members of the Mennonite church, and

696 Brock, Freedom from Violence, pp. 113-4. 697 Mark Jantzen, "Vistula Delta Mennonites Encounter Modern German Nationalism, 1813-1820", The Mennonite Quarterly Review, 78 (2) (2004), pp. 187-8; Jantzen, "At Home in Germany?", pp. 45-7. 598 Peter J. Klassen, "Faith and Culture in Conflict: Mennonites in the Vistula Delta", The Mennonite Quarterly Review, 62 (1983), p. 204. 242 could not be extended to converts. Similarly, a 1789 Royal Edict curtailed Mennonite rights, preventing Mennonites from purchasing land from non-Mennonites without government permission - which was generally not extended — and closing new membership to males. The reasons for the restrictions are understandable. As more land was owned by Mennonites in a particular region, fewer men were available to the military. Thus, non-participation came at a price. The temptation for Mennonites was that these restrictions would be rescinded with the acceptance of military service.699

Essentially Prussian Mennonites were confronted with three options: they could allow themselves to be made liable for armed service and enjoy the full rights of citizenship; they could attempt to maintain their separate status as long as possible, but at the cost of lull social participation; or they could seek religious accommodation and better economic prospects through emigration. Many Prussian Mennonites sought better fortunes in Russia.700

By 1785 Prussian Mennonites had learned of Catherine II's 1762 and 1763 invitations to foreigners to settle in Russia, which promised land, religious freedom, tax and military exemptions, and a significant measure of autonomy.701 In 1786 the prospect of Mennonite emigration increased, as they were contacted by a Russian official about settling in Russia. Not willing to sign on to the venture blindly, two Mennonite delegates toured Russia for a year, in which time they examined prospective areas for settlement

699 Jantzen, '"Whoever Will Not Defend His Homeland Should Leave It!'", p. 2; Jantzen, "At Home in Germany?", pp. 7, 129. The Edict of 1789 was clarified and amended in 1801 and 1803. 700 James Uny highlighted the important economic incentive to emigration. James Urry, None but Saints: The Transformation of Mennonite Life in Russia 1789-1889 (Winnipeg, 1989). 701 Urry, None but Saints, pp. 49-50. 243 and had personal audiences with both Potemkin and Catherine II. Their impressions were favourable, and from 1788-1789 over 200 Mennonite families left Prussia for southern

Russia.702 Emigration would remain a Mennonite strategy for survival throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

As those Mennonites remaining in the Vistula delta continued to negotiate

Prussian society, their interactions with the governing authorities were redefined to a large degree by the watershed moments of Prussian history: the war of liberation against

Napoleon, the upheavals of 1848, and the wars of unification.

Starting in December 1807, Johann Gottlieb Fichte delivered his famous

Addresses to the German Nation in French occupied Berlin. At the time, Prussia was trying to make sense of the defeat and life under occupation. In his Addresses Fichte sought the regeneration of German society - a task that could only be completed through

"the common characteristic of being German". Only the patriotic, genuine, and "self- supporting" German spirit could save the German nation from the threat of degeneration through the "fusion with foreign peoples".703 Fichte's brand of nationalism helped engender anti-foreign sentiments and pushed for a common German spirit of unity, sacrifice, and independence, so by 1813 the mood of 1806 had shifted considerably.

Amidst the patriotism and emergent nationalism of 1813, Prussia instituted universal conscription. Of significant importance to traditional Mennonitism, and in contrast to the existing pattern of securing exemptions, universal conscription placed

702 Urry, None but Saints, pp. 51-4; William I. Schreiber, The Fate of the Prussian Mennonites (Goettingen, 1955), p. 31. 703 Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Addresses to the German Nation, ed., George Armstrong Kelly (New York, 1968), p. 3. 244 greater emphasis on the individual than it did on the congregation, and necessitated individual decisions as opposed to a collective response. Moreover, as patriotism was recast as loyalty to the nation rather than to the person of the monarch, Mennonite privileges were scrutinized and criticized by their non-Mennonite neighbours, and it was questioned whether financial contributions could adequately compensate for refusing military service.704 As Mark Jantzen has argued, at this time "Mennonites' refusal to fight became the definitive reason for curtailing their civil rights, as their non-participation in warfare was tantamount to non-participation in the nation".705

Even though Frederick Wilhelm III exempted Mennonites in June 1815 from the law of the previous year making conscription permanent, the pattern was more or less set for future Mennonite responses to the prospect of military service. Increasingly

Mennonites reacted as individuals instead of corporately as congregations. Church discipline eroded, and Prussian Mennonites assimilated with the broader German

Protestant culture.706

This process of assimilation had both a pragmatic and theological component.

While Prussian Mennonites certainly did not engage in the civil life of the Vormarz period to the extent that the authorities would have liked, the inherent connection of politics and theology of the period meant that as Mennonites embraced facets of pietistic

Protestantism - which they did through a growing interest in missions work - they were

704 Jantzen, "Vistula Delta Mennonites", pp. 185-6; Jantzen, "At Home in Germany?", p. 92. 705 Jantzen, "At Home in Germany?", p. 112. 706 See: Jantzen, "Vistula Delta Mennonites". 245 changing politically as well as theologically. In short, becoming more Protestant facilitated becoming more German.

The assimilation process experienced by Prussian Mennonites was accelerated for

Mennonites elsewhere in Germany, to the point that if not already in 1830, certainly by

1848 there was no real difference between Mennonites and Protestants in north-western

Germany. Several social markers appeared in the Rhineland earlier than the Vistula delta that signalled a move away from traditional Mennonite values - mixed marriages, the university training of pastors, and the dissolution of church discipline.708

As further evidence of this change, at the 1848 Deutsche Nationalversammlung at

Frankfurt-am-Main, two Mennonites sat in parliament: Isaak Brons was appointed commissioner for marine affairs, while Hermann von Beckerath, deputy from Krefeld, was appointed finance minister. Both were liberals who had abandoned nonresistance and rejected Mennonite privileges as destructive to the national community.709 Ironically, when the proposed Frankfurt constitution did not provide for releases from universal conscription based on religious principles, it was non-Mennonite delegates from West

Prussia that appealed for a Mennonite exemption to protect their constituents, who they feared would otherwise emigrate. Contrarily, the Mennonite deputy von Beckerath gave a lengthy speech rejecting a conscientious objection clause on the grounds that select

707 Prussian Mennonites interested in evangelizing work established links with Protestant groups in the area through missions work, mission societies, and schools. This had a pietistic and conservative influence on Mennonites. Jantzen, "At Home in Germany?", p. 216. 708 Brock, Freedom from Violence, pp. 121-2; Jantzen, "At Home in Germany?", pp. 193,200. 709 Brock, Freedom from Violence, p. 125. 246 special privileges were an affront to social equality.710 The assembly's rejection of the

proposal to accommodate Mennonites died with the Parliament's failure. When a constitution was eventually enacted in January 1850, it contained a clause which allowed

Frederick Wilhelm IV to continue the Mennonite exemption. In the spirit of universal military duty, all men would be eligible for service; however, the manner of service was essentially left open to legal determination.711

The experiences of 1848 made it evident to Prussian Mennonites that their exemptions were not permanent, and the following two decades were marked by internal discussion and division, and appeals to the government.712 The Prussian political

landscape again drastically changed with Bismarck's military victories over Denmark and

Austria and the creation of the North German Confederation. In 1867 Bismarck brought a

new draft military law before parliament which proposed service exemptions for

Hohenzollerns, other ruling families, and Mennonites. While Mennonite exemptions were

rescinded, noble exemptions were passed by a majority. The law came into effect

November 9,1867, and Mennonite leaders answered by petitioning the king, Bismarck, and the war minister. On February 25, 1868 a Mennonite delegation met with the king and crown prince, and threatened emigration if concessions were not granted. Wilhelm I gave his personal assurance that the Mennonites were to be accommodated. *711

710 Brock, Freedom from Violence, pp. 126-7; John D. Thiesen, "First Duty of the Citizen: Mennonite Identity and Military Exemption in Prussia, 1848-1877", Mennonite Quarterly Review, 72 (2) (1998), p. 164. 711 Thiesen, "First Duty of the Citizen", p. 165. 712 Thiesen, "First Duty of the Citizen", pp. 166-7, 173. 713 Jantzen, "'Whoever Will Not Defend His Homeland Should Leave It!'", pp. 3-4,6; Thiesen, "First Duty of the Citizen", pp. 169-70. 247 Mennonite concessions were included in the Prussian Royal Cabinet Order of

March 3,1868, which granted Mennonites an exemption from armed service. Mennonite men who did not volunteer were still liable for service, but would be drafted as non- combatants: medics, clerks, drivers or artisans. Additional edicts were issued throughout

1868 concerning Mennonites and armed service, including provisions from November

1868 which granted a two year suspension of conscription of Mennonite men who were planning on emigrating.714

After 1868 non-participation with the military was no longer a possibility, yet in

1869 the Prussian congregations were still divided over the issue of conscription and the curtailing of civil rights.715 Along with those Mennonites seeking better economic fortunes abroad, those who could not come to terms with military service emigrated.716

This pattern of emigration not only saw a disproportionate number of congregational leaders leave, but also had the joint effect of removing the most vocal defenders of traditional Mennonitism from Prussia.717 It is not entirely surprising therefore, that the remaining congregations amended their confessions to accommodate military participation, even if not explicitly supporting it.718 Thus, in October 1870, amidst the

714 Brock, Freedom from Violence, pp. 134-5; Thiesen, "First Duty of the Citizen", p. 171 715 Mennonite congregations were not legally recognized until 1874, and not all Mennonites were fully immune from paying Protestant church taxes until the 1920s. Jantzen, '"Whoever Will Not Defend His Homeland Should Leave It!'", p. 8. 716 Significant numbers of Mennonites left the Vistula delta in the 1860s, 1870s and 1880s for Russia and later the U.S.A. 717 Thiesen, "First Duty of the Citizen", pp. 166-7; for emigration numbers see: Schreiber, The Fate of the Prussian Mennonites, p. 31. 71S Jantzen, "At Home in Germany?", p. 355. 248 nationalism of the Franco-Prussian war, the Danzig congregation rewrote its confession to reflect the changing climate:

Therefore we refrain now from passing a binding and obligatory regulation concerning participating in military service and amending our existing confession on this point, we unite in leaving each one of our brethren free to decide in his conscience before God in what manner and to what degree it is permissible for him to submit to the government's demands. At the same time, however, we declare that we regard it as most suited to the character of our community when our members participate in military service only as drivers, attendants in military hospitals, clerks, or artisans.719

Given the fact that Mennonite congregations that did not emigrate and remained in Germany altered their confessions to provide a space for military participation, it may not be evident why a comparison of Mennonite theology to mainline Protestantism is warranted. However, even though Mennonites in Germany had largely assimilated their theological views - and in particular abandoned nonresistance - by 1848 and certainly

1870, there is still an important history to be told based on the fact that Mennonites still self-identified as Mennonites and as a free church, and still had important decisions to make through the 1930s and 1940s. The fact that Mennonites did not join mainline

Protestant churches was not an accident. Although the cost of remaining a free church certainly lessened - Mennonites still had to pay the costs of running their own churches but were legally recognized and no longer paid Protestant church taxes - Mennonites clearly chose to uphold their distinctiveness within German Protestantism. They maintained their own congregations, social organizations, and periodicals. Moreover, there was continued conversation from the pulpit and in print about the Mennonite

719 Quoted in Brock, Pacifism in Europe to 1914, p. 429. 249 theological heritage, so that even though this tradition was largely abandoned by many quarters, it continued to define the community to a point. Significantly, Benjamin H.

Unruh regularly appealed to the Mennonite heritage as he negotiated the years following

1914, and eventually the Third Reich.

The destruction of the Mennonite commonwealth.

Benjamin Heinrich Unruh was born September 4,1881 in Timir-Bulat on the

Crimean Peninsula, a descendant of Mennonites who had originally left the

Netherlands/low German regions and migrated through the Vistula delta and the

Brandenburg Neumark to southern Russia.720 Unruh was the ninth child born to Elizabeth

(nee Wall) and Heinrich B. Unruh, a farmer and pastor in the Mennonite church. Heinrich died when Benjamin was only two, leaving the responsibility for Benjamin's education to his mother. After an abortive start at the elementary school in Timir-Bulat, Unruh's mother placed him in his grandfather's custody for the next three school years as he prepared for the Zentralschule. While studying at the Zentralschule Unruh once again lived with relatives, this time with an uncle who taught at the school; however the cost of

Unruh's placement was covered by a Mennonite benefactor, H. Cornies.

Upon successfully completing his studies at the Zentralschule, Unruh expressed his desire to pursue theology and German studies in Basel. At the insistence of his uncle,

Unruh postponed studying abroad and first attended the teachers' seminar in Halbstadt,

720 There is some discrepancy over Unruh's exact date of birth because of the difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars. Unruh himself gave the date September 4, 1881 in his Lebenslauf. Benjamin H. Unruh Collection, Box 7, File 36, Mennonitische Forschungsstelle. [Hereafter MFS] 250 where H. Cornies again covered his expenses. However, because of personal financial problems, Cornies was unable to further subsidize Unruh's education as she had promised. In her stead, Unruh received a stipend from three land owning members of the

Mennonite community to study in Switzerland for seven years. In Basel Unruh studied at the Evangelisches Predigerseminar and took his Abitur examinations before starting at the university. Unruh received his licentiate of theology from Basel after completing his dissertation "Z)/e Kommentare des Herveus Burgidolensis", in which he examined whether Burgidolensis in fact wrote the mediaeval Latin commentaries attributed to him.721

Unruh's formal education is significant because it positioned him within a small minority of Russian Mennonites who had received university training abroad. Beyond the theology distilled through Mennonite pastors and teachers, Unruh received a rigorous and

Tyy thoroughly Protestant education. It is therefore equally significant that Unruh brought his education and European experiences back to the Mennonite colonies.

Upon completing his degree at Basel in 1907, and turning down an offer to stay on as a lecturer at the seminary, Unruh returned to southern Russia with his new wife, where he completed further training and eventually began teaching in two Mennonite

721 For details of Unruh's early life see: Heinrich B. Unruh, Fiigung und Fiihrungen: Benjamin Heinrich Unruh 1881-1959. Ein Leben im Geiste christlicher Humanitdt und im Dienste der Ndchstenliebe (Detmold, 2009), pp. 4-72; Jakob Warkentin, "Benjamin Heinrich Unruh: Teacher, Scholar, Statesman 1881-1959", trans. Victor G. Doerksen in Hariy Loewen, ed., Shepherds, Servants and Prophets: Leadership Among the Russian Mennonites (ca 1800-1960) (Kitchener, 2003), pp. 402-3. 722 Eduard Riggenbach was a particularly strong influence on Unruh at Basel. Warkentin, "Benjamin Heinrich Unruh", p. 403. Compared to the surrounding population, Mennonite levels of education were quite high. Roughly 300 students were enrolled in higher education in 1920, SO of them abroad. Frank H. Epp, Mennonites in Canada 1920-1940: A People's Struggle for Survival (Toronto, 1982), p. 141. 251 schools in Halbstadt. Unruh's time studying and teaching replaced the alternate service demanded of Mennonites by the government, and Unruh continued this 'idyllic' life until

1914.723

As it was for Hirsch and Barth, 1914 was of tremendous importance for Unruh.

Whereas Hirsch was enthralled by the German nationalism engendered by the call to arms, Unruh's position in 1914 more closely resembles Barth's. Barth was utterly disillusioned by the socialist response to war, and felt betrayed by contemporary theology and his theological teachers. While Unruh's theological-political moorings were not destroyed during the war as Barth's were, Unruh nonetheless envisioned the difficulties the Russian Germans were to face, in particular the Mennonites.724 If Barth's worldview was shaken by 1914, so too was the peaceful Mennonite 'commonwealth' in southern

Russia.

The large degree of autonomy afforded the Mennonites had allowed their colonies to develop into a virtual Mennonite state within the Russian empire: self-governed on the local level, practicing their distinct form of Christianity and speaking their own German dialect, remaining largely separate from their neighbours, and engaging in successful and innovative agricultural practices. This Mennonite way of life was gravely threatened by the war and eventually destroyed by repercussions of the Bolshevik revolution.

723 Unruh's son describes his life leading up to 1914 as "idyllic". H. Unruh, Fugung undFiihrungen, p. 95. 724 H. Unruh, Fugung und Fiihrungen, p. 95. The Mennonite population in Ukraine was approaching 100,000 in 1914. Paul Robert Magocsi, A History of Ukraine (Toronto, 1996), p. 346. 725 Magocsi, A History of Ukraine, pp. 345-6; Uny, None but Saints, p. 24. James Urry has demonstrated that over time, as religious structures no longer determined social relationships, or cultural and economic interactions, "Mennonite communities became more open and worldly". Urry, None but Saints, p. 22. 252 The Russian war effort against the Central Powers was hampered by the ineptitude of its autocratic government, its poorly supplied and inefficiently utilized armed forces, and the economy's incapacity to sustain a prolonged modern war. And even though to a significant degree the Mennonites pictured themselves a people apart, their identification as German by the Tsarist government brought the war into the colonies. If the Mennonites in southern Russia had not previously been overly concerned with questions about their ethnic or racial origins, the continued governmental attempts at their russification certainly brought these issues to the fore. These questions were raised all the more earnestly as legislation was implemented during the war that aimed at eradicating German influence within the empire, most significantly the land liquidation laws of 1915.726

In February and December 1915 the Russian government put forward legislation for the appropriation of property belonging to 'enemy aliens'. This would particularly affect Germans in the empire. Of specific importance, the Mennonites petitioned these laws claiming they were in fact of Dutch ancestry, however abandoning this line almost instantly in 1918 to claim German heritage when German troops occupied the colonies.727

The appeal to Dutch ethnicity made sense, and Mennonites sent thousands of petitions to

726 Abraham Friesen, In Defense of Privilege: Russian Mennonites and the State before and during World War I (Winnipeg, 2006), p. ix. 727 See: Friesen, In Defense of Privilege. Mennonite appeals to Dutch heritage occurred again after the Second World War as a means of facilitating immigration to North America and avoiding charges of collaboration with National Socialism. See for example: T.D. Regehr, "Of Dutch or German Ancestry? Mennonite Refugees, MCC, and the International Refugee Organization", Journal of Mennonite Studies, 13 (1995), pp. 7-25; Steve Schroeder, "Mennonite-Nazi Collaboration and Coming to Terms With the Past: European Mennonites and the MCC, 1945-1950", The Conrad Grebel Review, 21 (2), 2003, pp. 6-16; Frank H. Epp, Mennonite Exodus: The Rescue and Resettlement of the Russian Mennonites Since the Communist Revolution (Altona, 1962). 253 the government in 1915 and 1916 claiming Dutch ancestry.728 On the one hand it was a practical attempt to safeguard Mennonite property from expropriation and to diffuse anti-

Germanic sentiments fostered by the war. In terms of historical accuracy, most

Mennonites in southern Russia had originated from the Netherlands/low German regions, but the fact that they had obviously acculturated in Prussia was evident by their command of literary German. Thus Mennonites distinguished between a Dutch ancestry and

German culture.729 As it became clear that there was more to be gained by being German,

Mennonites quickly abandoned the Dutch argument.

When German troops entered the Molotschna colony in April 1918, they were seen as saviours from Red Army and anarchist terrorizing, and instituted a restoration of sorts.730 However, the German restitution of Mennonite property and the obvious preferential treatment given them came at the expense of their non-Mennonite neighbours

- neighbours already resentful of Mennonite prosperity which was largely indifferent to, or even exploitative of the rural population. After the last German troops left the

Mennonite colonies in November 1918, Mennonite sympathies became highly problematic. Moreover, the fact that Mennonites participated in Selbstschutz groups

728 Friesen, In Defense of Privilege, p. 250. Mennonites were eventually exempted from the liquidation acts by the Ministry of Justice in December 1916. James Urry, "Mennonites, Nationalism and the State in Imperial Russia", Journal of Mennonite Studies, 12 (1994), pp. 80-1. 729 Urry, "Mennonites, Nationalism and the State in Imperial Russia", p. 82. 730 John B. Toews, Czars, Soviets & Mennonites (Newton, 1982), p. 81. 254 trained by the Germans to defend the colonies, and then sided with the White army

•71| further aroused local hatreds.

After the First World War ended the situation in the Mennonite colonies got no better, as they were not immune to anti-German measures, the continued violence, brutality, and lawlessness during the civil war. Ukraine was of strategic importance both because of its resources and geographic location, and as a result, the region was fiercely fought over. The chaos of the civil war as it played out in Ukraine has led Orest Subtelny to conclude that "in the modern history of Europe no country experienced such complete anarchy, bitter civil strife, and total collapse of authority as did Ukraine at this time".732

Unruh describes the situation thus:

The prohibition of the German language, of German preaching, the closing of the German press, of German clubs, the closing or russification of German schools and other centers of German culture, the evacuations, deportations and arrests, and the confusion and terror of the civil war, the famine and the plagues, the tribulations of all sorts, and many-sided death and ruin - that has been since 1914 the fate of the German colonist in Russia. It is easy to understand that this tragic situation compelled the colonists to re-examine their own situation and that it above everything fed the desire to emigrate.733

This desire to emigrate intensified as the situation under communist rule worsened.

Several factors converged within the emigration process itself to heighten a

Mennonite sense of being German. The collapse of the Tsarist government destroyed the prospect of further Mennonite autonomy and brought the wealthy Mennonite colonies

731 Epp, Mennonites in Canada, p. 144; Friesen, In Defense of Privilege, pp. 279-81. Mennonite participation in the self-defence units was a contentious issue within the colonies. See: Toews, Czars, Soviets & Mennonites pp. 83-92. 732 Orest Subtelny, Ukraine: A History (Toronto, 1994), pp. 355, 359. 733 Benjamin H. Unruh, "The Background and Causes of the Flight of the Mennonites from Russia in 1929", Mennonite Quarterly Review, 4 (1930), p. 267. It is significant that Unruh here included the Mennonite experience within that of the wider German population. 255 under harsh scrutiny. However in the power vacuum left by the fall of the monarchy and the chaos that ensued, the German army had provided a brief period of restoration, and this experience had reoriented Mennonite thinking in terms of their ethnic origins.

Russian Mennonites looked to Germany as a potential place of emigration since the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The treaty allowed for German repatriation within ten years, and in 1918 Unruh was one of three delegates sent to Berlin to investigate the possibility of Mennonite resettlement in Germany. Given the political and economic upheaval, it became evident that large scale emigration was impossible at the time.734 However a little over a decade later, Russian Mennonites again looked to Germany as a saviour during an episode which was to have a profound and lasting impact on Mennonite perceptions of

Germany.

By 1929 a steady flow of Mennonite emigrants had been leaving the Soviet

Union for Canada for a number of years, a total of nearly 19,000 from 1923 to 1929.

However the numbers had dropped off considerably after 1926, as it became harder to gain permission to leave.735 In 1929 Soviet authorities further clamped down on religion; churches and monasteries were closed, clergy persecuted, and Sunday was made into a work day. The regime's growing anticlericalism augmented Mennonite fears about their autonomy. Mennonite problems were already compounding, and there was a sense of desperation in the colonies under the pressures of collectivization, the removal of grain, threats of deportation, and tightening restrictions on exit visas.

734 Epp, Mennonite Exodus, p. 44. 735 For emigration statistics see: Epp, Mennonites in Canada, p. 178. 256 Encouraged by emerging reports of the successful emigration of roughly 70

Siberian Mennonite families that had moved to Moscow to obtain exit visas, aspiring emigrants, including Mennonites from colonies across the Soviet Union, flocked to

Moscow starting in September 1929, eventually totalling 900 families.736 The scenario turned into a logistical nightmare: the Mennonite refugees all wanted to go to Canada, but the Canadian government needed to be convinced to allow them entry. More immediately, the refugees needed food and shelter.

The Mennonites themselves petitioned agencies and government officials in

Moscow, importantly including the German embassy. Things began to move in the

Mennonites' direction when an attache to the embassy drew the attention of German and

American journalists to the situation unfolding in Moscow. The state of affairs was particularly interesting both because the Mennonite refugees were 'German,' and because it put the Soviet regime in a potentially embarrassing situation, confronted with the question of whether it would suppress its citizens or allow them to leave.

Alongside the appeals of the refugees themselves, Unruh was earnestly advocating on their behalf. Unruh had been informed of the situation early on, and petitioned the German government and Foreign Ministry. Unruh was also appealing to religious and relief organizations, successfully involving Briider in Not, an umbrella relief agency incorporating several organizations, which depicted its involvement as an

736 The original families spent 6 months working toward exit visas in Moscow before receiving them, and were allowed to leave perhaps in an attempt to avoid the episode's escalation and possible negative international attention to the regime. At the height of the episode there were roughly 13,000 people seeking to leave the country temporarily settled surrounding Moscow. For details of the episode see: Epp, Mennonite Exodus, pp. 230-9; Friesen, In Defense of Privilege, pp. 308-13. 257 appeal to Germans to aid fellow Germans. It appeared as if the refugees would need to be temporarily placed in Germany before they could continue to a final destination. The challenge then was to get Germany to accept them.

Beyond the welfare agencies and private contributions, in November 1929 the

German government took up the matter, and debated the amount of funds to allocate and the number of refugees to accept. Ultimately, Reich President von Hindenburg - also the honorary president of the German Red Cross - personally donated 200,000 RM. A

6,000,000 RM loan was pledged by the government, and considerable funds were contributed by private citizens. The German funds allowed 5,671 refugees to enter

Germany in December, out of the 13,000 refugees in Moscow's suburbs, many of whom were forcibly sent back. Of these 5,671, nearly 4,000 were Mennonites. The refugees were housed in camps in Germany - Hammerstein, Molln, and Prenzlau - until they were eventually resettled in North and South America, and Europe. T\*l

Significantly, the Russian Mennonites did not know the extent of the debate within the German government regarding the status of the refugees, or the fact that its contributions had not been the result of enthusiastic magnanimity. Similarly, Mennonites did not know the extent of the petitioning done by Unruh in Germany, or the mobilization of the press and the effects of these efforts. Of particular importance, the Mennonites did know that Hindenburg had given a considerable sum, as had the government.738

Consequently, their rescue had a considerable effect on tightening both the dispersed

737 Some refugees remained in M5lln until 1932. Epp, Mennonite Exodus, pp. 236, 239. 738 Friesen, In Defense of Privilege, p. 312. 258 Russian Mennonite population's connection to Germany and the loyalty of German

Mennonites who appreciated the efforts on behalf of their coreligionists.739 It appeared that while the world had abandoned them to the harshness of the first Five Year Plan and the systematic attacks against Kulaks, Germany had offered relief.

By the time of the 'flight to Moscow', Unruh had already been involved in

Mennonite emigration for a decade. From 1917 Unruh represented Mennonite interests in various capacities in Russia740; however it soon became clear that Mennonite religious and economic autonomy were threatened by communism, and many Mennonites favoured emigration over remaining in the colonies.741 In December 1919 Unruh had joined the newly created Studienkommission, which was sent out from the Russian

739 In certain respects the flight from the Soviet Union was understood apocalyptically by Mennonite refugees. In an artistic tribute to American Mennonites for their involvement in their rescue, the 'Fluchtlinge' graphically depicted their escape as a train of corpse-like figures fleeing a monstrous hammer and sickle wielding skeleton. The train of people sweeps through a grave yard and out of the skeleton's grasp, towards a city shining in the light. The city is illuminated by the German eagle, the light radiating from a cross centred on its chest. The inscription on the piece reads:Was ihr einem unter diesen me inert geringsten Briidern getan habt, das habt ihr mir getan'. Matth. 24 Er wird es vergelten; das ist unser Gebet u. Glauber A similar tribute was also sent to Canadian Mennonites. Photographs of the artwork are in the Mennonite Central Committee Photograph Collection, Mennonite Church USA Archives. IX-13.21 4/1 MCC Photographs Russia - Emigration to Paraguay (2). The German Mennonite perspective is demonstrated by Christian NefF in the Mennonitische Blatter, 12 (1929), p. 106. 740 Unruh was one of three chairmen of the All-Russian Mennonite Congress which met in 1917 and initiated a central office (Mennozentrum). Unruh was also chosen as a Mennonite representative to the National Assembly. Frank Epp has referred to the Mennonite Congress as the "equivalent of a Mennonite parliament". Epp, Mennonite Exodus, p. 40. 41 Writing in 1917, Unruh predicted that the ramifications of the Russian revolutions would entail a "sudden and tragic break" with the Mennonite past. Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Die Wehrlosigkeit. Vortrag gehalten auf der Allgemeinen Mennonitischen Konferenz am 7. Juni 1917", Mennonitische Rundschau. July 7, 1926, p. 11. The impact on the broader Mennonite community weighed on Unruh, as did his personal experiences. Unruh's house was searched in 1918, his neighbour and colleague murdered, and Red Army troops were quartered in the family house in 1920. H. Unruh, Fiigung und Fuhrungen, pp. 124-5, 149-50. 259 colonies with the purposes of portraying their horrible conditions, encouraging and coordinating aid from Mennonites abroad, and finding suitable areas for resettlement.742

The timing of the commission's departure and length of its travel are crucial, for despite intentions of returning to Ukraine, Unruh learned on November 1,1920 that he had been denaturalized by the regime, along with all Russian citizens abroad. Moreover, an independent Ukraine no longer existed.743 Unruh therefore remained in Germany, where he continued his vast relief work, and assumed a teaching career at the Karlsruhe

Technische Hochschule.

Without recounting the detailed history of Unruh's tireless relief work in North

America and Europe, his coordination with numerous agencies and organizations to provide aid and facilitate emigration, and appeals to governments on behalf of his coreligionists, it is important to note the intersecting themes that eventually drew him closer - both in terms of his sympathies and the location of his relief work - to the

National Socialist regime.744 Physically Unruh was now located in Germany, and the nature of his work necessitated some degree of interaction with government. Moreover,

Unruh became party to the historically complicated German Mennonite relationship to the state, which culminated in its relationship to National Socialism. Intellectually and politically, Unruh's attraction to National Socialism stemmed from his fierce anticommunism brought about by the destruction of the Russian Mennonite

742 H. Unruh, Fiigung und Fuhrungen, pp. 192, 198; Epp, Mennonites in Canada, p. 147. 743 Unruh was carrying a Ukrainian passport in 1919/20. 744 For the details of Unruh's extensive relief work see: H. Unruh, Fiigung und Fuhrungen. See also: John B. Toews, Lost Fatherland: The Story of the Mennonite Emigration from Soviet Russia, 1921-1927 (Vancouver, 1967). 260 commonwealth, his theological understanding of Hitler's role in history, and his long­ time convictions about Mennonitism's inherent Germanic nature.

Anticommunism and Germanic identity.

Discussing "The Background and Causes of the Flight of the Mennonites from

Russia in 1929", Unruh put forward that there had already been voices within the colonies before 1914 suggesting that the time had come for the Mennonites to quit

Russia. Yet despite what in retrospect may be considered the clairvoyant perspective of a minority, real talk of emigration was the result of the First World War and its aftermath,

"the great physical and moral distress in which the German colonists in general and the

Mennonites in particular found themselves".745

In his analysis of the 'flight', Unruh sought to establish both the long range

political and economic factors contributing to the exodus as well as its "more immediate"

political and religious causes. Ultimately, according to Unruh, the colonists were

confronted with a "triple question of existence, - economical, national, and religio- ethical".746 It is of particular significance that Unruh continued both to emphasize the religious component of the Mennonite decision to emigrate, and to link the Mennonites to the broader German colonist population.

As Unruh outlined, economically war and revolution had proven disastrous for the colonists. As the property of large landowners was expropriated, it was placed under the

745 Unruh, "The Background and Causes", p. 267. 746 Unruh, "The Background and Causes", p. 268. 261 supervision of managers incapable of properly running it. With next to no agricultural knowledge these supervisors had allowed farms, livestock and production to quickly deteriorate, to say nothing of the lives of the former landowners. Moreover, on those farms left in the hands of "peasants", the work was similarly "hamstrung" because of the shortage of horses and other livestock requisitioned because of the civil war, insufficient machinery and parts, and shortages of seed grain. Shortages and mismanagement, in conjunction with taxes and forced payments in kind had "robbed" the colonists of their livelihoods and pushed them towards emigration as a means of survival.747

Unruh continued by citing the history of anti-Germanic sentiments both at the governmental and local level. Amongst other recurring accusations, the colonists had been repeatedly censured for failing to fulfill their "duty as citizens". Unruh asserted that this was a dubious charge, especially given that upon their invitation to Russia, no mention had been made of these obligations. Moreover, Unruh maintained that the charge itself was fundamentally flawed. Put simply, there were no citizens under Russian absolutism, only subjects of the Tsar.748

In terms of further accusations that the colonists had not bettered the peasantry, had remained unassimilated, and had received special privileges, Unruh countered by assigning blame for the peasantry's lack of improvement to the institution of serfdom. He continued by agreeing that the colonists had not assimilated, but maintained that neither the government nor the Orthodox church had wanted their assimilation. The colonists had

747 Unruh, "The Background and Causes", pp. 268-9. 748 Unruh, "The Background and Causes", p. 271. 262 come to the empire on the understanding that they would remain separate, and as such

received the special privileges without which "Russia as a cultureless, backward country

would never have received these foreign settlers within her borders". Unruh continued by

suggesting that in actuality, the privileges were nothing beyond what was needed for their

survival. Moreover, the obligatory forestry service rendered by the colonists compensated

for the military exemption completely, and greatly benefited the state.749

In fact, Unruh asserted that the German colonization of the territory in the south,

newly acquired by the empire, was a significant contribution. By means of example, the colonists demonstrated the value of industriousness and community organization.

German colonists also introduced innovative and superior farming practices and breeding techniques which positively influenced the local agriculture and the economy. Beyond these "indirect influences" the colonists attempted education projects for the local

inhabitants - which Unruh admitted were not on a large enough scale - and benefited the

local population through their taxes, charity work and hospitals.750

Even if the colonists were a benefit, Unruh acknowledged the social antipathy that

existed between the colonists and their non-Mennonite neighbours, an antipathy fostered

in part from each direction: Russian jealousy and colonist pride. These latent misgivings

were obviously exacerbated by the war. Against the backdrop of these long term causes

749 Unruh, "The Background and Causes", p. 271. 750 Unruh, "The Background and Causes", pp. 272-3. According to Unruh, "The colonists were also the best tax payers..." p. 273. 263 for Mennonite emigration Unruh highlighted its immediate impetuses: the total

ne i breakdown of religious and economic freedom.

As far as Unruh was concerned "all the conflict, contradiction, and dishonesty of the Soviet policy" stemmed from the fact that the system was founded on the mutually incompatible ideals of world revolution and domestic reconstruction. The latter was continuously impeded by the massive amounts of resources demanded by the former.752

According to Unruh, one of the consequences of the 'flight' was that it thoroughly embarrassed the Soviet regime by revealing the realities of its inherently flawed system.

Those colonists that did not make it out had since been forced to suffer the reprisals of the regime as it had again cracked down on those that remained.

Unlike the predictions of foreign observers who figured that Soviet communism was moderating to accommodate aspects of a free market system, Unruh maintained that

Bolshevism was experiencing a "second youth". For Unruh, the reason Bolshevism was not backing down, and in fact could not back down, was that "Bolshevism is a religion, an ecstatic religion, which is not ready to disavow itself. Like the great world religions it claims absolute validity".753 More specific to its current manifestation, "To Stalin, the machine is God. The high point in the idolatry of Stalin is the worship of the tractor. The subject of this religion is the 'Massenmensch', mass humanity".754 Accordingly, as the

751 Unruh, "The Background and Causes", p. 274. Unruh noted the improved situation under Lenin's New Economic Policy and the reversal of fortunes beginning again in 1926. 752 Unruh, "The Background and Causes", pp. 274-5. 753 Unruh, "The Background and Causes", p. 275. 754 Unruh, "The Background and Causes", p. 278. This is similar to Unruh's depiction of Marx's belief, whereby "man becomes simply a segment of a great de-personalized mass, simply an existence". Benjamin 264 farmers were converted to a form of agrarian-industrial workers they were melded into a

classless, essentially undifferentiated (except in function) proletariat with "no

personalities anymore, only atoms and groups of atoms, reactions of the elements, a great

physical, chemical process, without soul, without God, without eternity, without

conscience and responsibility".755

Thus even as he outlined the harsh economic conditions facing the colonists,

including the vindictive policies aimed against them, and the campaign to destroy the

Kulaks through their financial ruin and deportation, Unruh maintained that "Above everything else, however, especially for the Mennonites the most powerful factor in

promoting the emigration was the fear of the 'commune of the godless'".756

Central to Unruh's understanding of Marxism, more so than its economic

formulations, was its antipathy to Christian religion. Beyond antagonism, Marxism was antithetical to Christianity, supplanting the fundamentals of the Christian framework with

its own eschatological understanding of human history.757 In Russia theoretical Marxism

had become a reality in Soviet atheism and materialism, and had proven fundamentally incapable of coexisting with other worldviews, destroying all that opposed it. According to Unruh, this antithesis between communism and Christianity "/s the ultimate meaning of what is happening in Russia today".758

H. Unruh, "The Background and Causes of the Flight of the Mennonites from Russia in 1929. IF', Mennonite Quarterly Review, 4 (1930), p. 29. 755 Unruh, "The Background and Causes", p. 278. 756 Unruh, "The Background and Causes", p. 281. 757 Unruh, "The Background and Causes, II", pp. 29-30. 758 Unruh, "The Background and Causes, II", p. 30. Italics in original. 265 From the communist perspective religion was a tool for enslavement, both numbing and addicting the masses.759 But this, according to Unruh, was not the extent of communism's antithesis to Christianity, for more than merely opposing the institution of

Christian religion, communism opposed its ethical content, replacing it with a class ethic in which the good was determined by its relation to the needs of the proletariat. Whereas

Christianity's centre is the reconciliation of humanity to God, thereby fully expressing human personality as it was designed, communism according to Unruh, attempted to destroy the individual personality replacing it with a group identity.760 Given its animosity to religion, it is little surprise that the regime sought both religion's intellectual and material destruction.

Psychologically, Unruh asserted that Bolshevism sought to destroy Christianity by supplanting its moral code and ethical system through the spread of atheistic beliefs: "the propaganda of the godless". Concretely, Bolshevism waged its attack on Christianity through widespread anticlericalism, persecuting clergy, and closing religious institutions and organizations. These measures were carried out "by law, by terror, and by systematic disintegration", and left Mennonites with few options outside of emigrating.761

739 "Religion is viewed as a poison, an opiate, a narcotic, a pest, to say nothing of the fact that it is also a fraud, an idiotic spiritual disease". Unruh, "The Background and Causes, II", p. 31. 760 Unruh, "The Background and Causes, IF, p. 35. 761 Unruh, "The Background and Causes, IF, pp. 36,41. Unruh's opposition to Bolshevism remained constant through his later writings, and he later expanded on its attempt to root out Christianity. According to Unruh, Bolshevism was much more than a social-economic experiment; it was an indoctrinating programme. Moreover, as Unruh understood it, Bolshevism's great emphasis on education was an integral component of its attempt to create a new godless society and world beyond economic-material relations. See: "Der Bolshevismus und die Christuskirche", Gemeindeblatt der Mennoniten, 5 (1933), pp. 22-3; 6 (1933), pp. 27-8. 266 At the time of Unruh's writing he was not only describing the circumstances leading to the 'flight' but also the terrible conditions under which his coreligionists were still trapped. Given Unruh's personal experiences; his relocation to, and identification with, Germany; the lasting impression caused by the German involvement in rescuing

Mennonites; and Unruh's personal identification of the root cause of the Russian

Mennonite catastrophe as atheistic communism; it is little surprise that the themes of nationalism and ethnicity, and eventually the lure of National Socialism became entangled with Unruh's Mennonitism.

To a considerable extent anticommunist sentiments connected to Unruh's developing self-perception of being German, a perception shared by many Russian

Mennonites. In his depiction of the colonists' trials under communist rule, Unruh identified the Mennonites with the broader German colonist population, discussing the group as an entirety, and distinguishing it from the other local populations. This argument is consistent with the position Unruh took during the First World War when Mennonite colonists petitioned the Russian government claiming to be of Dutch ancestry.

As early as 1914 the politicized argument was mobilized in the Russian

Mennonite colonies that the Mennonites were ethnically Dutch. Prominent in this line of reasoning were the documents Kto takie Mennonity (Who are the Mennonites?) and

"Questions of Mennonite Origins", which featured prominently in the Mennonite campaign against Russian land expropriation measures. To a large degree Unruh's considerable body of scholarly work investigating Mennonite origins was a response to the wartime assertion that the Mennonites were Dutch. 267 Despite strong evidence to the contrary, Unruh maintained that the majority of

Mennonites in the Russian colonies did not support the use of the Dutch argument. In keeping with his convictions, after the April 1917 meeting in Moscow of the Congress of

Germans in Russia, where the debate over the Dutch argument again surfaced, Unruh devoted himself to his own study of Prussian/Russian Mennonite ethnicity.763 The culmination of Unruh's efforts was the eventual publication of his substantial work Die niederltindisch-niederdeutschen Hintergrunde der mennonitischen Ostwanderungen im

16., 18. und 19. Jahrhundert He also engaged in a lengthy discussion in German language Mennonite periodicals published in Canada, Der Bote and Mennonitische

Rundschau, where the series "Vorfragen zur wissenschaftlichen Klarung der Herkunft des russlanddeutschen Mennonitentums" appeared in instalments over several years from

1935.

Essentially Unruh argued that the Mennonites were (and remained) German, and had been Germanized further, engaging in a detailed historical study including an

762 Friesen, In Defense of Privilege, p. 232. Returning to the topic in 1936, Unruh asserted that the petitions during the land liquidation process represented the "krasseste BlutsstandpunkT, and he denied that there was a consensus over the Dutch arguments' usage. Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Praktische Fragen", Der Bote, Nov.4, 1936, p. l;Nov. 11,1936,p. 1. As Friesen has demonstrated, there was a more or less general consensus before 1914 that the roots of Prussian Mennonitism were Dutch. This consensus deteriorated in the wake of the events of the 1929 flight and the National Socialist ascendancy. Friesen, In Defense of Privilege, p. 307. Even though Mennonites embraced their Germanic connections during the German occupation, the pragmatic use of the Dutch argument was not abandoned. In April 1922 Soviet authorities granted a charter to the Union of Citizens of Dutch Ancestry, which was organized as an attempt at establishing an umbrella organization for Mennonite concerns in the colonies. Ironically - because of Unruh's participation - the Studienkommission claimed Dutch origins in order to travel, and when contacting foreign government officials in 1920 and 1921. Regardless of his association with the use of the argument, Unruh constantly asserted the Germanic roots of Mennonitism. Epp, Mennonites in Canada, pp. 148-9; Friesen, In Defense of Privilege, pp. 284-6; H. Unruh, Fiigung und Fiihrungen, p. 104. 763 Friesen, In Defense of Privilege, p. 251; H. Unruh, Fiigung und Fiihrungen, pp. 112-3. 764 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, Die niederldndisch-niederdeutschen Hintergrunde der mennonitischen Ostwanderungen im 16., 18. und 19. Jahrhundert (Karlsruhe, 1955). 268 investigation of Prussian Mennonite surnames to determine their region of origin.765

Unruh concluded that the majority of Prussian Mennonites migrated from the

"niederlandisch-niederdeutschen Raum". Most importantly, Unruh asserted that

Anabaptism in the Netherlands was predominantly Frisian, for according to Unruh, East

Friesland - where other Anabaptists from German areas congregated - could not rightly be said to have been Dutch.766

In and of itself Unruh's contention that the Prussian Mennonites originally were

Frisian and therefore Germanic is not problematic outside of its questionable historical and ethnographical accuracy. Unruh's arguments gain considerable significance because of their context - the fact that he began publishing his findings widely under the clearly volkisch National Socialist regime, aligning in many ways with the focus of Nazi ancestral research.768

765 Unruh, Die niederlandisch-niederdeutschen Hintergriinde, p. 2. Unruh discusses the Russian Mennonite heritage as an extension of the Prussian Mennonites. 766 Unruh, Die niederlandisch-niederdeutschen Hintergriinde, pp. 2,41. Unruh maintained that "die eigentliche Schlagader der niederlSndischen Taufbewegung der ersten Zeit lag in den Gebieten mit uberwiegend friesischer BevSlkerung". pp. 41,46. Unruh examined the "Germanic tribes" from the low German/Netherlands: "the Middle and Lower Franks (the kingdom of the Franks), the Lower Saxons and especially the Frisians". Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Dutch Backgrounds of Mennonite Migration of the 16,h Century to Prussia", Mennonite Quarterly Review, 10, (1936), p. 174. 767 For a critique of Unruh's arguments see: Friesen, In Defense of Privilege, pp. 338-44; and Johan Sjouke Postma, Das niederlandische Erbe der preussisch-russldndischen Mennoniten in Europa, Asien und Amerika (Leeuwarden, 1959). 768 Unruh's research also has unfortunate parallels with crassly vdlkisch Mennonite thought. As an example, in 1936 Unruh provided a favourable review of Heinrich H. Schroder's book Russlanddeutsche Friesen: "Bucherbesprechungen", Mennonitische Blotter, July 1936, pp. S6-7. Indicative of his tone, Schroder argued that: "Wir erwachten Russlanddeutschen friesischen Stammes stehen auf dem Boden der nationalsozialistischen Weltanschauung, stehen auf dem Boden eines vOlkischen Realismus, und wollen uns immer mehr zu einer wahren Gemeinschaft nationalsozialistischer KSmpfer etwickeln. Wir erstreben die Einheit zwischen der russlandfriesischen Stammesgruppe, dem ostfriesischen Stamme und der deutschen Nation, aber nicht eine im liberalistischen Sinne konstruierte, sondern nur die im nationalsozialistischen Sinne organisch gewachsene Einheit! Indem wir als Nationalsozialisten seit Jahren fttr die Ehre und Freiheit des gesamten Deutschtums kimpfen, denken wir auch an die Zukunft unserer so schwer geprOften russlanddeutschen Volksgruppe, deren grosse Tragik in dem einen Satze Theodor Storms 269 Although limited in scope, Unruh himself subscribed to a volkisch understanding of history. It was therefore of importance for Unruh to situate Christians within their concrete circumstances. Each individual is a part of a family, and ultimately part of a

Volk. Thus the Christian has ethical obligations to God and his or her fellow citizen within a concrete situation.769 Significantly, and appealing to natural revelation, Unruh understood God to be the Lord of nature, history and the congregation. God acts in history and is made known through history, in both law and grace. As to not extend

Unruh's acceptance of natural revelation too far, it is important to note that Unruh did not separate revelation from the gospel, as he maintained that God is ultimately understood in nature and history through the gospel. Nevertheless, Unruh concluded that it is possible to "uncover God's footprints" in the history of national communities (Volkern).770

As Unruh understood God, God is more akin to an artist than a crafts-worker. God did not merely fashion the world, but has endowed it with beauty and character. In short, there is uniqueness in creation. This uniqueness extends also to national communities, which Unruh asserted display specific physiognomies and qualities. It therefore followed for Unruh that Christianity was neither to denigrate outer volkisch characteristics nor deny natural distinctives, since these exemplify the creativeness of God.771

enthalten ist: 'Kein Mann gedeiht ohne Vaterland'". Heinrich H. Schrfider, Russlanddeutsche Friesen (Ddllstadt-Langensaiza, 1936), p. 31. 769 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Grundsatzliche Fragen", Der Bote, Aug. 7, 1935, p. 1. Specific to the Mennonite context, Unruh referred to the Mennonites as a "Voiklein " Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Die Wehrlosigkeit. Vortrag gehalten auf der Ailgemeinen Mennonitischen Konferenz am 7. Juni 1917", Mennonitische Rundschau, July 14, 1926. 770 Unruh obviously did not fully succumb to National Socialist blandishments, as he maintained that "Christ is the centre of meaning in history and the world". Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Grundsatzliche Fragen", Der Bote, Jan. 15, 1936, p. 1; "Grundsatzliche Fragen", Der Bote, Jul. 31, 1935, p. 1. 771 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Grundsatzliche Fragen", Der Bote, April, 8,1936, pp. 1-2. 270 In the context of a discussion about the influences of nationalistic mysticism,

Unruh addressed the current preoccupation with racial questions. Situating the

examination of racial qualities in a theological context, Unruh suggested that racial

heritage does in fact factor into the reception of the gospel. Here Unruh cited the New

Testament example of the concrete and experiential differences between diverse people

groups. Yet while Unruh did not dissolve ethnic differences, he maintained that "the content of belief - God himself and his revelation — is not subjected to the law of race".

Furthermore, the "expression of belief cannot be made an absolute". There is a specific

German form of Christianity, but there is no German God.772

Unruh took a similar position in an article entitled "Blut und Rasse im A. T", in

which he addressed questions of race from the perspective that the Old Testament's

narrative emphasizes humanity's unique position in creation. According to Unruh the

Bible demonstrates that God's intent was for humans to live in community. Humanity's

dispersion and the division of languages were punishments, and not God's original

intention. Nevertheless, the Bible still addresses humanity in terms of national

communities with distinguishing races, characters, gifts and tasks. However, and perhaps

most importantly for our purposes, it does not preclude the incorporation of outsiders

within a Volk.m

According to Unruh's reading, the Old Testament clearly does not avoid using

blood and race as distinguishing markers between people groups within the biblical

772 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "GrundsStzliche Fragen", Der Bote, April 22,1936, p. 1. 773 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Blut und Rasse im A. T", Der Bote, Dec. 23,1936, p. 1. 271 narrative; yet at the same time, these categories are never completely rigid, and do not

determine the character of the Kingdom of God.774 Thus it may be maintained that Unruh subscribed to a limited view of natural revelation, placing him somewhere in between the positions arrived at by Barth and Hirsch.

Barth was absolutely rigid in his rejection of natural theology, to the extent of

breaking off friendships and theological cooperation when he perceived the encroachment of natural theology in the thought of his colleagues. Part of the vehemence in Barth's rejection of Emil Brunner stemmed from the fact that Barth considered

Brunner's position so close to his own. Thus it is obvious that not all appeals to natural

theology were directed to the same racist ends as Hirsch's thought. Barth considered -

albeit in near absolute terms - natural theology a thin edge of a wedge, opening the way

for dangerous ramifications. And even though Unruh's thought was not chauvinistic in the manner Hirsch's was, it still engendered sympathy for aspects of the National

Socialist worldview.775

Demonstrating his familiarity with the wider theological debate surrounding the

question of natural revelation, Unruh weighed in on the dispute between Karl Barth and

Emil Brunner. From Barth's perspective natural revelation could not be admitted, but

Unruh argued that the complete denial of natural revelation was errant, since the New

774 Unruh,"Blutund Rasse im A. T.",p. 1. 775 Using Ernest Gellner's concept of "non-egoistic nationalism", James Lichti discusses the German Mennonite use of non-egoistic forms of nationalism and racialism, that while not directly chauvinistic, "held the door open for a selective endorsement" of National Socialist doctrine. James Irvin Lichti, "The Responses to National Socialism by Denominations with Teachings Against Bearing Arms" (Ph.D. diss., University of California, 2000), pp. 99-1 OOfT. See also: Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (Maiden, 2006), p. 2. 272 Testament clearly admits "revelation in nature and history, in small and large things!"

Working from this position Unruh then questioned why it should be denied that God speaks through historical events and circumstances - put another way, that God approaches humanity in concrete scenarios. According to Unruh, as a neutral Swiss it seems that Barth had not grasped the magnitude of the events of 1914 for those who lived through them. Those who experienced the turmoil and dislocation of the war also experienced something religious. Therefore Barth's answer to the question of natural revelation was insufficiently narrow, for not only does Providence stand behind events in history, but Unruh believed it necessary for humans to cooperate with God, as God needs both the church and politicians to work within society.776

Unruh certainly did not deny the existence of a natural revelation through which

God is revealed in the events of human history. At the same time, Unruh did not elevate natural revelation beyond a Christological framework, and maintained the connection between revelation and the gospel. Similarly, while Unruh asserted that humanity is divided into national communities which exhibit particular characteristics and are intended for designated purposes, a Volk is not to be rigidly defined. Ironically, even though Unruh's volkisch framework had affinities to more xenophobic interpretations,

part of Unruh's attraction to National Socialism stemmed from his belief that Hitler desired peaceful interactions between the various national communities. Initially,

776 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "GrundsStzliche Fragen", Der Bote, April 22,1936, p. 1; Feb. 12, 1936, pp. 1-2. 273 however, Unruh favoured Hindenburg over Hitler, stemming from a loyalty stirred up by the President's personal intervention on behalf of Mennonites years earlier.

In 1932 Unruh was not yet a German citizen, as he had been advised on strategic grounds by the Auswartige Amt not to apply for citizenship since it was conceived that he would be more effective in representing stateless Russian Germans without it.777 Unable to vote himself, Unruh wrote to his daughter to offer advice about the election. In a heartfelt endorsement of Hindenburg, Unruh suggested that the Generalfeldmarschall stood above, and could not be compared to, present political trends because of his long life of proven service. Essentially he had become a symbol of Germany and an example of its genius. More importantly, Unruh considered Hindenburg to be a protector of

Germany, and referred to him affectionately as "Vater Hindenburg'. Unruh was convinced that as a father, Hindenburg wanted what was best for Germany, and would safeguard it from harm as well as from sectarian party enthusiasm. Moreover, as a father can have no favourites, Hindenburg loved the whole Volk, and would care for even its

g deviant children. 77

Claiming that he did not want to sound overly enthusiastic or romanticize things,

Unruh nonetheless urged that Hindenburg be honoured and voted for, as his conscience

777 Peter Letkemann, "Nachwort", in Heinrich B. Unruh, Fugung und Fiihnmgen: Benjamin Heinrich Unruh 1881-1959. Ein Leben im Geiste christlicher HumanMt und im Dienste der N&chstenliebe (Detmold, 2009), p. 381. 778 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Letter to Martha Unruh", March 9,1932, Benjamin H. Unruh Collection, Box 5, File 28, MFS. 274 was "true and pure". Applying a biblical metaphor to Hindenburg, Unruh maintained that

"A good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit".779

Unruh acknowledged that there had no doubt been a shift in German politics, and feared that the left would become more radical. Unruh's real fear was communism and civil war, and he therefore asserted that it was critical that Germany be protected from

"Bolshevik nihilism". Ultimately Unruh believed Hindenburg would receive more votes than Hitler, but closed his letter with instructions for his daughter: "I advise you: vote

Hindenburg, therefore, because he granted our family shelter in his land, in the old

Motherland, that has become a proper Fatherland to us again".780

Mennonites and the Third Reich.

In Unruh's letter to his daughter we see the interconnected themes concerning

Unruh personally and German Mennonites more broadly. Like many Protestants, by and large German Mennonites had not embraced the Weimar Republic. The Mennonite relationship to Weimar was further complicated by the fact that after the territorial realignment of the Treaty of Versailles, Prussian Mennonites were separated and fell variously under the authority of Poland, Germany, and the free city of Danzig. Even though they might not have been sympathetic towards the Republic, West Prussian

Mennonites in particular felt a heightened sense of German identity as a result of being

779 Unruh, "Letter to Martha Unruh", March 9,1932. 780 Unruh, "Letter to Martha Unruh", March 9,1932. 275 severed from the rest of the nation.781 Moreover, the Mennonite identification with

Germany and the desire to be recognized as loyal citizens was coupled with a general conservatism. When combined with the fact that based on Mennonite experiences under

Soviet rule, Mennonites in Germany who had either experienced the turmoil themselves or related to the ordeals of their coreligionists were attracted to National Socialism's inherent anticommunism, as loyal and grateful citizens many Mennonites welcomed

Hitler's ascension to power.

One of the most significant questions to be raised within the discussion of the fate of German Mennonites under the Third Reich is the extent to which Mennonite responses to National Socialism were informed by - or rather remained loyal to - Mennonitism's theological legacy of separation. In 1974 Hans-Jiirgen Goertz published the highly influential article "Nationale Erhebung und religidser Niedergang: Missgliickte

Aneignung des tauferischen Leitbildes im Dritten Reich" in which he argued that by the time of the Nazi ascendancy the Mennonites had already partially abandoned their

Anabaptist legacy.782 Working primarily from the opinions expressed in the Mennonite periodicals Mennonitische Blatter and Mennonitische Jugendwarte, Goertz asserted that during the Third Reich Mennonites so accommodated the regime that they either surrendered their foundational doctrines or emptied them of recognizable meaning. The separation of public life and the spiritual life of the individual was politicized and

781 Diether G5tz Lichdi, Mennoniten im Dritten Reich: Dokumentation und Deutung (Weierhof, 1977), p. 29. 782 Hans-JOrgen Goertz, "Nationale Erhebung und religidser Niedergang: Missgltickte Aneignung des tauferischen Leitbildes im Dritten Reich", in his Umstrittenes Taufertum 1525-1975: Neue Forschung (Gdttingen, 1975), pp. 259-89. Originally published in Mennonitische Geschichtsblatter 31, (1974), pp. 61-90. 276 ultimately abandoned, as were other fundamental Anabaptist doctrines. This emptying of

Anabaptist doctrine to replace it with a politicized version gave the appearance of faithfulness to both the Mennonite tradition and the new regime.783

Although framed differently, essentially Goertz's contentions are a variation of the argument that Mennonites substituted a politicized interpretation of the doctrine of the two kingdoms for the traditional attitude of separation. Scholarship building off of

Goertz's conclusions asserted that if German Mennonites were unable to resist National

Socialism because they had lost their traditional theological moorings, it was because a

"basic reorientation of values" had occurred in the period surrounding the Franco-

Prussian war. In short, the cause of the Mennonite failure in the face of National

Socialism lay with the past acceptance of military service - a decision which undercut the future ability to resist the demands of the nation state.784

One of the most important outcomes of Goertz's argument is the debate it engendered, in particular the response from Diether Gotz Lichdi, whose book

Mennoniten im Dritten Reich was the first substantial study of a free church under

National Socialism.785 Like Goertz, Lichdi agreed that Mennonite leaders within the

Vereinigung were quite uncritical in their support of National Socialism, and acknowledged a broad based initial enthusiasm within Mennonite congregations for the

783 Goertz, "Nationale Erhebung und religiOser Niedergang", pp. 284, 286. Goertz paid specific attention to the enthusiasm for National Socialism displayed by leaders within the Conference of West Prussian, north­ western, and Palatinate Mennonites (the Vereinigung). 784 John Friesen, "The Relationship of Prussian Mennonites to German Nationalism", in Harry Loewen, ed., Mennonite Images: Historical, Cultural, and Literary Essays Dealing with Mennonite Issues (Winnipeg, 1980), pp. 61,68. 785 Diether G5tz Lichdi, Mennoniten im Dritten Reich: Dokumentation und Deutung (Weierhof, 1977). 277 new regime.786 However, Lichdi's central critique of Goertz's work is his dual premise that the significant distinctions between Mennonite groups in Germany precludes speaking of a uniform response, and that despite initial enthusiasm, some Mennonites did in fact hold on to traditional Mennonite convictions.

Lichdi's line of argumentation proceeds from the assumption that "political thought is a result of theology".787 With respect to German Mennonites, the congregations had been significantly influenced by the predominant German Protestant theological currents of the time, to the point that Mennonites subscribed to Lutheran conceptions about the state as an order of creation whether the decision was consciously arrived at or not.788 Concomitant to this line of thinking was the general Protestant application of the doctrine of the two kingdoms and a tacit rejection of the theological position informing the Barmen declaration. Alongside other influences, Lutheran thought made its way into Mennonite congregations through pastors trained in Protestant institutions. Therefore given the degree of Mennonite integration in German society, it is little wonder that an understanding of the state as an order of creation was commonly held.789

786 The Vereinigung der Mennoniten-Gemeinden im Deutschen Reich (after 1934 the Vereinigung der deutschen Mennonitengemeinden) was a conference of West Prussian, north-western and Palatinate Mennonites. After 1934 the Vereinigung incorporated all German Mennonite congregations except for the minority belonging to die Badisch-Wurttembergisch-Bayrischer Gemeindeverband (die Verband). 787 Diether Goetz Lichdi, "The Story of Nazism and its Reception by German Mennonites", Mennonite Life, 36(1981), p. 26. 788 Lichdi, "The Story of Nazism and its Reception by German Mennonites", p. 27. See also: James Irvin Lichti, Houses on the Sand? Pacifist Denominations in Nazi Germany (New York, 2008), p. 76. 789 Diether Goetz Lichdi, "R6mer 13 und das StaatsverstSndnis der Mennoniten um 1933", Mennonitsche Geschichtsbldtter, 32 (1980), pp. 78, 89. 278 In terms of the biblical sources for Mennonite theological discussions about their present situation, Romans chapter 13 - which addresses the Christian's obligations to authority - and Acts 5:29 - which limits Christian obedience - were repeatedly referenced in Mennonite writing during the Third Reich. Through this discourse the

Lutheran influence becomes evident. The state is generally referred to as a divinely created order and as the epitome of authority, and as such minimized the potential to recognize critical differences between modern Germany and either sixteenth century authority or the early church under Roman rule.790 Interpretations of Romans 13 therefore incorporated concepts from the contemporary German context that were not appropriate to the original text, and by and large ignored Barth's commentary. Attributes of a more generalized authority were transposed onto the 'national community'. Similarly, concepts like 'orders' and ' VoW were interpreted with a nationalist slant, presenting the contemporary circumstances in Germany as God ordained.791 In short, ideology shaped biblical exegesis. Moreover, Romans 13 was emphasized to a greater degree than Acts

5:29; that is obedience was stressed over justified rejection.792

Even though many Mennonites came to the realization that National Socialism had totalitarian aspirations, the German regime was not compared to the Stalinist Soviet

Union. The reason for this is that the Soviet Union was held up as the paradigm of the demonic state, characterized by the breakdown and destruction of law and order. Thus

790 Lichdi, "R6mer 13 und das StaatsverstSndnis der Mennoniten urn 1933", pp. 78-9. 791 Lichdi, "Rflmer 13 und das StaatsverstSndnis der Mennoniten um 1933", pp. 81, 89-90. On the Mennonite adoption of the "ethnic nation-state" paradigm see also: James Irvin Lichti, "The Response to National Socialism by Denominations with Teachings Against Bearing Arms" (Ph.D. diss., University of California, 2000), pp. 97-8. 792 Lichdi, "RSmer 13 und das StaatsverstSndnis der Mennoniten um 1933", p. 83. 279 even in the midst of Nazi Germany's suppressive legislation, these measures were not

7Q'\ recognized as such when held up against the Soviet example.

Lichdi argued that after an initial period of enthusiasm for the National Socialist takeover, distinctive orientations towards National Socialism emerged in Mennonite congregations. While some Mennonites continued their support of the regime, others rejected the Nazi Weltanschauung. Increasingly, however, Mennonites chose the path of political quietism, disengaging from political life. From a theological perspective outward opposition against authority was not permissible, so Mennonites who did not align with

National Socialism retreated to an inwardly directed religiosity.794

Accepting Lichdi's call for differentiation within the discussion of Mennonite responses and his identification of instances of nonconformity, it may still be maintained that to some degree Mennonites certainly did abandon traditional Anabaptist doctrine.795

But, as we have seen, this occurred as a longer process of cultural and theological assimilation. That said, in the context of the Third Reich, the German Mennonites' patterns of interaction are more incongruent with their theological heritage of

793 Lichdi, "R8mer 13 und das StaatsverstSndnis der Mennoniten um 1933", pp. 82-3. 794 Lichdi, Mennoniten im Dritten Reich, p. 110. As an example of Mennonite individualism and thought that challenged tenets of National Socialism, or at least provided a forum for more dissenting discussion, Lichdi cited the Rundbriefgemeinschaft - an affiliation of Mennonite young people discussing pertinent issues of the late Weimar period and Third Reich through circular letters. Lichdi also included an appendix written by Theo GlQck describing "Die Rundbriefgemeinschaft 1928-1940". pp. 199-236. 795 In a joint statement from 1978 Lichdi and Goertz agreed that: "Es soil in Zukunft nicht mehr von dem 'religiOsen Niedergang' der Mennoniten gesprochen werden, es soil auch nicht mehr behauptet werden, dass die Mennoniten 'ihre Eigenart', d.h. ihren ursprQnglichen reformatorischen und konfessionellen Ausdruck, 'bewahrt' hatten. Es wird wohi richtig sein, den Weg der Mennoniten durch das Dritte Reich als eine schwere IdentitStskrise zu beschreiben". Diether GOtz Lichdi and Hans-JQrgen Goertz, "Gemeinsame Erkiarung zur Kontroverse um die Mennoniten im Dritten Reich", Mennonitische Blatter, 12 (1978), pp. 189. 280 (

nonresistance than other free church examples with similar teachings against military

participation.

James Lichti has examined the impact of liberalism on Germany's pacifist free

churches and concludes that in respect to the Mennonites, the liberal characteristic of

granting autonomy to individual church members resulted in the breakdown of traditional

clerical authority structures, patterns of individualized decision making, and ultimately

the deterioration of Mennonite theological distinctives.7Q"7 Traditionally Mennonites had

recognized the strict separation of church and state. In the context of the National

Socialist takeover, nonparticipation, which had in earlier manifestations been a form of

«tno political opposition, now manifested itself merely as political quietism. Essentially

Mennonite leadership, enamoured by the prospect that the new regime was founded on

'positive Christianity', considered National Socialism to be practicing the Mennonite

ideal of the separation of church and state.799

796 Lichti, "The Response to National Socialism by Denominations with Teachings Against Bearing Arms", p. 3. Lichti distinguishes between denominations and sects. "The denomination (or free church) bases charismatic authority in the piety of the individual believer. Membership is voluntary, and decision-making is democratic and de-centralized. The denomination (or free church) embraces a circumscribed pluralism, viewing itself as one branch of a wider orthodox consensus". In contrast, "The sect bases charismatic authority in the collective conformity of the community to a prescribed level of piety. Membership is voluntary, but modes of decision-making vary from de-centralized democracy to centralized theocracy. Sects endorse a secular respect for freedom of conscience, but not Christian pluralism", p. 14. On the differences between sects and the German free churches under the Third Reich see also: Christine E. King, "Strategies for Survival: An Examination of the History of Five Christian Sects in Germany 1933-45", Journal of Contemporary History, 14 (1979), pp. 211-33; Karl Zehrer, Evangelische Freikirchen und das 'Dritte Reich' (GOttingen, 1986). 797 Lichti, "The Response to National Socialism", pp. x, 360,364. At the same time, Lichti maintains that while "denominationalism does possess an ideological (i.e., theological) basis for its liberal characteristics, non-liberal and anti-liberal forces also played a decisive role in fostering and cementing these same characteristics", p. 5. 798 Lichti, "The Response to National Socialism", p. 51. 799 Lichti, "The Response to National Socialism", p. 83. 281 Hindenburg's eventual endorsement of Hitler caused Unruh to re-evaluate his previous reservations. However Unruh's change was not immediate; he listened to

National Socialist radio messages, read widely, and was kept abreast of the political situation by his contacts in the Auswartige Amt.80° Ultimately, Unruh's support for Hitler shared important commonalities with the position taken by other Mennonite leaders. The fear of communist nihilism and disorder blinded them to the repressiveness of National

Socialism. Similarly, because Mennonites understood Nazi Germany to be the direct antithesis of atheistic Soviet communism, National Socialism was necessarily linked to

Christianity.801

Pragmatic and theological foundations of support.

In a letter from July 1933 to an elder in the church, Unruh observed that the majority of Mennonites welcomed Hitler's ascension to power.802 Demonstrating the connection between the Mennonite suffering under Lenin and Stalin and German sentiments, Unruh suggested that because of these experiences German Mennonites had come to the realization that "only a strong hand and a pure will" could quash the demonic influence of Bolshevism. According to Unruh, National Socialism belonged to a long and

800 Letkemann, "Nachwort", p. 390. Unruh's familiarity with Mein Kampf, and Hitler's and other prominent party members' radio addresses is evidenced through numerous references in his writing. 01 Lichti, "The Response to National Socialism", p. 181. Mennonites abroad were also attracted to Hitler's Germany because of a German self identity and anticommunist sentiments. This was particulary true in Latin America. See: John D. Thiesen, Mennonite and Nazi? Attitudes Among Mennonite Colonists in Latin America, 1933-1945 (Kitchener, 1999). For Canadian Mennonite attitudes see: Frank Henry Epp, "An Analysis of Germanism and National Socialism in the Immigrant Newspapers of a Canadian Minority Group, The Mennonites, in the 1930s" (Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1965); Benjamin Redekop, "The Canadian Mennontie Response to National Socialism", Mennonite Life, 46 (1991), pp. 18-24. 802 Benjamin Unruh, "Letter to Elder Daniel Hege", July 28,1933, Christian Neff Collection, Box 7, File 45, MFS. 282 noble history, as he cast Hitler's opposition to Soviet communism as a continuation of

Germany's historic and God-given task of protecting the civilized world from the dangers from the east, drawing a comparison to the campaigns to halt the thirteenth century

Mongol advances. Unruh therefore urged both communal and personal prayer that

Germany would fulfill its historic mission.803

Even as Unruh suggested that the Mennonite churches should pray for the

German authorities, they were also to protect their independence as free churches.804

Moreover, the Mennonites needed to find a way of retaining what it meant to be the

"Stille im Landeeven if the traditional lifestyle of separation were to become impossible and they were drawn into public life.805

In Unruh's letter we see a tension that would continue to run through Mennonite relations to the state throughout the Third Reich. Unruh acknowledged the importance and desirability of a strong state while at the same time appealing to the Mennonite tradition of passivity. Unruh therefore called the congregations to support in prayer those men who would choose to "heal wounds" rather than "inflict them". Nevertheless, these men were still called on to serve and sacrifice. If armed service was refused, the

803 Unruh, "Letter to Elder Daniel Hege". 804 Similar sentiments of Mennonite independence were expressed elsewhere. A report from a meeting of East and West Prussian and Danzig Mennonite leadership included die response of die "oldest German free church" to recent "provocations":"Hande weg vom Deutschen Freikirchentum! H&nde weg vom Deutschen Mennonitentum... r. "Zur Kirchenfrage der Mennoniten", Mennonitsche Blatter, 9 (1933), p. 86. 805 Unruh, "Letter to Elder Daniel Hege". 283 individual needed to be willing to sacrifice - including giving his life - where he was called upon to serve.806

Given this tension, we can address Unruh's specific relationship to National

Socialism in more than one way. Unruh earnestly wanted to improve the situation of his beleaguered Russian coreligionists, and by 1933 had been working tirelessly for years with organizations of all kinds to this end.807 It appears, however, that at times practical concerns trumped wider ethical considerations to achieve certain ends, and Unruh remained uncritical of National Socialist policies throughout the Third Reich, and aligned

OAO too closely with Party organizations. We can therefore talk about Unruh's uncritical proximity to the state in terms of pragmatism, that is to achieve his goal of helping

Mennonite refugees, and providing material relief for Mennonites remaining in the Soviet

Union. At the same time, we cannot place too much stock on purely pragmatic considerations, for Unruh's thought was consistently theological.809 Moreover, even though most Mennonites initially welcomed Hitler's rise to power, pragmatism proves an insufficient category to deal with the instances of Unruh's outright enthusiasm for the

National Socialist revolution and his personal support of Hitler. Unruh's relationship to

806 Unruh, "Letter to Elder Daniel Hege". Unruh was writing in 1933; his frame of reference for the possibilities of alternative service was clearly from the past. For details of Unruh's relief work and political involvement see Peter Letkemann's Afterward in Heinrich B. Unruh, Fugung und Fuhrungen: Benjamin Heinrich Unruh 1881-1959. Ein Leben im Geiste christlicher Humanitat und im Dienste der Nachstenliebe (Detmold, 2009), pp. 361-448. 808 For example, Unruh was Mitglieddes V.D.A., Kulturratsmitglied des D.A.I., and Forderer Mitgliedder SSNr. 168232. Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, Lebenslauf, 17November 1939. Benjamin H. Unruh Collection, Box 7, File 36, MFS. Unruh also worked alongside representatives of the Auswartige Amt, Rosenberg's Ostministerium, and Himmler's Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle. 809 Abraham Friesen. In Defense of Privilege: Russian Mennonites and the State before and during World War I, (Winnipeg, 2006), p. 291. Friesen discusses Unruh's theological framing of the debate about Mennonite ethnicity. 284 National Socialism is further complicated by the fact that even as his theological

perspective appears to have conformed to the contemporary German Zeitgeist, he continually referenced Mennonitism's unique theological heritage.

As we have seen, Unruh understood each Volk to have its own God-given purpose and abilities, and linked the Mennonites historically to the German national community.

Despite this close identification with the particular purposes of the German Volk, a part of

Unruh's attraction to Hitler stemmed from his belief that Hitler desired the actualization of other national communities, and ultimately their concluding of peace with Germany in

OIA a community of nations. Unruh's confidence came from his belief that Hitler wanted to establish peaceful working relations with the rest of the world, even though he recognized the paradoxical contemporary discussions about racial hygiene. Unruh argued both that

Hitler wanted peace, and that Hitler's love for the German Volk did not entail a hatred of

011 other national communities.

With respect to the German people, Hitler clearly called for a new national community (Volksgemeinschaft). However, Unruh understood this demand to be inline with what he interpreted to be the biblical model of a national community produced through reformation and revolution "properly understood".812 Unruh therefore linked the

810 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Grundsatzliche Fragen", Der Bote, Aug. 7, 1935, p. 1. 811 When Unruh talked about Hitler extending the hand of peace to the nations of the world we should not conclude that Unruh was unfamiliar with Hitler's enmity towards Jews. Even if Unruh could not have known the extent to which Hitler would carry his antisemitism, he was obviously familiar with Me in Kampf, even as he also quoted Hitler's claim not to harbour hatred for other peoples. Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Grundsatzliche Fragen", Der Bote, August 14, 1935, p. 1; "Grundsatzliche Fragen", Der Bote, Sept. 25, 1935, p. 1. 812 Although Unruh sought to qualify the terms reformation and revolution as "properly understood", his use of the concept revolution in the context of the national community in 1935 demonstrated an unfortunate 285 call for a national community with the biblical emphasis on communal faith and the mandate to care for the brother. According to Unruh, the Volk would disintegrate without a communal love for one another, for an individual cannot love and serve God and still neglect or harbour hatred towards others.813 Following this line of interpretation, Unruh equated Hitler's purported concern for the welfare of all Germans, his esteem of the

German community, and his desire to alleviate social misery with the biblical ideal of mutual service, freedom, and interdependence. In short, it modelled the kingdom of

God.814

According to Unruh, Hitler envisioned the state in volkisch terms rather than

At e economically. This was significant for Unruh, for as he understood it, under communism there was no possibility of a true national community. The Volk disintegrated into interest groups because of dialectic class struggle.816 Contrarily, Unruh argued that Hitler's ideal of the state was a "community of physically and spiritually uniform creatures".817 As Unruh understood Hitler, there was a moral component to the state, as it furthered the life of the Volk and not a particular state structure. Thus Hitler's conception of the state was "organic", natural and biologically determined, working towards the end of providing the necessities of the Volt, the content of the state is the

lack of distance from official rhetoric, regardless of intention. Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Grundsatzliche Fragen", Der Bote, Aug. 7, 1935, p. 1. 813 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Grundsatzliche Fragen", Der Bote, Aug. 7, 1935, p. 1. 814 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Grundsatzliche Fragen", Der Bote, Aug. 7, 1935, p. 1. 815 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Grundsatzliche Fragen", Der Bote, August 14,1935, p. 1. 816 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Grundsatzliche Fragen", Der Bote, July 10,1935, pp. 1-2. 817 Unruh was quoting from Mein Kampf. "Grundsatzliche Fragen", Der Bote, August 14, 1935, p. 1. 286 Volk itself.818 Referring to the last Ntimberg Parteitag, it was evident to Unruh that the foundation of the Nazi movement was not the state but the Volk.m

Because Unruh depicted Hitler's concept of the Volk so idyllically, including

Hitler's professed love for all Germans around the world and intent to secure their minority rights, he ignored, or at least failed to recognize, the dangerous implications of the National Socialist definition of the national community. Hitler's appeals to the organic nature of the German Volk, the connection of blood and soil, and National

Socialism's biologically determined form of state - depicted as an "alliance of the moral with the natural" - were rendered innocuous in Unruh's mind because he believed Hitler held the state to be the servant of the people. In Unruh's estimation, Hitler's national socialism was literally demonstrated by his work on behalf of the national community.

He loved the Volk regardless of its location, and worked for its benefit, balancing the inherent value of the individual with the overarching needs of the community.820 Unruh thus emphasized the inclusive nature of the National Socialist volkisch paradigm while ignoring, or at least failing to recognize its sinister potential for marginalization.821

Unruh's confidence in what he believed to be Hitler's sincerity and morality are further demonstrated in his admiration for Hitler's preoccupation with securing biological health for the German people. Unruh was not deterred by Hitler's concern for keeping the

Volk "hereditarily healthy", citing the biblical references to both the spiritual and physical

818 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Grundsatzliche Fragen", Der Bote, August 14,1935, p. 1. 819 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Grundsatzliche Fragen", Der Bote, October 9,1935, p. 1. 820 In support of his position Unruh quoted both the Nazi slogan "Gemeinnutz geht iiber EigennntzV and from Mein Kampf. Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Grundsatzliche Fragen", Der Bote, August 14, 1935, p. 1. 821 The dates of Unruh's publications are important. Several were within a month of the Nuremberg racial laws of September 1935. 287 makeup of humanity. For according to Unruh, the physical could not be dismissed; "the

natural foundation of human life (blood and soil) must be taken seriously".822 Thus even

though he recognized the content of the contemporary discussions about racial hygiene,

Unruh argued that Hitler wanted to establish peaceful working relations with the rest of

the world: "In the heart of the man that leads Germany burns alongside the love of his

own Volk the great pure will to come to real, reasonable, suitable cooperation with other

peoples".823

Unruh's understanding of Hitler's intentions for the German Volk was tempered

by his attraction to Hitler's glorification of service to the state. Here we see Unruh

interpreting National Socialism through a theological lens, for according to Unruh, both

Menno Simons and Luther stressed the fact that those in authority need to be servants of

the state. Again quoting Me in Kampf and Hitler's speeches, Unruh maintained that

Hitler's idea of the state was informed by his "passionate love" of the Volk and his

understanding that a healthy national community would be made up of individuals

committed to its service. As an important corollary, this will to sacrifice was a bulwark

against the soullessness of communism.824

By linking National Socialism with Reformation concepts of service, Unruh

muddied the waters between the two world views. As evidence of this, Unruh suggested

that Hitler's concept of an elite class in society would resonate with Mennonites.

Mennonite communities clearly recognized skill and ability in the same way that Paul

822 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "GrundsStzliche Fragen", Der Bote, August 14,1935, p. 1. 823 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "GrundsStzliche Fragen", Der Bote, August 14,1935, p. 1; September 25, 1935, p. 1. 824 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Grunds2tzliche Fragen", Der Bote, August 14,1935, p. 1. 288 used the human body as a metaphor in the New Testament to describe different roles and

functions within the church. Thus Hitler's insistence that specific jobs corresponded to

suitable people aligned with the biblical precedent. The extent of Unruh's confidence in

Hitler is demonstrated in his seemingly naive invocation of the term "Auslese" - which

can imply both an elite and a selection process - in terms of it being a meritocracy,

without foreseeing its tragic potential for abuses.825 Unruh's continued misevaluation of

National Socialism is demonstrated by his repeated use of unfortunate phraseology.

In the context of discussion about what the church should look like in society,

comparing the traditional Lutheran conception with the early Mennonite ideal, Unruh

repeatedly used military terminology. In reference to mission work within the German

Volk conducted by a core community of believers, Unruh applied both the terms

"Kerntruppen" (crack unit),826 and "Stosstruppen" (shock troops).827 As a further

example, Unruh argued that Jesus was radically inclusive. Ironically, however, Unruh's

description of Jesus' concern for people extending beyond the concentrated inner circle

of his disciples to the whole Volk, and indeed all Volker, is still constructed with

terminology that was widely appropriated for nationalist causes. One need only look to

Hirsch's politicized theology to observe the dangerous implications of discussing Jesus'

ministry as tailored to his Volk.*2*

Unruh's linking of National Socialism with Christianity was symptomatic of his

belief that Hitler would both defend against atheistic communism and establish

825 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Grundsatzliche Fragen", Der Bote, October 9,1935, p. 1. 826 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Grundsatzliche Fragen", Der Bote, April 29,1936, p. 1. 827 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Grundsatzliche Fragen", Der Bote, June 3, 1936, p. 2; June 17, 1936, p. 1. 828 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Grundsatzliche Fragen", Der Bote, June 10, 1936, p. 2. 289 Christianity as the foundation of the new Germany. Writing in the autumn of 1935,

Unruh referenced back to a speech from March 1933 in which Hitler talked about

Christianity in terms of it being the moral foundation of the German Volk. Appealing to his readers' horrific experiences under Soviet rule, Unruh commented that Christians in the Soviet Union would be overjoyed if Stalin was to hold a similar position.829 At the same time, Unruh remained relatively reserved in his expectations. Hitler would not be expected to reform Germany spiritually. But the Mennonites had not lost their religious autonomy under the Third Reich, and had in fact been accommodated to a considerable degree over the refusal to swear oaths.830 And while it could not be argued that

Mennonite nonresistance was being practiced, Unruh noted that German Mennonites had abandoned the principle long before the new regime assumed power.831

Because point 24 of the NSDAP Party Programme seemingly provided for religious freedom, Unruh asserted that in the context of the longer German Mennonite history, Hitler was continuing Frederick the Great's legacy of toleration.832 Significantly,

Unruh believed that Hitler was a man of his word, and would not rescind promises.

Unruh was therefore confident that Mennonite religious freedom would be safeguarded in

Germany. Unruh was similarly confident, on the evidence of assertions in Mein Kampf, that Hitler had no aspirations to control the churches or fashion himself as a religious

829 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "GrundsStzliche Fragen", Der Bote, November 13, 1935, p. 1. 830 The question of the Mennonite refusal to swear oaths will be taken up below. 831 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "GrundsStzliche Fragen", Der Bote, November 13, 1935, p. 1. 832 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Grundsatzliche Fragen", Der Bote, November 13, 1935, p. 1. 290 reformer. Hitler would humbly observe the separation of church and state, as each would stay independent of the other's affairs.833

Writing months later, Unruh again reiterated the fact that Christianity would not be targeted in the new Germany. To add further to its credibility, Hitler made this promise in the presence of president Hindenburg.834 Importantly, both Christian confessions were to be protected, which included the Vereinigung der deutschen

Mennonitengemeinden. Moreover, not only would the regime protect the religious freedom of Christians within Germany, it would also extend freedom of conscience to non-believers. Therefore Unruh was confident that the regime would not coerce belief - something Mennonites had always demanded of the states they had been subject to.835

Not only did the Party Programme endorse 'Positive Christianity', Unruh was further encouraged by a radio address given by Hermann Goring in which Goring clarified that the National Socialist worldview was decisively informed by Mein Kampf and not Rosenberg's Mythus. This distinction between the 'true' National Socialist worldview and Rosenberg's "pantheistic glorification of humanity" was critical for

Unruh, for it separated what was laudable in Mein Kampf from the claims in Mythus that

"man is the measure of all things".836 Most importantly for Unruh, in his address Goring

833 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "GrundsStzliche Fragen", Der Bote, November 13, 1935, p. 1. Illustrating Unruh's confidence in Hitler, Unruh referred to Hitler's radio addresses in which he not only spoke of humble prayers to God, but admonished the German people to seek God's grace. According to Unruh, this was a sign of Hitler's humility and evidence that he was not seeking his own glorification. Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Um die deutsche Sadie", Der Bote, February 10, 1937, p. 2. 834 We have already noted Unruh's high esteem for Hindenburg. See above. 835 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "GrundsStzliche Fragen", Der Bote, April 8, 1936, p. 1. 836 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Grundsttzliche Fragen", Der Bote, April 15,1936, p. 1. Unruh discussed his confidence in the foundations of National Socialism in the context of an anticipated struggle with godless worldviews. Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "GrundsStzliche Fragen", Der Bote, April 8, 1936, p. 1. 291 again referred to the indissoluble link between National Socialism and Christianity, but

moved beyond a general belief in God to refer specifically to Christ.837

When considered against Soviet communism, Unruh was enamoured with the

possibilities of the National Socialist revolution and what he believed to be the absolute safeguarding of the Christian confessions. Because communism aimed to destroy all differences and create a uniform mass of humanity, Unruh was pleased that Hitler correctly identified communism as an enemy of national communities, set to destroy

God-given differences in personality and type. Perhaps equally importantly, Unruh repeatedly stressed the fact that Hitler acknowledged God as the creator of national communities, and emphasized the role of Christianity in Germany's history.838

As Unruh understood Hitler, Hitler desired peace but was committed to defending the German Volk. As a "Volk der Mitte" Germany was in a precarious geopolitical situation compared to other nations whose geography provided a greater degree of security. Hitler did not want war, but at the same time would not allow the German Volk to continue in its suffering. Harkening back to their Mennonite forefathers, who Unruh noted supported William of Orange against Spanish rule, as Russian Mennonites who survived the Russian empire, Unruh maintained that the Mennonites certainly should understand Hitler's opposition to a far graver enemy.839

Because he perceived the Third Reich in such idealized terms, including what would otherwise be interpreted as Nazi militarism, it was not difficult for Unruh to

837 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "GrundsSlzliche Fragen", Der Bote, April 8, 1936, p. 1. 838 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "GrundsStzliche Fragen", Der Bote, Oct. 9, 1935, p. 1. 839 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Um die deutsche Sache", Der Bote, February 10,1937, p. 2. 292 advocate loyalty to the regime. Similarly, Unruh asserted that the call now prevalent in

Germany for fidelity to the Volk was not foreign to Mennonites. Again interpreting the concept theologically, Unruh asserted that the Mennonites had historically aligned loyalty to the Volk with obedience to God's law and the orders of creation.840 While Unruh rejected the possibility of organizing the church after the Fiihrerprinzip, he maintained that returning to the pre-1933 status quo was equally impossible. The state had changed too much, as had the church-state relationship. Unruh therefore argued that the church must continually determine its form to correspond to the present context it finds itself in.

It must give to Caesar what is Caesar's with a clear conscience.841

Unruh's engagement with the regime.

Even as Unruh was describing National Socialism for Mennonites abroad and making sense of the regime for Mennonites in Germany, he was also working within it.

Unruh's intellectual and relief work did not go unnoticed. In 1932 he had been awarded the Verdienstkreuz I. Klasse from the German Red Cross; in August 1937 he received an honorary doctorate in theology from the University of Heidelberg; and in December 1939 was awarded the Sudetenland-Medaille.m Beyond these honours, Unruh's proximity to the regime is demonstrated by the fact that he was repeatedly recognized as an expert on the 'eastern territories'. As such he was contacted by Georg Leibbrandt about

840 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Straflich leichtsinnig", Der Bote, March 8, 1939, p. 2. 841 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Praktische Fragen", Der Bote, December 15, 1937, p. 1. Unruh argued that the context in which the church found itself was critical - one needed only compare an Old Colony congregation with the congregations in modern cities. 842 Unruh was recommended for the Sudetenland-Medaille by his good friend Legationsrat Dr. Kundt of the Auswartige Amt. Letkemann, "Nachwort", p. 407. 293 contributing to the study of the impact of German colonists in the east for the

Schriftenreihe der Sammlung Georg Leibbrandt, for which his manuscript dealing with the origins of the west Prussian and Russian Mennonites was accepted.843 Unruh was also invited by the technical studies director of the air force to serve as a guest lecturer because of his knowledge of the conditions in the Soviet Union. In this capacity Unruh completed at least two lecture tours, giving over 20 lectures in the autumn of 1941 in

Normandy and Brittany, and another 20 lectures in the winter of 1942, in the

Netherlands.844

Perhaps Unruh's highest personal contact within the Party was Heinrich Himmler.

Himmler was familiar with the Russian Mennonites and had visited the Mennonite settlement at Halbstadt in the autumn of 1942.845 Nazi racial theorists upheld the

Mennonites as an example of 'racial purity' and the enduring traits of Germandom surviving outside of the Reich, and Himmler personally held the Mennonites in high esteem.846

Unruh met with Himmler at the Reichsfuhrers SS headquarters over New Years of

1942/3. As Unruh relates, the meeting came about because of SS Obersturmbannjuhrer

843 Abraham Friesen and Michael Fahlbusch argue Unruh's manuscript was to be published under the Sammlung Georg Leibbrandt. Friesen, In Defense of Privilege, pp. 328,490 fh. 3; Michael Fahlbusch, Wissenschaft im Dienst der nationalsozialistischen Politik? (Baden Baden, 1999), p. 619. See also: Letkemann, "Nachwort", pp. 411-2. From 1933 Leibbrand headed the Eastern Office of Rosenberg's Anssenpolitisches Amt, concerned with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and later the political department of the Reichsministerium fur die besetzten Ostgebiete. Leibbrandt represented Rosenberg's Eastern Ministry at the Wannsee Conference. 844 Letkemann, "Nachwort", pp. 413-4. 845 See: Horst Gerlarch, "Mennonites, the Molotschna, and the Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle in the Second World War", trans. John D. Thiesen Mennonite Life, 3 (1986), pp. 4-9. 846 James Lichti has suggested that "No other German free church was lauded with such volkisch praise". Houses on the Sand? p. 75. 294 Karl Gotz, who himself had written about the Mennonites. SS Obergruppenfuhrer Lorenz and SS Brigadefiihrer Hoffineyer were also in attendance.847 According to an account of the meeting from Unruh's children's recollection of his report, Himmler greeted Unruh as the "Mennonite Pope". He praised Mennonites as a "practical people" and stated his intent to naturalize them without proof of ancestry (Ahnenpass), emphatically declaring that "They are the best!" In response to Himmler's recognition of Mennonite racial purity, Unruh attributed Mennonite cultural homogeneity to their church discipline and lack of intermarriage with ethnic Russians.848

During the course of their meeting, Himmler recounted that Martin Bormann,

Chief of the Party Chancellery, had charged that the Mennonites did not swear the oath of loyalty to Hitler. Unruh advocated on behalf of the Mennonite freedom of conscience, and appealed for an alternate wording - that Mennonites be permitted to substitute "Ich gelobe" for "Ich schwdre" where demanded. Himmler responded that he would speak with Bormann and not quibble over the wording.849

The fact that Unruh was given an audience with Himmler demonstrates the extent to which Unruh was considered to be a representative for the Mennonites. Moreover, the

Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle (VoMi) sought to utilize his knowledge of the German colonists' situation in the newly occupied eastern territories and his influence within the

Russian Mennonite population. While the exact nature of Unruh's employment under

VoMi is unknown, it is clear that Unruh worked closely alongside VoMi officials. Thus

847 Letkemann, "Nachwort", p. 416; Gerlach, "Mennonites, the Molotschna, and the Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle", p. 8. 848 "Notizen", Benjamin H. Unruh Collection, Box 2, File 7, MFS. 849 "Notizen", Benjamin H. Unruh Collection, Box 2, File 7, MFS. 295 when Mennonites from Ukraine were evacuated westward into the Warthegau during the war, Unruh was appointed by Himmler to care for their wellbeing, a position he understood to be of strategic importance.850

Unruh's interaction with the National Socialist regime, both in service to the state, and in service to his coreligionists highlights contradictions within the German

Mennonite position during the Third Reich.851 One of the concessions Unruh sought from

Himmler was a Mennonite affirmation in place of an oath. Throughout the National

Socialist era the discussion about the obligation of Mennonites to swear oaths of allegiance was carried on at all levels of the Mennonite congregations in Germany - most certainly amongst the leadership - as is evidenced by numerous letters, leadership

850 Letkemann, "Nachwort", pp. 418-9. Unruh's proximity to the regime, and VoMi in particular, is further highlighted by the fact that Unruh testified at the Nuremberg trial for Werner Lorenz. Unruh had worked alongside Lorenz in 1943-4 during the Mennonite resettlement in the Warthegau. Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, Testimony from December 17, 1947. A-AG-4-Brander, Militargerichtshof I, Fall VIII, Protokoll: Deutsch, S. 2587-2602, in Benjamin H. Unruh collection, Box 2, File 7, MFS. 851 Scholars have arrived at vastly different conclusions about Unruh's wartime activities. Peter Letkemann maintains that "during the entire Third Reich Unruh retained a position of cooperative independence". Specifically referencing Unruh's visitation of evacuated Mennonites, Letkemann suggests that Unruh was concerned "above all with church affairs", that is with organizing and restoring regular church life. Gerhard Rempel, in contrast, asserts that rather than firstly caring for his coreligionists, Unruh was politically motivated, and "regarded himself as Himmler's representative in Himmler's capacity as Reichkommisar for the strengthening of Germandom". Rempel further argues that after the invasion of the eastern territories, Unruh "eagerly sought appointment as a government official in the Warthegau", concluding that Unruh "needs to be recognized as a collaborator with this regime in time of peace and war, not merely a well- meaning fellow traveler or cooperative independent observer". Letkemann, "Nachwort", pp. 393,419; Gerhard Rempel, "Book Review", Mennonite Quarterly Review, 84 (2010), pp. 277,278. Rempel bases his assertion about Unruh's aspirations on a handwritten note from a Mennonite Central Committee meeting in Chicago from February 1940. A marginal comment - amongst notes on various subjects - states "Stahlberg [a member of the Foreign Office] implies strongly that Unruh is making himself tedious to different members of the Foreign Office in trying to wheedle his way in to a ministerial position in Poland when the redistribution of population there goes into effect". Cornelius F. Klassen fonds, volume 1000, file 24, M.C.C. Reports and Correspondence, 1921-1946. Handwritten notes by C. F. Klassen in M.C.C. Executive Committee Meeting in Chicago, Feb. 17, 1940, Centre for Mennonite Brethren Studies. 296 reports, and periodical pieces.852 The irony of this concern is that the attempt to hold on

to one traditional Mennonite distinctive occurred during the process of abandoning others, most notably non-participation in the state and military.853

Mennonite leadership addressed the request to be exempted from swearing oaths on multiple grounds. Most fundamentally, Mennonite leaders asserted that the practice of abstaining from swearing oaths was faithful to biblical teaching and was a part of

Mennonite historical doctrine. To support this argument they noted the lengthy series of precedents on the matter, citing concessions dating from 1623 to the contemporary context. On a more practical level, Mennonite leaders asserted that the intrinsic sense of duty within Mennonite congregations accomplished the same effect as any oath sworn by others, and essentially made a verbal oath redundant. What is more, Hitler himself had

promised that in religious matters Germans would not be compelled against their convictions.854 Curiously, Barth's theology garnered very little attention among

Mennonites, including his refusal to swear an unaltered oath of allegiance to Hitler, and did not factor into the discussion in any meaningful way.855

It is ironic that Mennonite leaders proposed to substitute "geloben" for uschworerC\ but did not preclude membership in NSDAP organizations, only oaths to enter them. Adding further irony, even though Mennonites were provided alternatives to

852 Lichdi, Mennoniten im Dritten Reich, pp. 87-92. 853 From 1939-1945 there were no Mennonite conscientious objectors from either the Vereinigung or the Verband. 854 "Mennoniten und Eid", Christian Neff Collection, Box 21, File 157, MFS. The document concerns a 1939 letter from a NSDAP official. It is one of several. 855 Lichdi, "R5mer 13 und das StaatsverstSndnis der Mennoniten um 1933", pp. 89-90. 297 swearing allegiance, many did not avail themselves of the opportunity their leaders struggled to provide them.

That the Mennonites could seek accommodation from the regime on the issue of the oath is demonstrative of the fact that their petitions were clearly not interpreted as politically dissenting; they were religiously motivated and did not pose a threat.857 When compared to earlier Anabaptist and Mennonite refusals to swear, the difference is striking. Earlier refusals were overtly political; there were not the same negotiations, essentially over phraseology, while still participating in the state.

Alongside the reluctance of Mennonite leaders to see Mennonites swear oaths of loyalty to Hitler when entering party organizations or the armed services, a further episode captures the irony of the simultaneous Mennonite self-identification as distinct and abandonment of traditional distinctives. The episode centres on a religious commune disbanded by the Gestapo in April 1937.

The Rhoen-Bruderhof was founded in 1920 by Eberhard and Emmy Arnold as an attempt to recreate an early church community; it had grown out of the postwar youth movement and was influenced by pietism, rivivalism, Christian pacifism, and religious

Of Q socialism. Over time Eberhard became highly interested in the Hutterites, as the

Hutterite model aligned with his communal vision. He corresponded with North

American groups, and eventually visited settlements in Canada and the U.S.A. As a result of these connections, from 1930 the Rhoen-Bruderhof was recognized as a Hutterite

856 Lichdi, Mennoniten im Dritten Reich, p. 92. 837 Goertz, "Nationale Erhebung und religifiser Niedergang", p. 280. 858 James Irvin Lichti, "The German Mennonite Response to the Dissolution of the Rhoen-Bruderhof', Mennonite Life, 46 (1991), p. 10. 298 colony.859 Because the Rhoen-Bruderhof was adopted into the Hutterite community, it therefore became a part of a shared Anabaptist heritage with the German Mennonites.

However, unlike the Mennonites, the Rhoen-Bruderhof practiced a shared community of goods. Also unlike the Mennonites, the Rhoen-Bruderhof practiced distance from

National Socialism based on its religious convictions. When authorities mandated

National Socialist content within the Rhoen-Bruderhof s school curriculum the community responded by removing its children to Liechtenstein. Draft eligible men were similarly relocated once military service was reinstated. This critical distancing aroused

Nazi suspicions, the result of which was surveillance on the suspicion of communism and pacifism, and raids on the compound.

Until the spring of 1937 there had been limited interaction between the Rhoen-

Bruderhof and German Mennonites. Of particular importance, Arnold had sought closer ties, but Mennonite leadership had rejected his proposals. Circumstances outside of each group's control linked the German Mennonites and the Rhoen-Bruderhof in 1937, and shed further light on the responses of German Mennonite leaders - in particular

Benjamin Unruh - to the National Socialist regime.

In April 1937 the Basler Nachrichten ran a story about the "expulsion of

Mennonites from Germany".862 According to the article, 31 Mennonites had been expelled from Germany, taken by the Gestapo to the Netherlands. These 'Mennonites'

859 Christian Neff, "Der Rh6nbruderhof \ Mennonitisch Blatter, 12 (1937) p. 86. 860 Lichti, "The German Mennonite Response to the Dissolution of the Rhoen-Bruderhof', pp. 11-2. 861 Neff, "Der RhQnbruderhof", p. 87. 862 E. HSndiges, Chr. Neff, A. Braun, "Vereinigung der Deutschen Mennonitengemeinden. Eine notwendige Berichtigung", Mennonitisch Blatter, 6 (1937) p. 47. 299 had refused military service and would not employ the Hitler greeting based on religious convictions. The story was also covered in the Dutch paper Het Volk.

In the wake of the reports the Vereinigung's leadership was eager to correct what it considered to be a very serious misrepresentation. No Mennonites had been expelled from Germany. Moreover, there was no connection between the Rhoen-Bruderhof and

German Mennonite organizations. Writing shortly after the Basler Nachrichten article appeared, Vereinigung leaders published an "essential correction" in response. A second article was published months later. Not only had no Mennonites been expelled from

Germany, the clarification reinforced that "The Mennonites enjoy the protection of the

German Reich and can live out their beliefs unimpeded".864 Whereas the Rhoen-

Bruderhof members had committed to giving up personal property, separating from the world, adopting nonresistance, and rejecting oaths and participation in the state, the article asserted that German Mennonites had shown themselves prepared to serve the nation. Historically Mennonites engaged in alternative service. However from 1914-18 the majority bore arms; only a minority availed themselves of the provisions for alternative service provided under the Cabinet Order of 186S.865 Under the present regime, the article reiterated, the fact was that in the Vereinigung's constitution "the principle of nonresistance is abandoned".866

The collective response of the Vereinigung's leaders aligned with Unruh's personal response to the Rhoen-Bruderhof affair and his desire to prevent any confusion

863 Lichti, "The German Mennonite Response to the Dissolution of the Rhoen-Bruderhof', pp. 10. 864 HMndiges, Neff, Braun, "Eine notwendige Berichtigung", p. 47. 865 The article highlights the number men killed in action. 866 HSndiges, Neff, Braun, "Eine notwendige Berichtigung", p. 47. 300 about German Mennonite involvement. In a letter from May 1937, Unruh wrote to his close friend in the Auswartige Amt Dr. Kundt, soliciting his help in the matter.867

Through the letter it becomes clear that Unruh did not think much of Arnold's leadership, referring to Arnold as a "typical representative of the postwar modern 'youth movement'". As such, his activities had nothing to do with the Mennonites. Even if

Arnold was a prototypical Hutterite, the differences between Hutterites and Mennonites were still pronounced enough to negate conflating the two.868

According to Unruh, historically the community of goods was not possible for

Menno; he rejected it. The Hutterites therefore could not be labelled Mennonites. It would be tantamount to calling Calvinists Lutherans. Moreover, Unruh argued that at present in the United States Hutterites would not even belong to the same church conference as Mennonites. Similarly they had nothing to do with Hutterites who converted to Mennonitism. SAO

Unruh continued by suggesting that those outside Germany, namely in Holland and Switzerland, always found fault with Germany, but stressed that the Mennonites had been loyal citizens in Germany, and were loyal to the new Reich. Here Unruh was essentially arguing both against the misrepresentation of the Third Reich, and against the misapplication of the Mennonite name to act as leverage for foreign criticism of National

Socialism.870 The Mennonites had not been disloyal, nor had they been mistreated.

867 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh to Dr. Kundt, May 21, 1937, Benjamin H. Unruh Collection, Box 2, File 8, MFS. ** Unruh to Kundt, May 21,1937. 869 Unruh to Kundt, May 21,1937. 870 Lichti, "The German Mennonite Response to the Dissolution of the Rhoen-Bruderhof', p. 12. 301 Leaving no confusion about the Mennonite willingness to use the Hitler greeting, Unruh signed the letter "Heil Hitler!"871

The reaction of Vereinigung leaders to the Rhoen-Bruderhofs demise is significant on multiple levels. Firstly, despite variation between the different leaders, the episode reflects the general "overall pattern of German Mennonite accommodation to the

Third Reich".872 Equally important, the incident magnifies the complexity of German

Mennonite self-identification. Essentially by distancing themselves from the Rhoen-

Bruderhof, Mennonite leaders simultaneously stressed their particular historical development while denying connections with other Anabaptist-descended groups. In and of themselves Unruh's historical differentiation between Mennonites and Hutterites, or emphasis on Mennonite distinctives are not necessarily problematic. It is their context which makes them obviously political, as Unruh clearly did not seek distance between the two groups for the sake of historical accuracy. Unruh's appeal was both on behalf of the

Mennonites, lest they be misconstrued as disloyal, and on behalf of the regime, protecting it from foreign criticism.873

By trading accommodation for institutional autonomy, the responses of

Mennonite leaders to National Socialism paralleled those within the Confessing

871 Unruh to Kundt, May 21,1937. 872 Lichti, "The German Mennonite Response to the Dissolution of the Rhoen-Bruderhof', p. 10. 873 The Vereinigung1 s response is all the more significant when compared to Dutch Mennonite reactions to the episode. Whereas German Mennonites sought distance, Dutch Mennonites housed Bruderhof members in church retreat centers in the Netherlands while they awaited admittance to England. See: Gerlof D. Homan, "'We Must...And Can Stand Firmly':Dutch Mennonites in World War IF', The Mennonite Quarterly Review, 69 (1995), pp. 7-36. 302 Church.874 For on the personal level, practicing Mennonites faced the same fundamental challenge as other Christians in Germany - the task of reconciling their individual faith

with the obligations of life under National Socialism. In Benjamin Unruhs's case to these

obligations was added his political activism on behalf of Russian Mennonites.

The Rundbriefgemelnschaft.

From his time in the Russian colonies forward, Unruh served as a Mennonite representative. Yet insofar as we can talk about Unruh as being a representative for

German Mennonites (and Russian Mennonites in particular), we need to distinguish this

from the extent to which Unruh is representative of German Mennonites. Here we

encounter a degree of contradiction. Like other German Mennonite leaders Unruh accommodated the National Socialist regime, but mixed what could otherwise have been hope for the regime's possibilities - for example its participation in the deliverance of

Russian Mennonites - or apolitical acquiescence, with blatant enthusiasm. Yet even amongst younger Mennonites who arguably remained most reserved about National

Socialism, Unruh was still considered a spiritual authority, and his opinions on political- spiritual matters were sought out.

Much of our knowledge about what political issues concerned German

Mennonites has been gleaned from Mennonite periodicals. These sources are important for reconstructing Mennonite political attitudes; however, even as they provided a forum for deliberate and focussed reports and opinions, they are inherently limited by the scope

874 Lichti, "The German Mennonite Response to the Dissolution of the Rhoen-Bniderhof', p. 12. 303 of voices they record. While the major German Mennonite periodicals certainly contain

dissenting opinions, perhaps the most introspective segment of the community was the

Rundbriefgemeinschaft. These young adults had organized themselves into 'circles' and

forwarded notebooks throughout Germany and abroad in which participants of the

various circles addressed proposed topics of debate, and responded to their fellow

correspondents.875 Often political, these letters are an invaluable look into what younger

Mennonites were thinking about their relationship to traditional Mennonitism and the

issues of their day late in the Weimar period and during the Third Reich, and serve as an

important counterpoint to confessional periodicals. Furthermore, these letters offer an

insight into Mennonite perspectives beyond those of church leaders.

Like other communities during the Third Reich there was variation within the

German Mennonite community, making it inaccurate to speak of it as homogeneous. The

same holds true for the members of the Rundbriefgemeinschaft. Throughout all the circles

there are differing, at times polarized, opinions on interrelated questions about the nature of Mennonitism under the Third Reich, its obligations to the regime, and the proper relationship between church and state.876 Yet like the pattern we have observed with

Barth, Hirsch, and Unruh, the discourse of the circular letters continually engages the

875 The content of debates within the various circles and larger meetings is summarized in a series of "Mitteilungen fllr die Freunde des mennonitischen Jugend-Rund-Briefes". The report from October 1936 lists 24 circles comprised of 256 participants (some participants are listed in multiple circles). Nr. 11, October 1936, Theo Glflck Collection, MFS. 876 Without the notebooks for all of the circles, their content has been reconstructed from the reports submitted by each group's leaders. 304 theological, even if the particular topic under consideration is seemingly expressly political.877

Not surprisingly, the question of Mennonite identity within the Third Reich recurs throughout the Rundbriefgemeinschqft 's discourse, and includes a variety of concomitant issues. A year after Hitler assumed the chancellorship, a report from Kreis 13 indicated the enthusiasm within that circle about the national renewal, to the point that if needed, some were willing to defend Germany militarily. Yet indicative of the tension running through the Rundbriefgemeinschqft's discourse, the report went on to suggest that

Christ's instructions and the kingdom of God need to be kept in mind when considering nonresistance, for Christ did not permit worldly force.878

These issues obviously grew in importance under National Socialist rule, but the question as to whether a Christian could be a National Socialist had already been addressed in detail before Hitler's seizure of power.879 In Kreis 2 the question received both affirmative and negative answers. Those who affirmed followed the same logic used by Unruh and Christian conservatives, and argued that "we must safeguard our Volk from anti-Christianity, and that today National Socialism is the only bulwark against communism". Those opposing appear more nuanced in their thinking, and questioned

877 At times the discussion remained distinctly theological. Kreis 19 for example at one point carried out a discussion questioning how an individual can be righteous before God and attain salvation, while Kreis 11 examined ideas about predestination. "Der Mensch vor Gott", Mitteilungen fur die Freunde des mennonitischen Jugend-Rund-Briefes, Nr. 9, summer 1935, p. 18; Margot Schroder, "Notliige. Pradestination", Mitteilungen fur die Freunde des mennonitischenJugend-Rund-Briefes, Nr. 13, Aug. 1937, pp. 5-6. Theo Glfick Collection, MFS. Ernst Dettweiler, "Wir und das Vaterland", Mitteilungen fur die Freunde des mennonitischen Jugend- Rund-Briefes, Nr. 6, Jan. 1934, p. 12. 879 Hilde Funk, "Kreis 2", Mitteilungen fur die Freunde des mennonitischen Jugend-Rund-Briefes, Nr. 3, Jun. 1932, pp. 3-4. 305 whether communism alone represented opposition to Christianity. Communism was less

a threat as a deceptive anti-Christian force because it had always represented itself as

antithetical to Christianity, and therefore did not hope to deceive the church by

misrepresenting itself. Those in Kreis 2 advocating distance similarly maintained that the

extent to which National Socialism would protect Christianity was the extent to which the

movement's own interests were served. Because National Socialism's preoccupation was

race, to which all other concerns were subordinated, Christian doctrine - as evidenced by

'Positive Christianity' - was likewise subordinated to racial formulations. This rendered

the National Socialist exultation of race idolatry. But from the religious-political

perspective, "As Mennonites we especially reject National Socialism because we profess

to be non-resistant"; for the movement met nonresistance with "scorn and derision".880

The oppositional voice in Kreis 2 continued that Christianity and politics could

not be combined; therefore Mennonites should not push party-political positions. There

remains a tension, however, because while Christian obligations cannot be accomplished

through political party lines, Christians are not to completely abandon society to those acting contrary to God's commands. Christians are to continuously bear witness to the

will of God.881

It is significant that the voice of opposition in Kreis 2 cut through contemporary

religious platitudes to contrast the perceived and real dangers of communism and

National Socialism. While many in the German churches harboured an instinctive hatred

880 Ibid. 881 Ibid. 306 for communism, communism is here depicted as obvious in its atheism, juxtaposed

against the more hidden yet no less dangerous idolatry of Positive Christianity.

This critical attitude was obviously not shared by all young Mennonites. Two

years later in 1934 the same author who had reported on Kreis 2's discussion addressed

remarks about the true nature of community to Mennonite members of the Hitlerjugend,

Bund Deutscher Madel, and Sturmabteilung,882 Moreover, Kreis 10's report from the

summer of 1934 indicates that there was a fear that the new Germanic paganism was

taking its cues from the National Socialist movement. Hitler appealed to a specifically

Germanic culture, and it was assumed by some that a Germanic faith was to follow. Like

Unruh's personal position, these worries were quieted by Hitler's pronouncements in

Mein Kampf that political parties would not interfere in religious matters - nor would the

Fuhrer. Still, the discussion maintained that Mennonites be cautious. There was no

German gospel. Only Jesus was to be preached. Thus Mennonites could say with Baldur

von Schirach: 'I believe in Germany,' "but only in trust in God".883

Even if members of the Rundbriefgemeinschaft maintained that there was no

differentiation between Christians before God, there is still an acknowledgement within

the letters of the differentiating effects of the orders of creation. The word of Christ

882 Hilde Funk. Mitteilungen fur die Freunde des mennonitischen Jugend-Rund-Briefes, Nr. 7, Summer 1934, p. 2. Membership in the Hitler Youth was not yet mandatory. 883 Paula Hotel, "Das Evangelium und die neue Zeit", Mitteilungen fur die Freunde des mennonitischen Jugend-Rund-Briefes, Nr. 7, Summer 1934, pp. 5-6. A similar position was reported by Kreis 17, which discussed the Mennonite relationship to the regime in light of the evangelical church struggle. National Socialism was a political movement and Hitler had made it clear that it was not to interfere with religion. However in the context of National Socialism's unchristian aspects, the discussion moved to the necessity of' Tatbekenntnis,' a confession through action. Daniel Schneider, "Fiihrung Gottes - Sendung der Gl&ubigen heute", Mitteilungen fur die Freunde des mennonitischen Jugend-Rund-Briefes, Nr. 8, Jan. 1935, pp. 11-12. 307 stands above the earthly orders of Volk, state, blood and soil, giving them their proper meaning and defining their limits. There is a danger of elevating orders of creation to absolutes or conflating them with the will of God, but the orders are recognized as gifts

from God to protect sinful humanity within their distinct limitations.884 Similarly, as other

Rundbriefgemeinschaft members confessed "Christus als unser Fiihrerthey recognized

earthly authority as divinely ordained, and approved of Hitler as with all good

government. However it remained to be decided how far temporal authority was to be followed, that is whether it aligned with God's commands.885 These issues were still

under discussion into 1937.

By this point Hitler had further consolidated his power by assuming presidential authority after Hindenburg's death in August 1934. Nazi militarism had been taking concrete form - in violation of the Treaty of Versailles - with the reintroduction of universal male conscription and the remilitarization of the Rhineland, while its violence and racial aspirations became increasingly clear after the S.A. purge and the Nuremberg racial legislation. Within this historic context numerous circles wrestled with the question of "unsere Stellung zum Staaf\

884 Daniel Schneider, "FQhrung Gottes - Sendung der GlSubigen heute", Mitteilungen Jiir die Freunde des mennonitischenJugend-Rund-Briefes, Nr. 8, Jan. 1935, pp. 11-12; Rudolf Funk, "Die SchSpfungsordnungen und das Wort vom Kreuz", Mitteilungen fur die Freunde des mennonitischen Jugend-Rund-Briefes, Nr. 9, Summer 1935, pp. 16-7. 885 Hermann Fr. Funk, "Christus als unser FQhrer", Mitteilungen fur die Freunde des mennonitischen Jugend-Rund-Briefes, Nr. 8, Jan. 1935, p. 17. 308 Kreis 6 in particular dealt with the Mennonite relationship to the state, revealing the variation within Mennonite political attitudes. On the one hand it was recognized that while the Anabaptists rejected all earthly offices, nonparticipation of this sort was no longer practiced. Mennonites were to be obedient so far as government adhered to the laws of God. At the same time, it was acknowledged that the state was overemphasized in the present age. God placed each individual in a particular Volk, but service to the state to which the individual belonged could only be rendered if by doing so it was also service to

God. However, unlike the views of the passive Anabaptists, there were times when the existence of the Volk needed to be defended with force. Thus war was described as a

US *7 "Grenzfall," but was not to be generalized.

Despite differences of opinion about the centrality of the state and an emphasis on the Volk, Kreis 6 still expressed a consensus about the benefits of the Third Reich - especially its order when compared to the chaos of the Soviet Union and Spain. The circle similarly expressed a unanimous love for the Fatherland, and an affirmation of the

freedom of religion under Nazi Germany, even if there were concerns about the state's attitude towards Christianity.888

The content of this discussion is important on multiple levels. The continued use - through time and between circles - of orders of creation language contextualizes

Mennonite thought within the broader Protestant debate and National Socialist volkisch rhetoric. The extent to which these young Mennonites appealed to traditional Mennonite

886 Gertrud Franz, "Unsere Stellung zum Staat", Mitteilungen fur die Freunde des mennonitischen Jugend- Rund-Briefes, Nr. 12, Jan. 1937, pp. 8-10. 887 Ibid. 888 Ibid. 309 praxis, including nonresistance, and critically evaluated life under the Third Reich, must also be considered. For as we have seen, already in 1932 Rundbriefgemeinschaft members had juxtaposed the spirit of National Socialism with Mennonite nonresistance.

This is particularly noteworthy since by and large the practice of nonresistance had long been abandoned by German Mennonites. And yet the issue of nonresistance as a composite part of Mennonite identity remained a recurring theme throughout the

Rundbriefgemeinschaft.

The fact that Mennonite men did not refuse military service in the Second World

War was foreshadowed by comments from a contributor to Kreis 1 in 1935, who suggested that the majority of young Mennonites were committed to the Ftihrer and to the use of force to defend Germany to protect the privileges it provided. This position is consistent with the Mennonites' gradual acculturation to German society and the long- term influence of nationalism. However it is of considerable significance that the willingness to bear arms was arrived at by self-identifying "conscious Mennonites".889

The discourse of the Rundbriefgemeinschaft makes it clear that historic

Mennonite distinctives were not considered to be empty practices: "Nein, unsere Eigenart ist urn nicht aufiere, leere Form, sondern eine geschichtliche, eine verpflichtende

Aufgabe ('Gemeindekirche 7/'890 This position rejected the prospect of assimilating into a

Reichskirche, where it was believed that Mennonite distinctives would not be protected, and united members of the Rundbriefgemeinschaft with Mennonite leaders intent on

889 Gertrud Goerz, "Mennoniten in Krieg und Frieden", Mitteilmgen fiir die Freunde des mennonitischen Jugend-Rtmd-Briefes, Nr. 9, Summer 1935, pp. 3-4. 890 Theo Hertzler, "Mennoniten und Reichskirche - Deutsche Glaubensbewegung", Mitteilungen fiir die Freunde des mennonitischen Jugend-Rtmd-Briefes, Nr. 7, Summer 1934, pp. 7-8. 310 preserving Mennonite institutional autonomy. But on this point an important qualification was maintained between practices sustained by the teachings of Jesus - such as the peace position, adult baptism, and the refusal to swear oaths - and traditions no longer appropriate for the contemporary context like the requirement that women remain silent

OQ1 and wear head coverings in church.

Appropriately, the debate about traditional Mennonite practices centred on nonresistance, with multiple circles suggesting that the present attitude towards military participation be re-examined.892 In 1933 Kreis 11 addressed the question "Can we

Mennonites still sustain thoughts about nonresistance in the present time of 'National

Revolution'?"893 The same year, in Kreis 12 several members wanted to examine the principle of nonresistance in the hope that making it relevant would prevent it from

becoming a 'dead letter'. Over time German Mennonites had essentially accepted "the soul for God, the body for the fatherland or state!" It was thus suggested that the broader community needed to newly understand nonresistance - with a view to the fact that loyalty to both God and the Volk could lead to conflicts between the two.894

891 Paul Schowalter, "Gemeinde und Reichskirche", Mitteilungen fur die Freunde des mennonitischen Jugend-Rund-Briefes, Nr. 5, Sept. 1933, p. 5; Theo Hertzler, "Mennoniten und Reichskirche - Deutsche Glaubensbewegung", Mitteilungen fur die Freunde des mennonitischen Jugend-Rund-Briefes, Nr. 7, Summer 1934, pp. 7-8; Fritz Foth, "Unsere Stellung zum Mennonitentum", Mitteilungen fur die Freunde des mennonitischen Jugend-Rund-Briefes, Nr. 13, Aug. 1937, pp.9-10. 892 Within Mennonite leadership circles the question of the oath appears to have been of greater concern. 893 Margot Schr5der, "Von der Mode", Mitteilungen fur die Freunde des mennonitischen Jugend-Rund- Briefes, Nr. 5, Sept. 1933, p. 11; .Margot Schr6der, "Immer Wieder Wehrlosigkeit!", Mitteilungen fur die Freunde des mennonitischen Jugend-Rund-Briefes, Nr. 6, Jan. 1934, pp. 10-11.

894 Cornelius Krahn, "Immer neue Entscheidung", Mitteilungen jur die Freunde des mennonitischen Jugend-Rund-Briefes, Nr. 6, Jan. 1934, p. 11. 311 The report from Kreis 1 in January 1935 indicates that the debate was ongoing, as it addressed the question as to whether German Mennonitism had not capitulated before the problem of nonresistance. Again, multiple voices are represented in the discourse, but the tone of the guiding question itself is indicative of sympathies towards nonresistance in the circle. The report began with the suggestion that unlike the Anabaptists of the

Reformation who preached nonresistance, the willingness to fight was now preached.

However unlike chauvinistic assumptions to the contrary, those Mennonites who now refused to abandon nonresistance were not reactionaries or cowards, unpatriotic or out of touch with the modern spirit of the times. Nor should their connections to Germany as their native land come into question. The martyrs of the past were in fact brave heroes who understood sacrifice and remained true to their faith and God - exemplifying the willingness to sacrifice for the truth.895

In response, another member of Kreis 1 submitted that: "An individual can adhere to nonresistance, but we cannot expect this position from an entire people". States exist

because of power and must use coercive force to repress evil. Appealing to Luther, the argument cites Luther's clarity ahead of his time about the need for the autonomous state, which in fact fulfills a divine mandate.896 War is not an individual enterprise, but an

895 Hermann Funk, "Wieder einmal: Wehrlosigkeit", Mitteilungen fur die Freunde des mennonitischen Jugend-Rund-Briefes, Nr. 8, Jan. 1935, pp. 3-4. 896 Here the report's author added a parenthetical comment that Luther was not authoritative for Mennonites. 312 initiative of the state - to which we are to be obedient as God has appointed it.897 War is not an ideal of Jesus' kingdom, but then neither is the state.

Through the Rundbriefgemeinschaffs debate over Mennonite identity within a changing Germany, and the retention of historic Mennonite distinctives, it becomes clear that there were conscientious and patriotic Mennonites within Germany who still opposed military service. Somewhat ironically, given Mennonitism's historic emphasis on communal discipline, the discourse on nonresistance suggests a consensus that decisions about its adoption be arrived at individually.898 In short, "the time of the old commitments and laws is over," for "the decision is and remains a matter of conscience for the individual".899

We can conclude that in general those Mennonites who did not align with the social revolution in Germany did not actively oppose it. Rather, they tended to retreat to privatized or internalized attitudes of resistance. The Rundbriefgemeinschaft is a rich example of the variation within German Mennonite thought — including rejections of

National Socialism - demonstrating that an active segment of the population retained sympathy for traditional Mennonite disciplines. But equally important, as perhaps the most circumspect affiliation within the German Mennonite community, the

897 The report's author again inserted a comment that obedience to the state is given only insofar as it does not contravene God's word or the individual conscience. 898 Ernst Dettweiler, "Taufe, Jugendarbeit, Wehrlosigkeit...", Mitteilungenjur die Freunde des mennonitischenJugend-Rund-Briefes, Nr. 4, Jan. 1933, pp. 6-7; Betty Blickensddrfer, "Krieg und Frieden - Freud und Leid!", Mitteilungen fur die Freunde des mennonitischen Jugend-Rund-Briefes, Nr. 4, Jan. 1933, p. 9; Hermann Funk, "Wieder einmal: Wehrlosigkeit", Mitteilungen fur die Freunde des mennonitischen Jugend-Rund-Briefes, Nr. 8, Jan. 1935, pp. 3-4.This position parallels the Danzig church's 1870 confession. See above. 899 Margot SchrSder, "Immer Wieder Wehrlosigkeit!", Mitteilungen fiir die Freunde des mennonitischen Jugend-Rund-Briefes, Nr. 6, Jan. 1934, pp. 10-1. 313 Rundbriefgemeinschaft still solicited Unruh's scholarly perspective on historical and theological matters.

At multiple points within the letters Unruh is appealed to as an authority, specifically in relation to questions about the Mennonite relation to the National Socialist state and the German Volk. A report from the summer of 1934 details that Kreis 8 had discussed how best to respond to the worldview contained in Rosenberg's Mythus, a

"dangerous and sinister power" that deifies race and blood. In the context of these challenging questions the report's author used "uncle" Unruh's words as a benediction.900

A subsequent report a year later cited Unruh's position on the right of states to assert themselves on the world stage, but also the right of the individual compelled by conscience not to fight. The same report also referred to our "verehrten Herrn Professor und 'Lieben Freund"' Unruh's position on blood and race in the Old Testament.901

Rundbriefgemeinschaft members would have been familiar with Unruh's thought through his contributions to Mennonite periodicals, but his influence amongst, and connection to Mennonite youth is explicitly evidenced by the fact that he was invited as a speaker for the Rundbriefgemeinschaft's Easter meetings in 1935 and 1937. Unruh's standing within the thought of Rundbriefgemeinschaft members speaks to his importance as an intellectual-theological authority for German Mennonites. Yet the esteem with which Unruh was held needs to be contrasted with the reservations of a visiting American

Mennonite of roughly the same age.

900 Theo Hertzler, "Mennoniten und Reichskirche - Deutsche Glaubensbewegung", Mitteilungen fur die Freunde des mennonitischenJugend-Rund-Briefes, Nr. 7, Summer 1934, pp. 7-8. 901 Hans Matthies, "Unsere Deutschrussen", Mitteilungen fur die Freunde des mennonitischen Jugend- Rund-Briefes, Nr. 9, Summer 1935, pp. 13-4. Nonresistance is qualified; it must not be proud or sectarian. 314 In the summer of 1938 Robert Kreider was touring in Europe and had the opportunity to visit in Unruh's home. As Kreider recalls, during his time with Unruh he was held "spellbound" by Unruh's "passionate advocacy of National Socialism" as he expressed his hopes for a religious renewal in Germany, and his belief that "Only when every nation develops a strong racial and geographical (Blut und Boderi) nationalism can we have a lasting internationalism".902 According to Kreider, Unruh continued: "Hitler is a good man. He is more generous than anyone Germany has known. He is a simple peasant boy, who hates no one, like Menno Simons. He loves Germany and loves the whole world. Hitler doesn't want war. Hitler is like your George Washington". The meeting had a considerable effect on Kreider, and afterwards he recorded his impressions of Unruh: "I believe it is difficult for such a man... to integrate National Socialism with his previously established philosophy".903

Kreider's account is instructive, but not completely to the point with regards to

Unruh. Kreider assumed that it should be difficult for Unruh to reconcile National

Socialism with his worldview, presumably because it would prove incompatible with

Unruh's Mennonitism.904 However, Unruh embraced National Socialism pragmatically because of its potential to help Mennonite refugees, while he accepted National Socialism

902 Robert S. Kreider, My Early Years: An Autobiography (Kitchener, 2002), p. 236. 903 Kreider, My Early Years, p. 237. 904 Kreider referred to National Socialism as "a mild form of insanity". Kreider, My Early Years, p. 237. 315 intellectually because facets of it did, in fact, fit into his established philosophy.905

Unruh's worldview reconciled faith with political engagement.

The working out of a Mennonite identity in relation to National Socialism

happened in largely theological terms, and as such engaged the doctrine of the two

kingdoms and the past patterns of Mennonite political attitudes which themselves were

largely a response to Reformation trends. As German Mennonites sought to maintain

their historic free church identity, they did so in relation to both the present regime, and

the collective Anabaptist-Mennonite past. Working from this understanding, even if not

explicitly, Mennonites such as Unruh remained in dialogue with the doctrine of the two

kingdoms in their attempts to navigate political participation under the Third Reich. For even as Unruh aligned himself far too closely with the regime, he depicted it in

theological terms, continually returning to his Mennonite convictions that the Sermon on

the Mount was still applicable and made claims on the individual.906

Unruh clearly understood Luther's theological justification of political

participation.907 At the same time, he also understood the Mennonites to be a part of the

wider church. They were not a sect and were not to become one. As such, Unruh argued

905 Kreider's recollections touch on familiar themes in Unruh's thought: Hitler as a just statesman, especially in comparison to Menno Simons; Hitler's assumed wish for peace; a belief in the beneficial role of national particularism; and German generosity. 906 Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, "Des Wesen des ev. Tfiufertums und Mennonitentums", Mennonitische Jugendwarte, Feb. 1937, p. 10. 907 This is evident from Unruh's "Die Revolution 1525 und das TSufertum", in Gedenkschrift zum 400 Jahrigen Jubilaum der Mennoniten oder Taufgesinnten 1525-1925 (Ludwigshafen, 1925), pp. 40-2. As Unruh understood Luther, the Christian belongs to the kingdom of God as is evidenced by his or her disposition. At the same time, the Christian is called to fulfill an earthly duty in which he or she may need to engage or utilize coercive force in service to the state and the social order. However it is in the fulfillment of earthly obligations that the Christian demonstrates love. Thus the Christian can demonstrate love through service better through public work than in a monastery or cloister. Unruh also maintained that to a significant degree Luther's outlook was compatible with Anabaptism. 316 that Mennonites had a unique gift of theological insight to contribute.908 Unlike Luther's compartmentalization of the private and public spheres, Mennonites emphasized the

Sermon on the Mount and strove to practically follow it: "The Sermon on the Mount is nothing other than a programme for a Christianity in proper discipleship of Christ.. .',909

Therefore, as earlier Mennonites were serious about the intent of the Bible, as it was to be lived out, Unruh asserted that the Sermon on the Mount was still applicable; it still made claims on the individual. It then follows that the Anabaptist position was still applicable, although in Unruh's life it was held in tension.910

Over time, as Mennonites in Germany became more Protestant they also became more German. And while this process - resulting in a privatized faith, weakened central discipline and endorsed traditional doctrine - can be explained, in part, by the effects of liberalism, a role must certainly be attributed to the influence of Lutheranism and the pervasiveness of the two kingdoms paradigm.911 Generally speaking, while German

Mennonites remained culturally distinct to a point and retained some particular church practices, they abandoned a practical fidelity to nonresistance and effectively underwent a process of theological assimilation, over time integrating aspects of Lutheran theology and its accompanying nationalism into their belief system. In effect, instead of believing that they could only live in one of the two spheres, many Mennonites became increasingly comfortable inhabiting both.

908 Unruh, "Des Wesen des ev. TSufertums und Mennonitentums", pp. 7-9. 909 Unruh, "Des Wesen des ev. Taufertums und Mennonitentums", p. 10. 910 Unruh, "Des Wesen des ev. Taufertums und Mennonitentums", pp. 10, 12. 911 Lichti, "The Response to National Socialism by Denominations with Teachings Against Bearing Arms", pp. 355, 360-1, x. 317 Conclusion.

"So long as Christ and the world are conceived as two opposing and mutually repellent spheres, man will be left in the following dilemma: he abandons reality as a whole, and places himself in one or other of the two spheres. He seeks Christ without the world, or he seeks the world without Christ. In either case he is deceiving himself. Or else he tries to stand in both spaces at once and thereby becomes the man of eternal conflict.. ."9I2

In this passage from his Ethics, Dietrich BonhoefFer concisely pointed to the interconnection of theology and politics inherent in the doctrine of the two kingdoms. But whereas the doctrine could be used - as it was by Hirsch - to relieve the tension between

Christian ethics and political responsibility, like Barth, BonhoefFer emphasized their indivisibility. For according to BonhoefFer, the doctrine artificially splits reality in two

under the false premise that an individual can live in a singular sphere. It is not that there are two spheres that must be lived in simultaneously, or - as many Mennonites had traditionally thought - that the worldly sphere needs to be rejected. There is only one reality in which the sacred and the profane are united.913

Thus in this one passage we see the possibility for multiple divergent theological- political orientations to the Third Reich which broadly encompass the positions taken by

Barth, Hirsch and Unruh, giving credence to the conclusion that different appropriations of the doctrine of the two kingdoms help explain the various Protestant responses to

National Socialism above and beyond the personal and political. Barth recognized

912 Dietrich BonhoefFer, Ethics, ed. Eberhard Bethge, trans. Neville Horton Smith (New York, 1995), pp. 194-5. 913 Bonhoeffer, Ethics, p. 195. Bonhoeffer did not refer to the Mennonite position specifically, but did direct criticism towards the "scheme of the Enthusiasts" in which "the congregation of the Elect takes up the struggle with a hostile world for the establishment of God's kingdom on earth". Bonhoeffer, Ethics, p. 194. 318 relatively early the threat of the Nazi revolution, and similarly identified its theological component. From this perspective both National Socialism's threat and the means for its rejection were understood in spiritual terms. Barth's eventual categorical rejection of

National Socialism flowed from his rejection of natural revelation and what he considered to be flawed Lutheran theological formulations. Contrarily, for Hirsch, conceiving of the world in terms of two parallel realms with different ethical obligations allowed him to essentially anticipate National Socialism and subsequently expect full participation within the regime. In Benjamin Unruh's case, he engaged traditional

Mennonitism and held on to aspects of nonresistant practice even as he worked largely uncritically within the National Socialist state.

* * *

Speaking to a group of international Mennonites at the 1948 Mennonite World

Conference, Dirk Cattepoel, pastor of the Krefeld congregation, took up the question as to how German Mennonites could have succumbed to National Socialist ideology.

Cattepoel's address acknowledged the "cruelty" and "destruction" inflicted by Germans, and with specific reference to the occupation of western Europe, appealed to Dutch and

French Mennonites for their collective forgiveness.914 At the same time, Cattepoel maintained that the "black and terrible" side of the national revolution was kept hidden until the political terror of 1938. Moreover, Cattepoel reminded his audience that

914 Dirk Cattepoel, "The Mennonites of Germany, 1936-1948, and the Present Outlook", Proceedings of the Fourth Mennonite World Conference Goshen, Indiana, and North Newton, Kansas August 3-10, 1948 (Akron, 1950), pp. 14-15. 319 "Nazism did not approach us with concentration camps, religious persecution, extinction of the mentally ill, and gassing of the Jews; but with the motto, 'Freedom and Bread!' with a program for political and economic reconstruction, with social measures for the working classes, with a splendid welfare organization, and with a youth work doing justice to all the idealism of youth".915 To Cattepoel's list certainly needs to be added the appeal of National Socialism's open opposition to communism.

Like the postwar attempts made by Germany's Protestant leadership to come to terms with the churches' behaviour under National Socialism, Cattepoel's address

illustrates the uneasy balance of guilt and suffering, the tension between admitting

responsibility but limiting accusations of collective guilt, and acknowledging that even as horrific suffering occurred at the hands of Nazism, Germans themselves also suffered great loss and dislocation.916 Ultimately Cattepoel attempted to draw a lesson for the church, and concluded that "The Christians of Germany have learned that the Gospel must never be a message for the small circle and the private corner only, but that it is a

message to the whole world and for the whole world!"917

915 Cattepoel, "The Mennonites of Germany", p. 15. 916 Cattepoel's report asserted that the level of Christian resistance to National Socialism was greater than what the rest of the world knew: "There was not only one Niemoeller! But I will not try to excuse here much and everything - at least every German is guilty of political error - but I would point out Christ's word: 'Judge not, that ye be not judged,' ..." In acknowledging political guilt, Cattepoel still maintained that "Among Christians it should be evident that there is only one genuine collective guilt: the guilt of all mankind before God". Cattepoel, "The Mennonites of Germany", pp. 15, 14. Both Cattepoel's report and a separate report given by Emil Haendiges outlined the hardships faced by German Mennonites. Emil Haendiges, "The Catastrophe of the West Prussian Mennonites", Proceedings of the Fourth Mennonite World Corrference Goshen, Indiana, and North Newton, Kansas August 3-10, 1948 (Akron, 1950), pp. 218-26. 917 Cattepoel, "The Mennonites of Germany", p. 16. 320 As the German Mennonites had to give an account of the state of their churches to their coreligionists around the world as a part of the postwar healing process, international church leadership wanted German Protestantism to play a leading role in the course of international reconciliation. An ecumenical delegation from the World Council of Churches initiated a meeting with German church leaders in Stuttgart in 1945 to this end, with the understanding that the German churches would open up the healing process by acknowledging their failures during the National Socialist era. The result of this visit was the German Evangelical Church's "Stuttgart Declaration of Guilt".918

The Stuttgart Declaration was a polarizing document. On one side, theologians

like Barth had been pushing for a German church statement of guilt, and Barth himself

had drafted a concise statement to this effect, acknowledging Protestantism's

responsibility for allowing the rise of National Socialism. On the other, even though the declaration was not intended as a confession of collective guilt, it was interpreted as such by many Germans, for whom it bore a disturbing resemblance to the Treaty of

Versailles.919 Church leaders who supported the declaration were not united themselves, as both reformists and the conservative majority defended the document from their respective church-political positions. Eventually, conservatives moved away from defending the declaration, focussing instead on the injustice of the Allied occupation. As conservatives focussed on German hardships, the doctrine of the two kingdoms exhibited

918 See: Matthew D. Hockenos, A Church Divided: German Protestants Confront the Nazi Past (Bloomington, 2004). 919 Hockenos, A Church Divided, pp. 80-3. 321 a marked role in their thinking, which downplayed Protestant acquiescence by claiming important resistance had occurred within the religious sphere.920

To the extent that the Stuttgart Declaration dealt with German Protestantism's failings, it framed them in religious terms: the church had not prayed, believed, or loved as it should have. The declaration did not mention specific Nazi policies, referring instead to the church's fight against the National Socialist worldview; nor did it treat

Protestantism's political orientation.921 It was reformist minded leaders who addressed the church's political failings two years later.

The "Statement by the Council of Brethren of the Evangelical Church of Germany on the Political Course of Our People", more commonly known as the Darmstadt

Statement, dealt concretely with the church's politics, and like the Barmen Declaration

before it, its religious-political implications proved divisive amongst German

Lutherans.922 Conservative Lutherans reacted negatively to both the Barmen and

Darmstadt texts and their challenges to traditional Lutheran interpretations. In short,

conservatives objected to both texts' obvious Barthian slants.

In Barmen, the declaration moved away from a law-gospel dichotomy and two- kingdom thinking. In Darmstadt, the statement rejected the Lutheran churches' longstanding political conservatism and alignment with conservative political powers.

920 Hockenos, A Church Divided, pp. 91-2,46-8. 921 The text of the Stuttgart Declaration is included as an appendix in: John Anthony Moses, The Reluctant Revolutionary: Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Collision with Prusso-German History (New York, 2009), pp. 259- 60. 922 Matthew D. Hockenos, "The German Protestant Debate on Politics and Theology after the Second World War", in Dianne Kirby, ed., Religion and the Cold War (New York, 2003), pp. 37-38. 923 Barth was also influential in drafting the Darmstadt Statement. See also: Moses, The Reluctant Revolutionary, pp. 219ff. 322 Most significantly for our purposes, beyond acknowledging that German Protestantism paved the way for "absolute dictatorship" by retaining ties to conservative economic models and idolizing a German state based on power politics, Darmstadt tacitly rejected the doctrine of the two kingdoms by speaking against the traditional Lutheran denial of the legitimacy of revolution.924 By admitting that the church "betrayed the Christian freedom that enables us and commands us to change the forms of life, when such a change is necessary", Darmstadt rejected the thought which held that the church's concern did not extend to the state so as to correct it when it erred. Moreover, the statement condemned the past pattern of submission to, and alignment with, conservative institutions which encouraged the church's separation, and eventually enabled the rise of

National Socialism.925

As German Protestants and Mennonites attempted to come to terms with the Third

Reich after the war they both engaged the doctrine of the two kingdoms in the process.

Cattepoel's appeal to the hard lessons the Mennonite church needed to learn from

National Socialism pointed to the depoliticizing potential of confining the obligations of

Christian ethics to a narrow "private" sphere, while in the Protestant church the doctrine was mobilized both as a conservative explication for resistance essentially confined to confessional matters, and as a critical explanation for the church's failure to categorically reject National Socialism.

924 The text of the statement is included as an appendix in: Hockenos, "The German Protestant Debate on Politics and Theology after the Second World War", pp. 46-7. 925 "A Statement by die Council of Brethren of the EKD Concerning the Political Course of our People", p. 46. 323 That these postwar uses of the doctrine are in keeping with the pattern of theologically framed arguments mobilized throughout the Nazi era should be expected.

For as we have seen, the theologians under investigation consistently and deliberately arrived at, or at least explained, their relationships to the National Socialist state in theological terms. Moreover, that the postwar discourse was conducted in largely the same rhetoric as the churches' struggle for identity under the Third Reich demonstrates the inseparability of theology and politics, and supports the conclusion that religious-

political sympathies under National Socialism must also be explained in terms of a

relationship to specific Lutheran doctrine and natural revelation.

The inseparability of theology and politics, and the sustained theological-political

rhetoric within German Protestant thought further demonstrates the connection between

religious thought and broader social contexts. Hirsch, Barth and Unruh were clearly

influenced by their cultural and political milieus, yet arguably these factors were most

formative before 1918. Their cultural influences - Hirsch's Prussian conservatism,

Barth's Swiss religious socialism, and Unruh's Russian Mennonitism - largely oriented

their respective reactions to the First World War and its outcomes, from which point

onwards Hirsch, Barth, and Unruh responded to political developments inside (and

outside) of Germany according to their varying theological frameworks. While their

initial political orientations in response to the events of 1914-1918 might be explained

socially or culturally, from the time of the First World War all three theologians remained

consistently theological in their political expressions.

324 In her study of the German Christian movement during the Third Reich, Doris

Bergen argues that the movement aimed at establishing a fundamentally nationalistic,

anti-doctrinal, antisemitic, and masculine church, resulting in "a reconfiguration barely

recognizable as Christian".926 Bergen importantly demonstrates the lasting and significant

influence of German Christians throughout the Third Reich, and carefully documents the

movement's relationship to the Nazi hierarchy to illustrate that the German Christian

attraction to National Socialism - including its racism - was not opportunistic; instead it

built upon a number of established German political and theological antecedents.927

Essentially, the German Christians endorsed a particular Volkskirche that, while

perverted, nonetheless was centred on a defined "organizing principle" - a community

defined by "race and blood". Racism, therefore, served organizational and integrating

purposes, comparable to orthodox Christian appeals to biblical revelation.928

While arguing against German Christian opportunism Bergen highlights the

degree of religiousness within the Third Reich, and correctly identifies the important role

of race as a vehicle for divine revelation within German Christian thought, connecting

this belief to longer standing theological traditions. However, Bergen ultimately

maintains that this orientation was unchristian. According to Bergen, "while they retained

elements of Christian tradition, the German Christians' project was fundamentally destructive. They dissociated those cultural trappings from the tenets of Christian faith.

They denied the universal claims of Christianity and attacked the notion of the church

926 Doris L. Bergen, Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movement in the Third Reich (Chapel Hill, 1996), p. 2. 927 Bergen, Twisted Cross, pp. 3, 27-8, 39-40. 928 Bergen, Twisted Cross, pp. 4, 7,23-4. 325 itself as independent from the nation. Their antagonism to doctrine ensured that the church they promoted would be a hollow affair, prone to collapse".929 In short, "The anti-

Jewish church was ultimately non-Christian; the church without rules was no church at all".930

Bergen's focus on German Christian antisemitism and her documentation of

German Christian efforts to negate the Old Testament, deny Jesus' Jewishness, and

interpret the gospels as fundamentally anti-Jewish are certainly instructive, and illustrate

the extent of theological perversion and absurdity within the movement. At the same

time, the scope of Hirsch's theology - while certainly distasteful and ethically

irresponsible at crucial junctures - suggests that deeming the German Christians

'theologically bankrupt' goes too far, and risks minimizing the theological component of

the Protestant struggle with National Socialism.931

While it is true that Hirsch promulgated theories about Jesus' ancestry which

denied that he was racially Jewish and attempted to contextualize the Old Testament by

juxtaposing its 'pharisaical legalism' against the redemptive gospel, in earlier writings

Hirsch maintained what we might call a paradoxical antisemitism.932 This is in no way to

lessen the racist implications of Hirsch's theology or the fact that it contributed to the

929 Bergen, Twisted Cross, p. 45. 930 Bergen, Twisted Cross, p. 192. 931 See: Bergen, Twisted Cross, p. 229. 932 Bergen maintains that "although neither biblical evidence nor logic was on their side, the German Christians remained steadfast on two points: Jesus was not a Jew, they insisted, and the essence of the Gospels' message was hatred towards Jews", p. 154. Hirsch's Das Wesen des Christentums, a collection of lectures published in 1939 supports Bergen's position. In it Hirsch argues that Jesus was most likely not racially Jewish. But more importantly, the gospel, as the word of Jesus, clearly stands opposed to a Pharisaical law-based religion. Emanuel Hirsch, Das Wesen des Christentums (Weimar, 1939), pp. 19-20, 28. On Jesus' genealogy see in particular the appendix "Die Abstammung Jesu", pp. 158-165. See also: Emanuel Hirsch, Das Alte Testament unddie Predigt des Evangeliums (TGbingen, 1936). 326 broader German intellectual climate within which National Socialist genocide was able to develop.933 However, in key writings Hirsch did maintain the universality of the kingdom of God even as he advocated Jewish segregation. Considered against his continued theological focus during Weimar and the early Third Reich, it can be maintained that

Hirsch could hold these positions in tension precisely because of an adherence to - or more correctly an appropriation of - Lutheran doctrine. Moreover, rather than fusing the church with the state, Hirsch's preoccupation with the doctrine of the two kingdoms aimed at their proper separation. The point of Hirsch's use of the doctrine was to distinguish between the realms, effectively giving priority to the theological over the political. The irony is that Hirsch used the doctrine of the two kingdoms to keep the temporal and eternal distinct, and therefore did not deify National Socialism. Yet in conjunction with his belief in natural revelation, the doctrine of the two kingdoms allowed Hirsch to consider National Socialism to be the fulfillment of God's will for the

German Volk at that time, and by doing so, created the space for German Christians to fully participate in the National Socialist regime.934

My conclusions therefore align more closely with A. James Reimer's work on political theology under the Third Reich 935 Bergen is correct about the centrality of

933 As Ericksen has argued, "It is impossible to imagine, however, that Hirsch would ever have posed this question about Jesus' racial background or proposed an 'Aryan' answer without heavy antisemitic impetus". Robert Ericksen, "Assessing the Heritage: German Protestant Theologians, Nazis, and the 'Jewish Question'", in Robert P. Ericksen and Susannah Heschel, eds., Betrayal: German Churches and the Holocaust (Minneapolis, 1999), p. 28. 934 A. James Reimer, The Emanuel Hirsch and Paul Tillich Debate: A Study in the Political Ramifications of Theology (Queenston, 1989), pp. 353, 337. 935 See in particular: A. James Reimer, The Emanuel Hirsch and Paul Tillich Debate: A Study in the Political Ramifications of Theology (Queenston, 1989). 327 'nation' within German Christian thought, but her focus on antisemitism and race does not account for the theological content inherent in the concept as Hirsch uses it. Because nationality is tied into Hirsch's understanding of the orders of creation, allegiance to the nation as a God-given order for structuring human life is elevated to an ethical imperative.936 When Hirsch uses nationality as the "hidden sovereign," it is not identical to a fixation on racial exclusion. Hirsch clearly excluded Jews from the German Volt, yet while obviously political, because of the primacy of Hirsch's appeals to the orders of creation he conceived of ethnicity theologically, and largely used the Volk as an integrating principle. For Hirsch, political thought stands under the theological.937

In agreement with Reimer it can therefore be concluded that Hirsch's understanding of the orders of creation, natural revelation, the law-gospel dichotomy, and the two kingdoms doctrine are central to his political orientation. Regardless of its volkisch content it would be incorrect to dismiss Hirsch's theology as hollow. The fact that the German Christian movement was not merely opportunistic supports this conclusion. At the personal level, Hirsch's theological convictions on these issues formed the basis of his public disputes both with Paul Tillich and Karl Barth, and indicate the continuity of his thought. Far from being theologically bankrupt, Hirsch is therefore demonstrative of patterns exhibited in theologians as diverse as Barth and Unruh - the extent to which theology informed politics.

936 See: Reimer, The Emanuel Hirsch and Paid Tillich Debate, pp. 338-9. 937 Reimer, The Emanuel Hirsch and Paul Tillich Debate, pp. 54, 65, 91, 307. 328 Thus in a letter written to Hirsch in September, 1953, we again find Barth referring to their time together at Gottingen and the theological distance that existed between them even before 1933, but which was obviously accentuated by National

Socialism. Of particular importance is Barth's comment that of all the German theologians of the time, Hirsch was the only one known to him who had the "inner consistency and moral right" to support Hitler and the National Socialist movement.938

Obviously Barth was not sanctioning Hirsch's political sympathies; instead, his comments indicate the logicality of Hirsch's turn towards National Socialism, a turn supported by Hirsch's established theological framework and ethical convictions.

These conclusions suggest that there can be little doubt that the Lutheran legacy in Germany contributed to the reception of National Socialism through the ways in which a particular extension of Lutheran thought was leveraged politically, and through its

(de)politicizing effect within German churches. Yet Lutheranism, Protestantism, and

German culture are insufficient to explain on their own National Socialism's reception amongst German Protestants and Mennonites.

Still, it is significant that Hirsch was German while Barth was not. Barth's rejection of National Socialism was theological, but was obviously reinforced by his

Swiss nationalism. Yet his staunch rejection was not nationalistically founded. Barth

loved and identified with Germany, but in the end did not identify as German. Thus, self-

identification appears to have played an integral part in the ways in which individuals

938 Karl Barth to Emanuel Hirsch, September 12, 1953. 329 responded to National Socialism.939 Unruh and Mennonites outside of Germany who considered themselves part of the Volk and supported Hitler are examples of this.

The doctrine of the two kingdoms was influential during the Third Reich when an individual identified as German, that is to say as a member of the particular German temporal kingdom. Barth's rejection of National Socialism was made easier by the fact that he sympathized with Germany but did not identify with it. But, it may still be maintained that Barth could only reject National Socialism as he did because he previously erected a theological framework which stood opposed to it. In short, Barth understood how the doctrine of the two kingdoms worked itself out politically; he likewise understood the dangerous potential of natural revelation. At the same time, it cannot be concluded that theological responses to National Socialism were predetermined. Hirsch and Unruh could have arrived at different conclusions about Hitler just as members of the Confessing Church and Rundbriefgemeinschaft did.

Hirsch, Barth, and Unruh are not directly representative of the German Christian,

Confessing Church or Mennonite perspectives in the sense that all their experiences were somehow common, or that they exemplify the behaviour of each individual within their respective communities. However, Hirsch, Barth and Unruh certainly are instructive, and can be considered representative - even though they were elite thinkers - to the extent that they provide the theological frameworks that corresponded to the actions of everyday individuals. This is particularly true of Hirsch and Unruh, who accommodated to varying

939 This is not to suggest that there was something intrinsic about being German that predisposed towards National Socialism, for this would submit to volkisch theorizing. 330 degrees just as ordinary members of their communities did. Moreover, Hirsch, Barth, and

Unruh, if not directly representative of their constituents, were definitely representatives for the German Christians, Confessing Church, and German Mennonites.

While it is difficult to determine the exact extent to which theological or

intellectual formulations informed individual decision making, and accepting the

importance of material factors, the Protestant intellectual climate must remain central

when interpreting church responses to the Third Reich. Christianity was not merely a part

of Hirsch, Barth, and Unruh's identities; it was the central filter through which they made

their decisions. Moreover, each theologian under consideration was self-consciously

theological in his thinking.

Because they were at the highest theological levels, the influence of explicit two

kingdom thinking is most obvious in Barth, Hirsch, and Unruh. But it must be considered

that insofar as theologians were products of their environments, they also exercised

considerable influence in their communities as church leaders and teachers, where the

doctrine of the two kingdoms was engaged implicitly.940 Thus to some extent we can

consider theological formulations a description of what people were actually doing

anyway, in the same way that Hirsch, Barth and Unruh had to make many of the same choices as the members of their broader constituencies - balancing faith with the daily obligations and responsibilities of life under the National Socialist regime.

940 Perhaps the best example is the long process of theological and cultural assimilation in which Mennonites abandoned their traditional practices of nonresistance and nonparticipation - becoming more Protestant as they became more German. 331 Archives:

Centre for Mennonite Brethren Studies, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Mennonite Archives of Ontario, Waterloo, Ontario.

Mennonite Church USA Archives, Goshen, Indiana.

Mennonitische Forschungsstelle, Weierhof, Germany.

Published Primary Sources:

Asmussen, Hans. "Schreiben des Leiters der Kirchenkanzlei der EKD Asmussen an den Bruderrat der EKD", "Zum politischen Weg unseres Volkes Politische Leitbilder und Vorstellungen im deutschen Protestantismus 1945-1952. Ein Dokumentation. Ed. Dorothee Buchhaas-Birkholz,. Dusseldorf: Drost Verlag, 1989.

Augustine. City of God. Trans. Henry Bettenson. London: Penguin Books, 1972.

Barth, Karl. Anselm: Fides Quaerens Intellectum - Anselm's Proof of the Existence of God in the Context of His Theological Scheme. Tran. Ian W. Robertson. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1960.

—. "Autobiographical Sketch". Karl Barth-Rudolf Bultmann Letters 1922-1966. Trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Eds. Bernd Jaspert and Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1981.

—. "Basic Problems of Christian Social Ethics: A Discussion with Paul Althaus". The Beginnings of Dialectic Theology. Tran. Keith R. Crim. Ed. James M. Robinson. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1968.46-57.

—. Church Dogmatics: A Selection. Tran. G. W. Bromiley. Ed. G. W. Bromiley. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1962.

—. Community, State, and Church: 3 Essays. Ed. Will Herberg. New York: Anchor Books, 1960.

—. Der Dienst der Kirche an der Heimat. Zollikon-Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag A.G., 1940.

—. God in Action: Theological Addresses. Trans. E. G. Homrighausen and Karl J. Ernst. New York: Round Table Press, 1936. 332 How I Changed My Mind. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1966.

"Jesus Christ and the Movement for Social Justice". Karl Barth and Radical Politics. Tran. George Hunsinger. Ed. George Hunsinger. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976. 19-45.

Jesus und das Volk. Zollikon-Zurich: Evangellischer Verlag A.G., 1944.

"Karl Barth und Emanuel Hirsch. Antwort an Emanuel Hirsch". Deutsches Volkstum 2.Maiheft (1932): 390-4.

"No!". Natural Theology: Comprising "Nature and Grace" by Professor Dr. Emil Brunner and the Reply "No!" by Dr. Karl Barth. Tran. Peter Fraenkel. London: Geoffrey Bles: Centenary Press, 1946.67-128.

Offene Briefe 1909-1935 Gesamtausgabe V.35 . Ed. Diether Koch. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2001.

Offene Briefe 1909-1935 Gesamtausgabe V.35. Ed. Diether Koch. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2001.

"Past and Future: Friedrich Naumann and Christoph Blumhardt". The Beginnings of Dialectic Theology. Tran. Keith R. Crim. Ed. James M. Robinson. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1968. 35-45.

Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century: Its Background & History. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1973.

The Church and the Political Problem of our Day. London: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd., 1939.

The Church and the War. Tran. Antonia H. Froendt. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1944.

The Epistle to the Romans. Tran. Edwyn C. Hoskyns. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933.

The German Church Conflict. Tran. P. T. A. Parker. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1965.

The Humanity of God. Tran. John Newton Thomas. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1960.

333 —. The Knowledge of God and the Service of God According to the Teaching of the Reformation. Trans. J. L. M. Haire and Ian Henderson. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1938.

—. The Theology ofSchleiermacher. Lectures at Goettingen, Winter Semester of 1923/24. Tran. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Ed. Dietrich Ritschl. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982.

—. The Word of God and the Word of Man. Tran. Douglas Horton. The Pilgrim Press, 1928.

—. Theological Existence to-Day! (A Plea for Theological Freedom). Tran. R. Birch Hoyle. Lexington: American Theological Library Association Committee on Reprinting, 1962.

—. Theology and Church: Shorter Writings 1920-1928. Tran. Louise Pettibone Smith. Ed. T. F. Torrance. London: SCM Press, 1962.

—. This Christian Cause. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1941.

—. Trouble and Promise in the Struggle of the Church in Germany. Tran. P. V. M. Benecke. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1938.

Barth, Karl, and Rudolf Bultmann. Karl Barth - Rudolf Bultmann Letters 1922-1966. Tran. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Eds. Bernd Jaspert and Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1981.

Barth, Karl and Eduard Thurneysen. Barth-Thurneysen Briefwechsel, 1921-1930. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1974.

Barth, Karl, and Eduard Thurneysen. Revolutionary Theology in the Making: Barth- Thurneysen Correspondence, 1914-1925. Tran. James D. Smart. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1964.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Ethics. Tran. Neville Horton Smith. Ed. Eberhard Bethge. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1964.

Bornhausen, Karl. "The Present Status of Liberal Theology in Germany". The American Journal of Theology 20.2 (1914): 191-204.

Brunner, Emil. "Nature and Grace". Natural Theology: Comprising "Nature and Grace" by Professor Dr. Emil Brunner and the Reply "No!" by Dr. Karl Barth. Tran. Peter Fraenkel. London: Geoffrey Bles: The Centenary Press, 1946.15-64. 334 Cattepoel, Dirk. "The Mennonites of Germany, 1936-1948, and the Present Outlook". Proceedings of the Fourth Mennonite World Conference Goshen, Indiana, and North Newton, Kansas August 3-10, 1948. Akron, 1950.

Dehn, Gunther. Kirche und Volkerversohnung: Dokumente zum halleschen Universitatskonflikt. Berlin: Furche Verlag, 1931.

Dorries, Hermann and Emanuel Hirsch. "Zum halleschen Universitatskonflikt". Die Wartburg, 31.2 (1932): 46-7.

Fichte, Johann Gottlieb. Addresses to the German Nation. Trans. R.F. Jones and G.H. Turnbull. Ed., George Armstrong Kelly. New York: Harper & Row, 1968.

Handiges, Emil. "The Catastrophe of the West Prussian Meimonites". Proceedings of the Fourth Mennonite World Conference Goshen, Indiana, and North Newton, Kansas August 3-10, 1948. Akron: 1950. 218-26.

—. "Zur Kirchenfrage der Mennoniten". Mennonitsche Blatter, 9 (1933): 85-91.

Handiges, E., Chr. Neff, A. Braun, "Vereinigung der deutschen Mennonitengemeinden. Eine notwendige Berichtigung". Mennonitisch Blatter, 6 (1937): 47.

Hirsch, Emanuel. "Antwort von Emanuel Hirsch an den Herausgeber". Deutsches Volkstum 2.Maiheft (1932): 394-5.

—. "Arier und Nichtarier in der deutschen evangelishen Kirche". Kirche und Volkstum in Niedersachsen 1.2 (1933): 1-4.

—. "Brief an einen Schueler im Pfarramt ueber Evangelium u. Politik, Glaube und Volk". Glaube und Volk 2.2 (1933): 29-34.

—. Das Alte Testament und die Predigt des Evangeliums. Tubingen: Mohr, 1936.

—. "Das kirchlichen Wollen der deutschen Christen. Zur Beurteilung des Angriffs von Karl Barth (Theologische Existenz Heute, Muenchen 1933)". Das kirchliche Wollen der deutschen Christen. Berlin-Steglitz: Evangelischer Pressverband fuer Deutschland, 1933. 5-17.

—. Das Wesen des Christentums. Weimar: Verlag Deutsche Christen, 1939.

—. "Demokratie und Christentum". Der Geisteskampf der Gegenwart 54.3 (1918): 57-60.

335 "Der Pazifismus". Sonderdruck aus den Wingolfs-Blaetter (1918): 1-16.

"Der Weg unserer Kirche in unserem Volk". Gesammelte Werke Band 39: Das Wagnis des Glaubens: Predigten und Andachten 1930-1964. Ed. Hans Martin Miiller. Waltrop: Hartmut Spenner, 2004. 309-12.

Deutsches Volkstum und evangelischer Glaube. Hamburg: Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, 1934.

Deutschlands Schicksal: Staat, Volk und Menschheit im Lichte einer ethischen Geschichtsansicht. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1925.

Die gegemvartige geistige Lage im Spiegel philosophischer und theologischer Besinnung: Akademische Vorlesungen zum Verstandnis des deutschen Jahrs 1933. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1934.

"Die Liebe zum Vaterlande". Paedagosisches Magazin 975 (1924)

"Die Offenbarung und das menschlich-geschichtliche Leben". Der Offenbarung. Bordesholm: Heliand-Verlag, 1934. 26-45.

Die Reich-Gottes-Begriffe des neueren europaischen Denkens. Ein Versuch zur Geschichte der Staats- und Gesellschaftsphilosophie. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921.

"Die wirkliche Lage unsere Kirche". Das Kirchliche Wollen. Berlin-Steglitz: Evangelischer Pressverband fuer Deutschland, 1933. 20-23.

"Drei Thesenreihen". Christliche Freiheit und politische Bindung: Ein Brief an Dr. Stapel undAnderes. Hamburg: Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, 1935. 76-96.

"Ein christliches Volk". Der Geisteskampf der Gegenwart 54.7 (1918): 163-6.

"Freiheit der Kirche, Reinheit des Evangeliums. Ein Wort zur kirchlichen Lage". Das Kirchlichen Wollen. Berlin-Steglitz: Evangelischer Pressverband fuer Deutschland, 1933. 27-28.

"Gottesreich und Staat". Gesammelte Werke Band 36: Ihr Seid Christi: Schopfheimer Predigten 1917. Ed. Hans Martin Miiller. Waltrop: Hartmut Spenner, 2001. 185- 198.

"Karl Barth: Das Ende einer theologischen Existenz. Brief an einen auslaendischen Freund". (1940): 3-15. 336 "Kreuzesglaube und politische Bindung (Eine oekumenische Zweisprache)". Christliche Freiheit und politische Bindung: Ein Brief an Dr. Stapel und anderes. Hamburg: Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, 1935. 48-75.

"Liebe zum Volk". Gesammelte Werke Band 39: Das Wagnis des Glaubens: Predigten und Andachten 1930-1964. Ed. Hans Martin Mviller. Waltrop: Hartmut Spenner, 2004. 297-99.

"Luthers Berufung". Gesammelte Werke Band 39: Das Wagnis des Glaubens: Predigten und Andachten 1930-1964. Ed. Hans Martin Miiller. Waltrop: Hartmut Spenner, 2004. 303-5.

"Luthers Gedanken ueber Staat und Krieg". Wingolfs-Blaetter 46.7 (1917): 175-9.

"Mein Weg in die Wissenschaft (1911-1916)". Freies Christentum 3.11 (1951): 3-5.

"Meine theologischen Anfaenge". Freies Christentum 3.10 (1951): 2-4.

"Meine Wendejahre (1916-1921)". Freies Christentum 3.12 (1951): 3-6.

"Nation, Staat und Christentum. 30 Thesen". Mitteilungen zur Forderung einer deutschen christlichen Studentenbewegung 6 (1923): 82-4.

"Nationalsozialismus und Kirche: Um die Berufung des evangelischen Reichsbischofs". Das Kirchlichen Wollen. Berlin-Steglitz: Evangelischer Pressverband fuer Deutschland, 1933.23-25.

"OfTener Brief an Karl Barth". Deutsches Volkstum l.Aprilheft (1932): 266-72.

Schopfung und Sunde in der naturlich-geschichtlichen Wirfdichkeit des einzelnen Menschen. Versuch einer Grundlegung christlicher Lebensweisung. Beitrage zur systematischen Theologie. Tiibingen:Mohr, 1931.

Staat und Kirche im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1929.

"Theologisches Gutachten in der Nichtarierfrage". Deutsche Theologie. 1 (1934): 182- 99.

"Vom verborgenen Suveran". Glaube und Volk 2, 1 (1933): 4-13.

"Weltanschauung, Glaube und Heimat". Zweifel und Glaube (1937): 52-64.

337 Kreider, Robert S. My Early Years: An Autobiography. Kitchener: Pandora Press, 2002.

Lempp, Richard. "Present Religious Conditions in Germany". The Harvard Theological Review 3.1 (1910): 85-124.

Luther, Martin. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimarer Ausgabe). Ed. Hermann Bohlaus. Graz: Akademische Druck - u. Verlagsanstalt, 1966.

—. Luther's Works, American Edition. 55 vols. Eds. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann. St. Louis and Philadelphia: Concordia Publishing House and Fortress Press, 1955ff.

—. "On Secular Authority: How Far does the Obedience Owed to it Extend? [Von Weltlicher Oberkeit]." Luther and Calvin on Secular Authority. Tran. Harro Hopfl. Ed. Harro Hopfl. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Mann, Thomas. Reflections of a Nonpolitical Man. Tran. Walter D. Morris. New York: Frederick Ungar, 1983.

Neff, Christian. "Der Rhonbruderhof', Mennonitisch Blatter, 12 (1937): 86-7.

Rade, Martin. "The Present Situation of Christianity in Germany". The American Journal of Theology 24.3 (1920): 339-67.

Ritschl, Albrecht. "Festival Address on the Four-Hundredth Anniversary of the Birth of Martin Luther". Ritshl and Luther: A Fresh Perspective on Albrecht Ritschl's Theology in the Light of His Luther Study. Tran. David W. Lotz. Ed. David W. Lotz. New York: Abingdon Press, 1974.

Rosenberg, Alfred. Mythus II. The Character of the New Religion. Ed. John Arendzen. London, 1936.

Schroder, Heinrich H. Russlanddeutsche Friesen. Dollstadt-Langensalza: Selbstverlag, 1936.

Unruh, Benjamin Heinrich. "Blut und Rasse im A. T.". Der Bote Dec. 23,1936: 1-2.

—. "Bucherbesprechungen". Mennonitische Blatter, July 1936: 56-7.

—. "Der Bolshevismus und die Christuskirche". Gemeindeblatt der Mennoniten 5 (1933): 22-3.

338 "Des Wesen des ev. Taufertums und Mennonitentums". Memonitische Jugendwarte Feb. 1937: 6-15.

Die niederlandisch-niederdeutschen Hintergriinde der mennonitischen Ostwanderungen im 16., 18. und 19. Jahrhundert. Karlsruhe: Selbsverlag, 1955.

"Die Revolution 1525 und das Taufertum". Gedenkschrift zum 400 Jahrigen Jubilaum der Mennoniten oder Taufgesinnten 1525-1925. Ludwigshafen: Der Konferenz der Suddeutschen Mennoniten, 1925. 19-47.

"Die Wehrlosigkeit. Vortrag gehalten auf der Allgemeinen Mennonitischen Konferenz am 7. Juni 1917". Mennonitische Rundschau July 7,1926.

"Dutch Backgrounds of Mennonite Migration of the 16th Century to Prussia". Mennonite Quarterly Review 10(1936): 173-181.

"Grundsatzliche Fragen". Der Bote July 10,1935:1-2; July 31, 1935: 1; August 7, 1935: 1; August 14,1935: 1; September 25, 1935: 1; October 9, 1935: 1; November 13,1935: 1; January 15,1936: 1; February 12, 1936: 1-2; April 8, 1936: 1-2; April 15,1936: 1; April 22,1936: 1; April 29,1936: 1; June 3, 1936: 2; June 10,1936: 2; June 17,1936: 1.

"Praktische Fragen". Der Bote November 4,1936:1; November 11, 1936: 1; December 15,1937:1.

"Straflich leichtsinnig". Der Bote, March 8,1939:1-2.

"The Background and Causes of the Flight of the Mennonites from Russia in 1929". Mennonite Quarterly Review 4 (1930): 267-281.

"The Background and Causes of the Flight of the Mennonites from Russia in 1929. II". Mennonite Quarterly Review. 4 (1930): 28-41.

"Um die deutsche Sache". Der Bote February 10,1937: 2.

Brocke, Bernhard. "'Wissenschaft und Militarismus': Der Aufruf der 93 'an die Kulturwelt!' und der Zusammenbruch der internationalen Gelehrtenrepublik im ersten Weltkrieg". Wilamowitz nach 50 Jahren Ed. William M. Calder, III. Darmstadt: Theodor Lindken, 1985.

339 von Harnack, Adolf. "Postscript to My Open Letter to Professor Karl Barth". The Beginnings of Dialectic Theology. Tran. Keith R. Crim. Ed. James M. Robinson. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1968. 186-187. von Treitschke, Heinrich. Germany, France, Russian, and Islam. Tran. Geo Haven Putman. New York: G. P. Putman's Sons, 1915.

Secondary Sources

Allen, William Sheridan. "Objective and Subjective Inhabitants in the German Resistance to Hitler". The German Church Struggle and the Holocaust. Eds. Franklin H. Littell and Hubert G. Locke. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1974. 114-123.

—. The Nazi Seizure of Power: The Experience of a Single German Town 1930-1935. New York: Franklin Watts, 1965.

Alter, Peter. Nationalism. London: Edward Arnold, 1994.

Althaus, Paul. The Ethics of Martin Luther. Tran. Robert C. Schultz. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972.

Assel, Heinrich. Der andere Aufbruch : Die Lutherrenaissance—Urspriinge, Aporien und Wege: Karl Holl, Emanuel Hirsch, Rudolf Hermann (1910-1935). Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994.

Baranowski, Shelley. "Consent and Dissent: The Confessing Church and Conservative Opposition to National Socialism". Journal of Modern History 59 (1987): 53-78.

—. "The 1933 German Protestant Church Elections: Machtpolitik Or Accommodation?" Church History 49.3 (1980): 298-315.

—. The Confessing Church, Conservative Elites, and the Nazi State. Queenston: Edwin Mellen, 1986.

Barnes, Kenneth C. Nazism, Liberalism, & Christianity: Protestant Social Thought in Germany & Great Britain, 1925-1937. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1991.

Barnett, Victoria. For the Soul of the People: Protestant Protest Against Hitler. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.

340 Barsch, Claus-Ekkehard. Die politische Religion des Nationalsozialismus. Die religiose Dimension der NS-Ideologie in den Schriften von Dietrich Eckart, Joseph Goebbels, Alfred Rosenberg und Adolf Hitler Munich: W. Fink, 1998.

Bender, Harold S. "The Anabaptist Vision". The Recovery of the Anabaptist Vision. A Sixtieth Anniversary Tribute to Harold S. Bender. Ed. Guy F. Hershberger. Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1962. 29-54.

—. "The Historiography of the Anabaptists". Mennonite Quarterly Review, 31 (1957): 88-9.

Bergen, Doris L. "Catholics, Protestants, and Christian Antisemitism in Nazi Germany". Central European History 27 (1994): 329-53.

—. "Nazism and Christianity: Partners and Rivals? A Response to Richard Steigmann- Gall, The Holy Reich. Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945,\ Journal of Contemporary History 42, 1 (2007): 25-33.

—. Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movement in the Third Reich. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1996.

Biesecker-Mast, Gerald. Separation and the Sword in Anabaptist Persuasion: Radical Confessional Rhetoric from Schleitheim to Dordrecht. Telford, P.A.: Cascadia, 2006.

Blackbourn, David, and Geoff Eley. The Peculiarities of German History: Bourgeois Society and Politics in Nineteenth-Century Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.

Boehmer, Heinrich. Luther & the Reformation in the Light of Modern Research. Tran. E. S. G. Potter. 5th ed. London: G. Bell & Sons, 1930.

Borg, Daniel R. "Volkskirche, 'Christian State', and the Weimar Republic". Church History 35.2 (1966): 186-206.

Bornkamm, Heinrich. Luther's Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms in the Context of His Theology. Tran. Karl H. Hertz. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.

Bossy, John. Christianity in the West 1400-1700. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.

Bowden, John. Karl Barth: Theologian. London: SCM Press, 1983.

Bracher, Karl Dietrich. The German Dictatorship: The Origins, Structure, and Effects of National Socialism. Tran. Jean Steinberg. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970. 341 Brady, Thomas A. Jr. "Luther and the State: The Reformer's Teaching in its Social Setting". Luther and the Modern State in Germany. Ed. James D. Tracy. Kirksville, Missouri: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1986. 31-44.

Brock, Peter. Freedom from Violence: Sectarian Nonresistance from the Middle Ages to the Great War. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991.

—. Pacifism in Europe to 1914. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972.

Broszat, Martin. "A Social and Historical Typology of the German Opposition to Hitler". Contending with Hitler: Varieties of German Resistance in the Third Reich. Ed. David Clay Large. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press, 1991. 25-33.

—. Hitler and the Collapse of Weimar Germany. Tran. V. R. Berghahn. New York: Berg, 1987.

Brown, P. R. L. "Saint Augustine and Political Society". The City of God: A Collection of Critical Essays. Ed. Dorothy F. Donnelly. New York: Peter Lang, 1995. 17-35.

—. Augustine of Hippo. London: Faber & Faber, 2000.

Brown-Fleming, Suzanne. The Holocaust and Catholic Conscience. Cardinal Aloisius Muench and the Guilt Question in Germany. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005.

Browning, Christopher R. Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. New York: Harper Perennial, 1998.

Buff, Walter. "Karl Barth und Emanuel Hirsch: Anmerkungen zu einem Briefwechsel". Christliche Wahrheit und neuzeitliches Denken: zu Emanuel Hirschs Leben und Werk. Ed.Hans Martin Miiller. Tubingen: Katzmann, 1984.15-59.

Burleigh, John H. S. The City of God: A Study of Augustine's Philosophy. London: Nisbet & Co., 1949.

Burleigh, Michael. The Third Reich: A New History. New York: Hill and Wang, 2000.

Busch, Eberhard. Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts. Tran. John Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1976.

Chadwick, Henry. Augustine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.

342 Childers, Thomas. The Nazi Voter: The Social Foundations of Fascism in Germany, 1919-1933. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983.

Cochrane, Arthur C. The Church's Confession Under Hitler. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962.

Cohn, Norman. The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages. London: Oxford University Press, 1970.

Conway, John S. The Nazi Persecution of the Churches. Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1968.

—. "The Political Role of German Protestantism, 1870-1990." Journal of Church and State 34.4 (1992): 819-42.

Dahm, Karl-Wilhelm. "German Protestantism and Politics, 1918-39". Journal of Contemporary History 3.1 : 29-49.

Diem, Hermann. "Karl Barth as Socialist: Controversy Over a New Attempt to Understand Him". Karl Barth and Radical Politics. Tran. George Hunsinger. Ed. George Hunsinger. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976. 121-138.

Downey, Glanville. "The Ethical City, the Secular City, and the City of God". Anglican Theological Review 56 (1974): 34-41.

Duchrow, Ulrich, ed. Lutheran Churches - Salt Or Mirror of Society? Case Studies on the Theory and Practice of the Two Kingdoms Doctrine. Geneva: Lutheran World Federation, 1977.

Ekstein, Modris. Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1989.

Eley, Geoff. Reshaping the German Right: Radical Nationalism and Political Change After Bismarck. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980.

Epp, Frank H. "An Analysis of Germanism and National Socialism in the Immigrant Newspapers of a Canadian Minority Group, the Mennonites, in the 1930s." Ph.D University of Minnesota, 1965.

—. Mennonite Exodus: The Rescue and Resettlement of the Russian Mennonites since the Communist Revolution. Altona Man.: D. W. Friesen & Sons, 1962.

—. Mennonites in Canada 1920-1940: A People's Struggle for Survival. Toronto: Herald Press, 1982. 343 Ericksen, Robert. "Assessing the Heritage: German Protestant Theologians, Nazis, and the 'Jewish Question'", Eds. Robert P. Ericksen and Susannah Heschel. Betrayal: German Churches and the Holocaust. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999. 22-40.

—. "The Barmen Synod and its Declaration: A Historical Synopsis". The Church Confronts the Nazis: Barmen Then and Now. Ed. Hubert G. Locke. Toronto: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1984. 27-91.

—. "The Goettingen University Theological Faculty: A Test Case in Gleichschaltung and Denazification". Central European History 17.4 (1984): 355-83.

—. Theologians Under Hitler: Gerhard Kittel, Paul Althaus and Emanuel Hirsch. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.

Evans, Richard J. Rethinking German History: Nineteenth-Century Germany and the Origins of the Third Reich. London: Allen and Unwin, 1987.

Fahlbusch, Michael. Wissenschaft im Dienst der nationalsozialistischen Politik? Baden Baden: Nomos, 1999.

Fandel, Thomas. Konfession und Nationalsozialismus. Evangelische und katholische Pfarrer in der Pfalz 1930-1939. Paderborn: Schoningh, 1997.

Feige, Franz G. M. The Varieties of Protestantism in Nazi Germany: Five Theopolitical Positions. Queenston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1990.

Fest, Joachim. Plotting Hitler's Death. Trans. Bruce Little. New York: Metropolitan Books, 1996.

Figgis, John Neville. The Political Aspects of S. Augustine's 'City of God'. Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1963.

Fischer, Fritz. Der erste Weltkrieg und das deutsche Geschichtsbild: Beitrage zur Bewaltigung eines historischen Tabus. Dusseldorf: Droste, 1977.

Forstman, Jack. Christian Faith in Dark Times: Theological Conflicts in the Shadow of Hitler. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992.

Frankel, Richard E. Bismarck's Shadow: The Cult of Leadership and the Transformation of the German Right, 1898-1945. Oxford: Berg, 2005.

Friedlander, Saul. Nazi Germany and the Jews. Vol. I: The Years of Persecution, 1933- 1939. New York: Harper, 1997. 344 Friedman, Robert. "The Doctrine of the Two Worlds". The Recovery of the Anabaptist Vision. A Sixtieth Anniversary Tribute to Harold S. Bender. Ed. Guy F. Hershberger. Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1962. 105-118.

Friesen, Abraham. In Defense of Privilege: Russian Mennonites and the State before and during World War I. Winnipeg: Kindred Productions, 2006.

Friesen, John. "Mennonites in Poland: An Expanded Historical View". Journal of Mennonite Studies 4 (1986): 94-108.

—. "The Relationship of Prussian Mennonites to German Nationalism". Mennonite Images: Historical, Cultural, and Literary Essays Dealing with Mennonite Issues. Ed. Harry Loewen. Winnipeg: Hyperion Press, 1980.60-72.

Fritzsche, Peter. Germans into Nazis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998.

Gailus, Manfred. "A Strange Obsession with Nazi Christianity: A Critical Comment on Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich". Journal of Contemporary History. 42, 1 (2007): 35-46.

—. Protestantismus und Nationalsozialismus: Studien zur nationalsozialistischen Durchdringung des protestantischen Sozialmilieus in Berlin. K5ln: Bohlau Verlag, 2001.

Gellner, Ernest. Nations and Nationalism. Maiden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2006.

Gerlach, Horst. "Mennonites, the Molotschna, and the Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle in the Second World War". Mennonite Life 3 (1986): 4-9.

Gerlach, Wolfgang. A Is die Zeugen schwiegen: Bekennende Kirche und die Juden. Berlin: Institut Kirche und Judentum, 1987.

Geyer, Michael. "Resistance as Ongoing Project: Visions of Order, Obligations to Strangers, Struggles for Civil Society". Journal of Modern History 64, suppl. (1992): S217-S241.

Goertz, Hans-Jurgen. "Nationale Erhebung und religioeser Niedergang". Umstrittenes Taeufertum 1525-1975: Neue Forschungen. Ed. Hans-Jurgen Goertz. Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975.259-289.

Gollwitzer, Helmut. "Kingdom of God and Socialism in the Theology of Karl Barth". Karl Barth and Radical Politics. Tran. George Hunsinger. Ed. George Hunsinger. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976. 77-120. 345 Gordon, Frank J. "Liberal German Churchmen and the First World War". German Studies Review 4.1 (1981): 39-62.

Gorringe, Timothy J. Karl Barth: Against Hegemony. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Green, Lowell C. Lutherans Against Hitler: The Untold Story. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2007.

Griech-Polelle, Beth A. Bishop von Galen: German Catholicism and National Socialism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002.

Gritsch, Eric W. "Luther and the State: Post-Reformation Ramifications". Luther and the Modern State in Germany. Ed. James D. Tracy. Kirksville, Missouri: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1986. 45-59.

Groeschel, Benedict. Augustine: Major Writings. New York: Crossroads, 1995.

Hamerow, Theodore S. On the Road to the Wolfs Lair: German Resistance to Hitler. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Hamilton, Richard F. Who Votedfor Hitler?. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982.

Hammer, Karl. Deutsche Kriegstheologie (1870-1918). Miinchen: Kosel-Verlag, 1971.

Harrison, Carol. Augustine: Christian Truth and Fractured Humanity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Hart, John W. Karl Barth Vs. Emil Brunner: The Formation and Dissolution of a Theological Alliance, 1916-1936. New York: Peter Lang, 2001.

Hauerwas, Stanley. Character and the Christian Life: A Study in Theological Ethics. San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1975.

Hayes, Carlton J. H. "Nationalism as a Religion". Essays on Nationalism. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1926. 93-125.

Heilbronner, Oded. "From Ghetto to Ghetto: The Place of German Catholic Society in Recent Historiography". The Journal of Modern History. 72 (2) (2000): 453-95.

Helmreich, Ernst Christian. "The Nature and Structure of the Confessing Church in Germany Under Hitler". Journal of Church and State 12 (1970): 405-20.

346 —. The German Churches Under Hitler: Background, Struggle and Epilogue. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1979.

Hentschel, Markus. Gewissenstheorie als Ethik und Dogmatik: Emanuel Hirschs "Christliche Rechenschaft". Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995.

Herwig, Holger. Hammer or Anvil? Modern Germany 1648-Present. Toronto: D.C. Heath, 1994.

Heschel, Susannah. "Nazifying Christian Theology: Walter Grundmann and the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church Life". Church History 63 (1994): 587-605.

—. The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.

Hobsbawm, E. J. Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Hockenos, Matthew D. A Church Divided: German Protestants Confront the Nazi Past. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004.

—. "The German Protestant Debate on Politics and Theology after the Second World War". Religion and the Cold War. Ed. Dianne Kirby. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. pp. 37-49.

Hoffmann, Peter. German Resistance to Hitler. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988.

Homan, Gerlof D. "'We must...and can Stand Firmly': Dutch Mennonites in World War II". Mennonite Quarterly Review 69.1 (1995): 7-36.

Hose, Jochen. Die "Geschichte der neuern evangelischen Theologie" in der Sicht Emanuel Hirschs. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1999.

Huber, Wolfgang. "The Barmen Theological Declaration and the Two Kingdom Doctrine: Historico-Systematic Reflections". Lutheran Churches - Salt Or Mirror of Society? Case Studies on the Theory and Practice of the Two Kingdoms Doctrine. Ed. Ulrich Duchrow. Geneva: Lutheran World Federation, 1977. 28-48.

Hunsinger, George. Ed. Karl Barth and Radical Politics. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976.

347 Hutton, Christopher M. Race and the Third Reich: Linguistics, Racial Anthropology and Genetics in the Dialectic ofVolk. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005.

Iggers, Georg G. The German Conception of History: The National Tradition of Historical Thought from Herder to the Present. Rev. Ed. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1983.

Jantzen, Kyle. Faith and Fatherland: Parish Politics in Hitler's Germany (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008.

Jantzen, Mark A. At Home in Germany? : The Mennonites of the Vistula Delta and the Construction of a German National Identity, 1772-1880. (Ph.D. diss., Notre Dame), 2002.

—. Mennonite German Soldiers: Nation, Religion, and Family in the Prussian East, 1772-1880. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010.

—. "Vistula Delta Mennonites Encounter Modern German Nationalism, 1813-1820". Mennonite Quarterly Review 78.2 (2004): 185-212.

—. "'Whoever Will Not Defend His Homeland should Leave it!' German Conscription and Prussian Mennonite Emigration to the Great Plains, 1860-1890". Mennonite Life 58.3 (2003)

Jeanrond, Werner G. "From Resistance to Liberation Theology: German Theologians and the Non/resistance to the National Socialist Regime." Journal of Modern History 64 (1992): SI87-203.

Jehle, Frank. Ever Against the Stream: The Politics of Karl Barth, 1906-1968. Trans. Richard Burnett and Martha Burnett. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2002.

Jenkins, Julian. "War Theology, 1914 and Germany's Sonderweg: Luther's Heirs and Patriotism". The Journal of Religious History 15.3 (1989): 292-310.

—. Christian Pacifism Confronts German Nationalism - the Ecumenical Movement and the Cause of Peace in Germany, 1914-1933. Queenston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2002.

Juengel, Eberhard. Christ, Justice and Peace: Toward a Theology of the State in Dialogue with the Barmen Declaration. Trans. D. Bruce Hamill and Alan J. Torrance. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992.

348 Kershaw, Ian. The 'Hitler Myth': Image and Reality in the Third Reich. Oxford: Claredon Press, 1987.

—. The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation. 4th ed. London: Arnold, 2000.

—. Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich: Bavaria 1933-1945. Oxford: Claredon Press, 1983.

King, Christine E. "Strategies for Survival: An Examination of the History of Five Christian Sects in Germany 1933-45". Journal of Contemporary History 14.2 (1979): 211-33.

—. The Nazi State and the New Religions: Five Case Studies in Non-conformity. New York: Edwin Mellen, 1982.

Klaassen, Walter. Anabaptist: Neither Catholic nor Protestant. 3rd ed. Kitchener: Pandora Press, 2001.

Klan, J. S. "Luther's Resistance Teaching and the German Church Struggle Under Hitler". The Journal of Religious History 14.4 (1987): 432-43.

Klassen, Peter J. "Faith and Culture in Conflict: Mennonites in the Vistual Delta". Mennonite Quarterly Review 62.3 (1983): 194-205.

Klee, Ernst. "Die SA Jesu Christi": Die Kirche im Banne Hitlers. Frankfurt a.M: Fischer, 1989.

Kocka, Jurgen. "Asymmetrical Historical Comparison: The Case of the German Sonderweg". History and Theory 38.1 (1999): 40-50.

Koonz, Claudia. "Choice and Courage". Ed. David Clay Large. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. 49-63.

—. The Nazi Conscience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.

Koop, Karl. Anabaptist-Mennonite Confessions of Faith: The Development of a Tradition. Waterloo: Pandora Press, 2004.

Kreutzer, Heike. Das Reichskirchenministerium im Gefuge der nationalsozialistischen Herrschaft. Dusseldorf: Droste, 2000.

349 Kupisch, Karl. "The 'Luther Renaissance"'. Journal of Contemporary History 4.2 (1967): 39-49.

Lange, Dietz. "Der Begriff des Heiligen in den theologischen und politischen schriften Emanuel Hirsehs". Christentumsgeschichte und Wahrheitsbewusstsein: Studien zur Theologie Emanuel Hirsehs. Ed. Joachim Ringleben. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991. 188- 225.

Large, David Clay. Ed. Contending with Hitler: Varieties of German Resistance in the Third Reich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Lau, Franz. "The Lutheran Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms". Lutheran World 4.12 (1965): 355-72.

Lehmann, Hartmut. Protestantische Weltsichten: Transformationen seit dem 17. Jahrhundert. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998.

—. '"God our Old Ally': The Chosen People Theme in Late Nineteenth-and Early Twentieth-Century German Nationalism". Eds. William R. Hutchison and Hartmut Lehmann. Many Are Chosen: Divine Election and Western Nationalism Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994: 85-107.

—. "The Germans as a Chosen People: Old Testament Themes in German Nationalism". German Studies Review 14.2 (1991): 261-73.

Lewy, Gunther. The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.

Ley, Michael and Julius Schoeps. Eds. Der Nationalsozialismus als politische Religion Bodenheim b. Mainz: Philo, 1997.

Lichdi, Diether Goetz. Mennoniten im Dritten Reich : Dokumentation und Deutung. Weierhof/Pfalz: Mennonitischer Geschichtsverein E. V., 1977.

—. "Roemer 13 und das Staatsverstaendnis der Mennoniten um 1933". Mennonitische Geschichtsblaetter 32 (1980): 74-95.

—. "The Story of Nazism and its Reception by German Mennonites". Mennonite Life 36.1 (1981): 24-31.

Lichdi, Diether Goetz, and Hans-Juergen Goertz. "Gemeinsame Erklaerung zur Kontroverse um die Mennoniten im Dritten Reich". Mennonitische Blaetter 12 (1978): 189. 350 Lichti, James Irvin. Houses on the Sand? Pacifist Denominations in Nazi Germany. New York: Peter Lang, 2008.

—. "The German Mennonite Response to the Dissolution of the Rhoen-Bruderhof'. Mennonite Life 46.2 (1991): 10-7.

—. "The Responses to National Socialism by Denominations with Teachings Against Bearing Arms". (Ph.D. diss., University of California), 2000.

Lindemann, Gerhard. "Typisch Jiidisch": DieStellungder Ev.luth. Landeskirche Hannovers zu Antijudaismus, Judenfeindschafi und Antisemitismus 1919-1949. Berlin: Dunker & Hublot, 1998.

Lindsay, Mark R. Covenanted Solidarity: The Theological Basis of Karl Barth's Opposition to Nazi Antisemitism and the Holocaust. New York: Peter Lang, 2001.

Littell, Franklin H. "The Anabaptist Concept of the Church". The Rediscovery of the Anabaptist Vision: A Sixtieth Tribute to Harold S. Bender. Ed. Guy F. Hershberger. Scottdale: Herald Press, 1962. 119-134.

—. The Origins of Sectarian Protestantism. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1964.

Lobe, Matthias. Die Prinzipien der Ethik Emanuel Hirschs. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1996.

Lohse, Bernhard. Martin Luther's Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development. Tran. Roy A. Harrisville. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999.

Magocsi, Paul Robert. A History of Ukraine. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996.

Maier, Charles S. The Unmasterable Past: History, Holocaust, and German National Identity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988.

Maier, Hans. Ed. Politische Religionen. Die totalitaren Regime und das Christentum Paderborn: Herder, 1996.

Marquardt, Friedrich-Wilhelm. "Socialism in the Theology of Karl Barth". Karl Barth and Radical Politics. Tran. George Hunsinger. Ed. George Hunsinger. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976.47-76.

—. Theologie und Sozialismus: Das Beispiel Karl Barths. Munich: Kaiser, 1985.

351 McClelland, Charles E. State, Society, and University in Germany 1700-1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.

McCormack, Bruce L. Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development 1910-1936. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.

McGrath, Alister E. Luther's Theology of the Cross: Martin Luther's Theological Breakthrough. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985.

—. The Making of Modern German Christology 1750-1990.2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.

—. Reformation Thought: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.

Meier, Kurt. Der evangelische Kirchenkampf 3 vols. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976-1984.

Mensing, Bjorn. Pfarrer und Nationalsozialismus. Geschichte einer Verstrickung am Beispiel der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche in Bayern. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998.

Metzger, Paul Louis. The Word of Christ and the World of Culture: Sacred and Secular through the Theology of Karl Barth. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2003.

Mommsen, Hans. "Der Nationalsozialismus als sakulare Religion". Ed. Gerhard Besier. Zwischen 'nationaler Revolution' und militarischer Aggression: Transformationen in Kirche und Gesellschaft wahrend der konsolidierten NS-Gewaltherrschaft, 1934- 1939. Munich: Oldenbourg, 2001.43-55.

—. "The German Resistance Against Hitler and the Restoration of Politics". Journal of Modern History 64.suppl. (1992): SI 12-27.

Moses, John A. "The Mobilisation of the Intellectuals 1914-1915 and the Continuity of German Historical Consciousness". Australian Journal of Politics and History 48.3 (2002): 336-52.

—. The Reluctant Revolutionary: Dietrich Bonhoeffer 's Collision with Prusso-German History. New York: Berghahn Books, 2009.

Mosse, George L. The Nationalization of the Masses: Political Symbolism and Mass Movements in Germany from the Napoleonic Wars through the Third Reich. New York: Howard Fertig, 1975.

352 Motschmann, Claus. Evangelische Kirche undpreussischer Staat in den Anfangen der Weimarer Republik: Moglichkeit und Grenzen ihrer Zusammenarbeit. Lubeck: Matthiesen Verlag, 1969.

O'Daly, Gerald. Augustine's City of God: A Reader's Guide. Oxford: Claredon Press, 1999.

Ohst, Martin. "Kriegserfahrung und Gottesglaube. Zu den 'Schopfheim Predigten' (1917) von Emanuel Hirsch". Frommigkeit, Theologie, Frommigkeitstheologie: Contributions to European Church History: Festschrift fur Berndt Hamm zum 60. Geburtstag Eds. Gudrun Litz, Heidrun Munzert, and Roland Liebenberg. Leiden: Brill, 2005. 731-746.

O'Neill, J. C. "Adolf Von Harnack and the Entry of the German State into War, July- August 1914". Scottish Journal of Theology 55.1 (2002): 1-18.

Phayer, Michael. The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930-1965. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000.

Postma, Johan Sjouke. Das niederlandische Erbe der preussisch-russlandischen Mennoniten inEuropa, Asien undAmerika. Leeuwarden, 1959.

Potter, Vincent G. "Karl Barth and the Ontological Argument". The Journal of Religion 45.4 (1965): 309-25.

Preisinger, Arthur A. "The Church Struggle in Nazi Germany, 1933-34: Resistance, Opposition or Compromise" (Ph.D. diss., Texas Tech), 1991.

Pressel, Wilhelm. Die Kriegspredigt 1914-1918 in der evangelischen Kirche Deutschlands. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967.

Prolingheuer, Hans. "Der ungekampfte Kirchenkampf 1933-1945 - das politische Versagen der Bekennenden Kirche", Neue Stimme Sonderheft 6 (1983): 3-34.

Redekop, Benjamin. "The Canadian Mennonite Response to National Socialism". Mennonite Life 46.2 (1991): 18-24.

Regehr, T. D. "Of Dutch Or German Ancestry? Mennonite Refugees, MCC, and the International Refugee Organization". Journal of Mennonite Studies 13 (1995): 7-25.

Reimer, A. James. "Theologians in Nazi Germany". The Twentieth Century: A Theological Overview. Ed. Gregory Baum. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1999. 61-75.

353 —. The Emanuel Hirsch and Paul Tillich Debate: A Study in the Political Ramifications of Theology. Queenston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1989.

—. Paul Tillich: Theologian of Nature, Culture and Politics. Munster: LIT, 2004.

Rempel, Gerhard. "Book Review". Mennonite Quarterly Review 84 (2010): 275-78.

Rhodes, James M. The Hitler Movement: A Modern Millenarian Revolution. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1980.

Ringer, Fritz K. The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community, 1890-1933. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969.

Ritter, Gerhard. The German Resistance: Carl Goerdeler's Struggle against Tyranny. Trans. R.T. Clark. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1958.

Rohkramer, Thomas. A Single Communal Faith? the German Right from Conservatism to National Socialism. New York: Berghahn Books, 2007.

Rothfels, Hans. The German Opposition to Hitler. Hinsdale: Henry Regnery, 1948.

Rupp, George. Culture-Protestantism: German Liberal Theology at the Turn of the Twentieth Century. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977.

Schellong, Dieter. "On Reading Karl Barth from the Left". Karl Barth and Radical Politics. Tran. George Hunsinger. Ed. George Hunsinger. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976.139-157.

Schjorring, Jens Holger. Theologische Gewissenethik undpolitische Wirklichkeit: Das Beispiel Eduard Geismars und Emanuel Hirschs. Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979.

Schneider-Flume, Gunda. Die politische Theologie Emanuel Hirschs 1918-1933. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1971.

Scholder, Klaus. The Churches and the Third Reich: Preliminary History and the Time of Illusions 1918-1934. Tran. John Bowden. London: SCM, 1987.

—. The Churches and the Third Reich: The Year of Disillusionment: 1934 Barmen and Rome. Tran. John Bowden. 2 Vol. London: SCM, 1988.

Schreiber, William Ildephonse. The Fate of the Prussian Mennonites. Goettingen: Goettingen Research Committee, 1955. 354 Schroeder, Steve. "Mennonite-Nazi Collaboration and Coming to Terms with the Past: European Mennonites and the MCC, 1945-1950". The Conrad Grebel Review 21.2 (2003): 6-16.

Shirer, William L. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Greenwich: Crest, 1962.

Shults, F. LeRon. "A Dubious Christological Formula: From Leontius of Byzantium to Karl Barth". Theological Studies 57 (1996): 431-46.

Skinner, Quentin. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought: The Age of Reformation. 2 Vol. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.

Snyder, C. Arnold. Anabaptist History and Theology: An Introduction. Kitchener: Pandora Press, 2002.

Spicer, Kevin. Resisting the Third Reich. The Catholic Clergy in Hitler's Berlin. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2004.

Stayer, James. Anabaptists and the Sword. Lawrence, Kansas: Coronado Press, 1972.

—. Martin Luther, German Saviour: German Evangelical Theological Factions and the Interpretation of Luther, 1917-1933. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2000.

—. The German Peasants' War and the Anabaptist Community of Goods. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press, 1991.

—. "The Radical Reformation". Handbook of European History 1400-1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation. Vol. II Visions, Programs, and Outcomes. Eds. Thomas A. Jr. Brady, Heiko A. Oberman, and James D. Tracy. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995. 249-282.

Stayer, James, Werner Packull and Klaus Deppermann. "From Monogenesis to Polygenesis: The Historical Discussion of Anabaptist Origins". Mennonite Quarterly Review 49 (1975): 83-122.

Steigmann-Gall, Richard. "Apostasy Or Religiosity? The Cultural Meaning of the Protestant Vote for Hitler". Social History 25.3 (2000): 267-83.

—. The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Steinmetz, David C. Luther in Context. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986. 355 Stern, Fritz. Dreams and Delusions: The Drama of German History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1987.

Stroup, John. "Political Theology and Secularization Theory in Germany, 1918-1939: Emanuel Hirsch as a Phenomenon of His Time." Harvard Theological Review 80.3 (1987): 321-68.

Strubind, Andrea. Die unfreie Freikirche. Der Bund der Baptistengemeinden im 'Dritten Reich'. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991.

Subtelny, Orest. Ukraine: A History. 2nd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994.

Thiesen, John D. "First Duty of the Citizen: Mennonite Identity and Military Exemption in Prussia, 1848-1877". Mennonite Quarterly Review 72.2 (1998): 161-87.

—. Mennonite and Nazi? Attitudes among Mennonite Colonists in Latin America, 1933- 1945. Kitchener: Pandora Press, 1999.

Thomas, Theodore N. Women Against Hitler: Christian Resistance in the Third Reich. London: Praeger, 1995.

Thompson, W. D. J. Cargill. "The 'Two Kingdoms' and the 'Two Regiments': Some Problems of Luther's Zwei-Reiche-Lehre". Studies in the Reformation: Luther to Hooker. Ed. C. W. Dugmore. London: The Athlone Press, 1980. 42-59.

—. The Political Thought of Martin Luther. Ed. Philip Broadhead. Sussex: The Harvester Press, 1984.

Tiefel, Hans. "The German Lutheran Church and the Rise of National Socialism". Church History 41 (1972): 326-36.

—. "Use and Misuse of Luther during the German Church Struggle". The Lutheran Quarterly 25.4 (1973): 395-411.

Toews, John B. Czars, Soviets & Mennonites. Newton: Faith and Life Press, 1982.

—. Lost Fatherland: The Story of the Mennonite Emigration from Soviet Russia, 1921- 1927. Vancouver: Regent College, 1967.

Troeltsch, Ernst. The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches. Tran. Olive Wyon. 2 Vol. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1960.

356 Unruh, Heinrich B. Fuegung und Fuehrungen: Benjamin Heinrich Unruh 1881-1959. Ein Leben in Geiste christlicher Humanitaet und im Dienste der Naechstenliebe. Detmold: Verein zur Erforschung und Pflege des Russlanddeutschen Mennonitentums, 2009.

Urry, James. "Mennonites, Nationalism and the State in Imperial Russia". Journal of Mennonite Studies 12 (1994): 65-88.

—. Mennonites, Politics, and Peoplehood: Europe-Russia-Canada 1525-1980. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 2006.

—. None but Saints: The Transformation of Mennonite Life in Russia 1789-1889. Winnipeg: Hyperion Press, 1989.

van Oort, Johannes. Jerusalem and Babylon: A Study into Augustine's City of God and the Sources of His Doctrine of the Two Cities. New York: E. J. Brill, 1991.

Veblen, Thorstein. Imperial Germany and the Industrial Revolution. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1966.

Verhey, Jeffrey. The Spirit of 1914: Militarism, Myth, and Mobilization in Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Voegelin, Erich. Political Religions. Trans. T.J. DiNapoli and E.S. Easterly III. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1986.

von Oppen, Beate Ruhm. Religion and Resistance to Nazism. Princeton: Center of International Studies, 1971. von Scheliha, Arnulf. "Anmerkungen zur fruhen Biographie Emanuel Hirschs: Stationen und Motive im Aufbau theologischer Identitat zwischen Wissenschaft und Kirche." Zeitschriftfur Kirchengeschichte 106.1 (1995): 98-107.

Walser Smith, Helmut. German Nationalism and Religious Conflict: Culture, Ideology, Politics, 1870-1914. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995.

—. The Continuities of German History: Nation, Religion, and Race across the Long Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Warkentin, Jakob. "Benjamin Heinrich Unruh: Teacher, Scholar, Statesman 1881-1959". Shepherds, Servants and Prophets: Leadership among the Russian Mennonites (Ca. 1800-1960). Tran. Victor G. Doerksen. Ed. Harry Loewen. Kitchener: Pandora Press, 2003. 401-425. 357 Webster, John. Barth. London: Continuum, 2000.

—. Barth's Earlier Theology: Four Studies. London: T&T Clark, 2005.

—. Barth's Ethics of Reconciliation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Wehler, Hans-Ulrich. The German Empire 1871-1918. Tran. Kim Traynor. New York: Berg, 1985.

Weithman, Paul. "Augustine's Political Philosophy." The Cambridge Guide to Augustine. Eds. Norman Kretzmann and Eleonore Stump. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 234-252.

Werpehowski, William. "Command and History in the Ethics of Karl Barth". Journal of Religious Ethics 9.2 (1981): 298-320.

Williams, George Huntston. The Radical Reformation. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962.

Winkler, Heinrich August. Germany: The Long Road West 1789-1933. Tran. Alexander J. Sager. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Wright, J. R. C. Above Parties: The Political Attitudes of the German Protestant Church Leadership 1918-1933. London: Oxford University Press, 1974.

Yoder, John H. "The Pacifism of Karl Barth". Washington D.C.: The Church Peace Mission, 1964.

—. Karl Barth and the Problem of War and Other Essays on Barth. Ed. Mark Thiessen Nation. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2003.

Zabel, James A. Nazism and the Pastors: A Study of the Ideas of Three 'Deutsche Christen' Groups. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976.

Zehrer, Karl. Evangelische Freikirchen unddas "Dritte Reich". Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986.

358