As we have seen, Christian hope can become a blinding force individually, corporately, even scholarly, if the follower of Christ is not vigilant in recognizing how passionate expressions of their hope can turn into misguided or misdirected alliances with those who might not hold their best interest or the interest of others in mind. There are deep implications for how Christians live out their faith in a pluralistic world. Christian hope, which defines much of who a Christian is, can be misused, if not controlled, for purposes that can be destructive. There is exposed here a vulnerability to which Christians who express their hope passionately may not be aware when their zeal is at a zenith. The church's vulnerability in supporting Hitler's ascension to power and his murderous plan of extermination of the world's Jews, outlined here, provides a dramatic example of the consequences such vulnerability can produce.

Once the war was over, the churches began to regroup under the occupying liberation forces. Various statements of guilt were issued from different gatherings of Protestant groups active during the Nazi era, including the Confessing Church Movement and the German Evangelical Church.

Primarily what occurred was a backlash from leaders, including Martin Niemoller, who objected to the Allied authority's attempts to question church leaders or members of the church who may have only been nominal members of the Nazi party. They also objected to the Allied assumption that the church would become the body through which Germany would become de-nazified.

Barnett points out, "The problem was that feelings like nationalism, which had so blinded the Germans to Hitler, were precisely those that, in the wake of Germany's defeat, ran highest. The Protestant church, which had never during the Third Reich successfully confronted its own nationalism or anti-Semitism, was even less able now to do so" (223). Statements of guilt would not come easy and it would be hard to find consensus among the many leaders of the churches emerging from the war.

As mentioned, during the Church Conference of Treys a on Aug. 27-30.1945, Martin Niemoller spoke on behaIf of the Confessing Church movement. In his statement he implies that the church and its leaders are only taking responsibility for losing the war and for people following Nazis in the first place. In this he suggests, that the Nazis had success in gaining support from Protestant Christians because in their hearts and minds, however twisted, they "simply believed, after all, that they were on the right path!" In following that path, preached to them both from the church pulpits and from the political podium, they believed their Christian hope was realized and fulfilled as they understood it and experienced it Niemoller also suggests that the church was aware of the dangers and did not warn the people, and when it tried it, was too late.

Next, in October of the same year, the leadership of the Evangelical Church of Germany was meeting in Stuttgart and drafted a confession which still did not mention the demise of the Jews, but apologized for the way in which the church knew what was happening and even tried to tell people to resist Nazis, but did not do it courageously, faithfully, joyously or passionately enough. Niemoller emphasized that asking for forgiveness from God would re-empower the church to move forward in a spirit of forgiving and forgiveness (Gerlach 226-227). So the confession of guilt presented in the company of representatives of the World Council of Churches at Stuttgart amounted primarily to a statement which would provide a way to simply move on. Within the next year, two statements from different Protestant groups in support of the declaration added assertions about the church's lack of response to the plight of the Jews, recognizing that the churches had adopted anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi policies.

The Reich Council of Brethren of the German Evangelical Church meeting in Darmstadt at their regular Synod on Apr. 8, 1948, drafted a "Statement on the Jewish Question." It concluded that Israel (the Jews) crucified Christ, rejecting its election from God as the chosen people. In doing so election from God is transferred to the church as a new Israel. The statement reasoned that the Church continues to wait for Israel to assume its rightful place with God by acknowledging Christ's death and resurrection as their only hope. The statement asserts, "God's judgment follows Israel to the present day. . . That God will not be mocked is the silent sermon of the Jewish faith, a warning to us (Christians), a reminder to the Jews about whether or not they want to convert to Him in whom alone their salvation stands," which implies that the Holocaust was an instrument of that judgment (Gerlach 228 and Brumlik 174).

The dimensions of meaning recorded in the Darmstadt Declaration of the Confessing Church Council of Brethren of 1949 seeks to exhibit the claim that its testimony squares with the events framed by the Holocaust. We are confronted, however, with its narrow theological outlook, and its conclusions are problematic for any future progress against anti-Semitism. The Declaration attempts to reject the German Christian doctrine but, once again, reinforces the deeds of anti-Jewish prejudice, and shockingly validates the Nazi philosophy which the Confessing Church Council sought to refute. As Micha Brumlik summarizes the direction of the Darmstadt Declaration, he recognizes that it "attributed the deaths in the gas chambers to God, thereby validating the supremacy of the new, "true" Israel of Christian faith and implying, by logical necessity, that the murderous deeds of the SS had invalidated the' Jewish faith" (173-174).

This is the persistent thinking and feeling that enabled Protestant Christians to accommodate the killing machine of Hitler and confirm their hardness against Jews and Judaism. While these views would be challenged and changed over time, their persistence through the war and the Holocaust gives evidence to the depth of their feeling in the ultimate hope which the church preached and which defined them. Any statements that sought to moderate the Christian's approach to the Jews and Judaism was largely met with contempt and opposition. Any suggestions that Christianity did not supercede Judaism and was not the superior of the two faiths was threatening to the very concept of "we are what we are in (Christian) hope." These discussions raised the critical question:

If Judaism is equal to Christianity as a religion based upon the Bible, then what is the need for Christianity? The best that the Confessing Church could muster in their fight against Hitler was that Christianity could not be defined only in German volkish terms, but must remain universal. That was the extent of their anti-Nazi campaign. If only argued from the standpoint of the Nazi anti-Semitic program, the Confessing Church only advocated giving converted Jews a place among the faithful volk of Germany. As to the rest of the Jewish population, give them the opportunity to convert, but if they persist, then it is they who bring about their own judgment.

 

The Post-War Response of the World Council of Churches

In 1948, delegates from 147 denominations and rites of the Christian Church gathered in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, to form the World Council of Churches. Not since before The Reformation had Christians from so many countries with such diversity in thought and practice gathered in one assembly. This was not to establish one unified super-church as some in the media had characterized the W orId Council. The members attending did not envision the meeting as being the precursor to becoming one ecclesiastical unit. “What was being planned was not simply another ecumenical conference, not merely an ad hoc meeting, but rather the inauguration of a continuing association of the churches” (Minutes 14). At mid-century, the Christian churches present at the World Council Assembly in Amsterdam were there in recognition that the world around them had changed and was continuing to change rapidly. After the atrocities of World War II, and the events leading up to the war, many believed that the gathering might begin the process of healing a shattered world as well as a shattered faith.

In the years just prior to the first General Assembly, the war had ceased but the world was dealing with a number of issues, including the Holocaust, nuclear weapons capable of instantaneous mass destruction, colonization and reconstruction. While people were getting back to the normal routine of life, there still lingered the question raised by these issues: Who has the power to destroy and who has the power to build up?

‘More and more, people were turning to secular solutions to life’s problems. The first Assembly of the World Council was supposed to have taken place in 1941 in the United States. Only the war postponed the meeting. A whole different agenda might have come out of that first meeting had they not had the backdrop of the war from which to reflect on the issues of church unity and cooperation.

In these post-war years, the churches tried to find ways to express themselves in response to the great destruction of the war. Although the Assembly expressed concern about the devastation of the war, they too often responded in merely sympathetic introductions which led to unrelated or unsympathetic action. The members either could not acknowledge completely the atrocities of the Holocaust, or they sought to deflect them rather than deal with them directly. This is not to suggest that the work of the World Council of Churches did not provide an avenue of reconciliation on several fronts, but like all human gatherings whether divinely inspired or not, it was not without its bias or prejudice or blind spots. When it voiced its own self-awareness on that account it seemed to be at its best The proceedings and reports at the First Assembly of the World Council of Churches are a fair reflection of the world view of Christians at mid-century for better and for worse.

The theme for the first Assembly addressed the ambivalence of the time: “Man’s Disorder and God’s Design.” Once again, form the “Call to the Churches:” The main theme before the Assembly – “Man’s Disorder and God’s Design” – itself shows that the Churches of Christ have failed in preventing man’s disorder, and will fail again, if we try to overcome without God’s grace, and without a renewal of our own lives. We have fallen short both in speaking the Word of Christ and in doing His healing and saving work. (Minutes 84)

This reflects the cyclical approach of the Christian church when confronting our human situation. There is reflection and meditation on our human need for God to act on our behalf due to our tendency to turn nom God and seek our own path, which leads to our isolation nom God and alienation from one another. As an act of grace, God provides avenues to restore our relationship with God and with one another. It is most like God’s acts of covenant found in the Hebrew Scriptures. From the Christian view, restoration and covenant are most evident in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Having realized that God has acted on our behalf as a gracious act, then it is our proper response to glorify God in our worship, and in our actions toward our neighbors in tangible signs of mercy and grace. “Beloved, since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another” (1 John 4:11). This passage expresses the cycle very succinctly. So it was the intention of the founders of the World Council of Churches that they begin with repentance and forgiveness which leads to relationship with one another and the world around them through the acts of God on our behalf.

When the newly formed World Council turned its attention to the issue of evangelism in general and in particular to its approach to adherents of other faiths and specifically to its approach to Jewish neighbors, there is evident, in retrospect, a continued need for the Christian to seek repentance to God and neighbor over the issue of conversion of Jews to Christianity. The preface to this section of “The Church’s Witness to God’s Design” says: The approach to Israel is the standing challenge to the Christian Church. Do Christians who have Jewish neighbours expect and desire that these Jewish neighbours will become Christians? It not, have they any right to claim an interest in evangelism elsewhere?

The problem of Israel in God’s purpose and of the future of the Jews in the world are controversial in the extreme, and on many matters there may be legitimate difference of view among Christians. But if we hold that Christ died for all men, and that His Gospel is to be preached to all nations, the proclamation of the Gospel to Israel stands out as an absolute obligation from which the Church must not try to escape. (Man’s Disorder 168)

This statement reflects the dilemma of the Christian in relationship with their Jewish neighbors. On the one hand, there is a desire behind these words to find a way not to feel a need to convert Jews from their faith and tradition. What is reaffirmed, on the other hand, is that to call off the mission to the Jews would somehow invalidate the missional claim of fulfillment of Christian hope. So that they do not paint themselves into an evangelistic comer, the World Council endorses the centuries old policy of evangelistic mission to the Jews, not as an option but as an obligation. For Jews who experienced the Holocaust or who lost family members in the carnage, statements such as these must have caused them to shudder after thinking that, once Hitler and his regime had been defeated, there was now, from a more unified Christian front, a new call to actively convert Jews to Christianity. As analyzed in earlier chapters, the issue of conversion of Jews has always been one of the operatives of anti-Semitism since the beginning of Christianity. If a rehearsal of the church’s attempts to forcefully convert in an effort to extinguish Jews in the past 20 centuries weren’t sufficient to confirm Christianity’s bent on anti-Semitism, then even these kinds of statements from the World Council would stand as sufficient evidence. There is no recognition that Christian behaviors toward Jews in the past, particularly missions to Jews, have had any part in what took place during the Holocaust. In the reports circulated to the churches after the Assembly, the one on the “Approach to Israel” presents the situation of the Jews after war as one in which we as Christians should show solidarity, not in the sense of Christian charity or of pitying the Jews, but in relation to our common destiny as people of God. It is the understanding of those submitting the report and assuming that the Assembly approved of it, that the Church is the “New Israel” and that the Jews are “Israel in the flesh.” This use of titles belies that W orId Christian leaders continue to hold a self-understanding that Christianity is superior to and should supercede Judaism, but somehow insists that we are connected in God’s design for the salvation of all people. The mission of the Christian churches toward Jews is presented as a means not to help them only in order to convert them, but to preach the Gospel to them as an essential part of the total relief effort which includes other forms of physical and moral help (Man’s Disorder 190-191).

What follows in the report is a meditation on the self-imposed curse found in Matthew 27:25 when those who brought Jesus to be crucified said to Pilate, “His blood be on us, and on our children.” The blood guilt of the Jews is now introduced by this massive body of the Christian Church just as it has been invoked throughout the centuries and was apparently invoked often in response to the Holocaust as a justification for the sufferings that the Jews have experienced. It becomes a means by which Christians and others say to Jews, “You asked for it!” The notion of the blood continually falling upon the descendants of those responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus has always provided this convenient ploy in anti-Semitism. While the authors of the report refute this use of the passage they do invoke it again as the means where the Jewish leaders reject Jesus for all the Jewish people. They add that Pilate becomes the surrogate rejecter for the Gentile world so that all reject Jesus together. Jesus, then, saves all people in the common mire of sin. The blood that falls upon the Jews and their children then need not be just condemning blood but redemptive blood like that of the lamb of Passover sprinkled over the door posts which brought the people of Israel out of bondage in Egypt. Conversion to Christ, however, is what is required, not only of the Jew to convert, but of the Christian to proclaim the saving word to the Jew (Man’s Disorder 192-193).

What the leaders of the Council fail to realize, in the confines of this inherently anti-Semitic view, is that “full” Jews who converted to Christianity were victims of the gas chambers as much as those who remained faithful to Judaism.

It is a hope of those who are reporting that the Church might emphasize two things with regard to their approach to Jews: that ‘’the promise is unto you” (Acts 2:39) and “neither is there salvation in any other.” (Acts 4:12) When Protestant Christians view the promise of Christ, it is identical to the promise to Israel as a Chosen People.

The Gospel should become clear to the Jews if you “lift the veil.” (A reference to the veil Moses wore to keep the light shining from his face after having his encounter with God.)

What is apparent in the council’s statement is an understanding that Israel is unfaithful to not only the promise of Christ but to the original covenants as well. In this view, all people must return to the message of repentance and hope. The persecutions of the Jews are not to be seen as God’s vengeance for the death of Jesus, but as an appeal to conversion and to turn from their unfaithfulness. The authors here do suggest that it will be hard for survivors of the Holocaust to hear such language, yet Christians are to proclaim the Gospel to Jews without denying Christ as the Son of God. A full understanding of the Trinity was part of the material used with Jews so as not to confuse the issue of monotheism.

Israel’s unfaithfulness however, is not to be grounds for anti- Semitic behavior. They add, “Persecution of the Jews is always harmful to the Church, just as the unfaithfulness of the Jews is only the reflection of the unfaithfulness of Christians” (Man’s Disorder 194). In spite of these statements to reject anti-Semitic behavior, it seems that the Church only views Jews, whether judged as faithful or not, as a poor example given to Christians by God not to follow. This perpetuates the continual practice of Protestant Christians using Jews as a negative contrast to what true Christian faithfulness should be, even now in the shadow of the events of the Holocaust.

The controversy continues in the debate regarding the “wall of separation” between Jew and Christian and how it can be broken down. There are some realistic assumptions that there are a host of prejudices that exist between the two and that they will not be overcome easily. Christians are urged to judge themselves for their own sin before turning attention to the faults of their Jewish neighbors. Once again the authors make an attempt to be sensitive to the Holocaust but warn against being so sensitive that the success of the mission be jeopardized. Since there is evidence that Jews have converted in the past, and if Christians work hard enough at it then all Jews will convert now as well. Anti-Semitism is to be fought but there needs to be a way to fight it together from a Jewish-Christian perspective. While this sounds like a good idea, the treatise goes on to say, “So long as a Jew can suppose that Christians as a whole are anti-Semitic. Or that the Church does not fight anti-Semitism in every shape and form, there will inevitably be a movement of repulsion, turning Jewish eyes away from the Gospel which their sincerest friends in the Church want to lay before them.” (Man’s Disorder 195) Once again, there is the conditional nature of opposition to anti-Semitism to get into close enough range to fire the Gospel message for maximum effect. It is odd that in the section that seeks the most to combat anti-Semitism we find this phrase, “The aim of general conversion cannot be anything less than the spiritual destruction of Judaism.” (Man’s Disorder, 195) What else did they think the Holocaust had tried to do, but to eradicate the world of the people who were connected by inheritance to the faith of Judaism? Their ancestral connection to the faith of Judaism is what identified them as being different and distinct, that singled them out for destruction, not only spiritually but physically. Emil Fackenheim similarly sums up in this regard when he writes, “A post-Holocaust Jew can still view Christian attempts to convert Jews as sincere and well intended. But even as such they are no longer acceptable: They have become attempts to do in one way what Hitler did in another” (249). Put in those terms, Christians must re-examine their evangelistic motivations in their attempts to convert Jews as a matter of principle, policy and practice.

This leads to the Christian doctrine connected to ultimate Christian hope that salvation cannot come through any other than Jesus. The only difference in an evangelistic approach with Jews is to be aware of their background. Some will come to the Christian faith by seeing the prophecies fulfilled in Christ. Others will come by making a break in their spiritual or social world. Some are indifferent to their Jewishness and come by seeking new fulfillment. In the Council’s statement on the “Approach to Israel,” Zionism is discussed and criticized for its emphasis on secular, material means of salvation. To suggest to a Zionist that salvation comes only through Jesus may be the most offensive thing to their way of thinking. This is not surprising, reflecting on the motivations for Zionism as a means to escape persecution and anti-Semitism from largely Christian populations. Millar Burrows reflects a widely held view of Zionism within Protestant Christianity when he writes in the Christian Century in 1949, “The present resurgence of Jewish nationalism is a repetition of the same fatal error that caused Israel’s rejection of Jesus” (401). The authors of the World Council suggest that the Zionist must have an experience that separates their earthly material salvation from their spiritual one.

Those Jews who are indifferent to their tradition could be approached as doubly infidel since they are basically being unfaithful to both traditions. The issues of convenient conversions arose as a red flag for churches to avoid. There is a warning that some Jews may chose to convert just to avoid persecution (Man’s Disorder 197-198). For those Jews who did convert during the war to escape the Nazi web, a warning such as this would certainly have brought apprehension.

While the impact of the Holocaust was being articulated by the leaders at the World Council, who were trying to give their churches guidance in offering what they perceived as a gift to be given to the Jews in whom they felt a kinship, the full range and impact of the Holocaust had not yet been revealed to the Jewish community, let alone the Christian community. As the report was presented at the Assembly, there seemed to be a more conciliatory tone at least in its introduction. Bishop Angus Dun suggests that the churches “make this concern their own as we share with them the results of our too brief wrestling with it.” (Gaines 311) This is an understatement, to say the least, considering the many centuries of hostile treatment of Christians toward Jews. Like the report in the book sent out to the churches after the Assembly, the report given by Bishop Dun reflects and recommends that preaching the Gospel to Jews is still our evangelistic task. The report also reflects the separation of the issue of anti-Semitism from that of Christian evangelism to Jews. “Only as we give convincing evidence to our Jewish neighbors that we seek for them the common rights and dignities which God wills for His children, can  we come to such a meeting with them as would make it possible to share with them the best which God has given us in Christ” (Gaines 311-312). This statement comes after Bishop Dun has declared anti-Semitism “a sin against God and man” (Gaines 311).

While the World Council was not oblivious to the role of the Church in the growth of anti-Semitism throughout the years, that role seems to be viewed only as affecting the physical world of the Jew where human rights are the issues, and does not belong in the discussion from a spiritual perspective. There is no perception that Jews are already spiritually engaged without the benefit of Christian mediation. Burrows articulates this disconnect in his article on Jewish nationalism: “Should we try to convert Jews to our faith in Jesus as the incarnate Word of God? Most certainly we should, just as we should try to convert to our way of thinking those who differ from us in politics or economics or social questions or anything else which is important for human life, here or hereafter” (Burrows 401). The implication is that preaching to Jews for the purpose of conversion apparently is not anti-Semitic since Jewish religious expression is equated with political, economic, and social expressions.

One of the anxieties that Bishop Dun’s report shares, is the failure of the church to complete the mission to the Jews. This failure, as they see it, is an indictment on the true responsibility of the church. It is one that should not be abdicated to other agencies but should be taken up in the normal course of parish work. Theologian Martin Buber writes concerning this dilemma: To Christians this failure on the part of Paul and all subsequent missionaries to the Jews has always been a source of theological perplexity. At worst they blamed it on Jewish blindness, stiffneckedness or willful perversity. Even at best they considered it a mystery. The “mystery of Israel” is quite secondary, to be sure, to the great mystery, that of the incarnate, crucified, and resurrected God. (131)

A pastor once had a church member who was bent on sharing the Gospel with Jews. His reason for doing so was to assist in bringing about the Second Coming of Jesus. The church member was always discouraged that the pastor wasn’t more interested in engaging in this sort of thing. The pastor counseled him that before seeking to convert any Jewish friends, first seek to understand them fully, then the discovery will come that efforts to convert them are no longer necessary or desirable, only then will satisfaction be found in seeking and finding people who are really in despair and can benefit from Christ coming into their lives. It is to those persons that Christ calls to share the Gospel in word and in deed. Protestant Christians often get caught up in their own successes and failures without taking into full account that God is the one who is really doing the work.

The report given to the Assembly by Bishop Dun reflected the mechanics of what is assumed to be an evangelistic task of the-church not needing any further explanation. The emphasis is a restatement of Martin Luther’s original attempts to simply show Christian love to our Jewish neighbors and they will come around to a proper understanding of God’s salvation for them and for all. Likewise, there are provisions to retrofit ministers to “interpret the Gospel to Jewish people and that materials be prepared to aid in such a ministry” (Gaines 313). While the results of anti-Semitism were articulated in frank terms, the issues were still unclear to church leaders regarding their part in it. Buber states:

Judaism has been misinterpreted from two utterly different standpoints. Christianity couples it with heathenism and claims that both are incapable of transcending the world and looking into a beyond that is over and above the world. Heathenism, on the other hand, and today this means ‘’neo heathenism,” couples it with Christianity, arguing that it denies the great vital powers and has no sense of the secret of reality. Neither line of reasoning touches upon the essence of Judaism. (177)

This misunderstanding of Judaism gives rise to the type of statements that appear at the first General Assembly of the World Council of Churches. Oddly enough, there is a recommendation to the churches that encourages ‘’understanding of their Jewish neighbors, and cooperation in agencies combating misunderstanding and prejudice.”(Gaines 313) Perhaps this recommendation was one that led some to truly understand the “otherness” of Judaism in a constructive way. Fackenheim relates hearing Catholic theologian Hans Hermann Hendrix say in 1982: “Christian anti. Judaism will not come to an end until Christians develop a positive attitude toward Jews, not despite their nonacceptance of Christ but because of it” (248). This radically “new” thinking among Christian leaders will hopefully filter to the communities of which they are a part. To suggest that the nonacceptance of Christ by the Jews constitutes failure on the Christians part or belligerence on the part of Jews is rendered meaningless when the Christian can value the Jew because of their Jewishness, rather than another prospective church member and a “challenge.”

The General Assembly of the World Council of Churches meeting in Amsterdam omitted any call for a significant dialogue with the Jewish community. It opted to act on behalf of the Jewish community based on the member church’s own theological and ecclesiastical interests, instead of drawing from the gifts and graces of the Jewish community that had experienced so often the cruel hand of Christian man’s disorder.

When one group excludes another from the establishment of the terms of dialogue then the excluded group has no reason to respond in dialogue because they have no stake in it.

The group that does the excluding likewise misses out on benefiting from the true and rich resources of the group that is viewed only as subservient or inferior. Fackenheim offers this guidance in relation to what makes for fruitful dialogue: Interreligious dialogue in general is one thing. Christian dialogue with Jews in particular is another. Of Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism the ordinary Christian has yet to learn. Judaism, he has been taught through the ages, he has known all along – and superseded. . .. On the part of Christians, how can there be an honest dialogue with Jews so long as they are sure in advance that the Jewish truth about to be heard has already been superseded? Christians often act as if Jews had spent the Christian centuries rejecting their Christ. They are mistaken: Except in relations with Christians, the Christ of Christianity is not an issue. To come to the crux: There can be no Jewish-Christian dialogue worthy of the name unless one Christian activity is abandoned, missions to the Jews. It must be abandoned, moreover, not a temporary strategy but in principle, as a bi-millennial theological mistake. The cost of that mistake in Christian love and Jewish blood one hesitates to contemplate. (249)

If the Christian hope expressed in the mission to the Jews must be admitted to be a failure, well then, so be it. Fackenheim’ s vision of its failure provides a stronger sense of opportunity than does the World Council of Churches’ call to take up the mission again. Measured attempts at consensus like this one from Millar Burrows leave little hope for progress in our human relations, and any real sense of fulfillment of Christian hope:

Christians can learn, if they will, what there is in Judaism that the Jews feel they can never give up and what there is in Christianity that the Jews feel they can never accept. Jews can learn, if they will, what Christians feel they have in Christ, without which Judaism remains at best incomplete and unfulfilled. (401)

These attitudes exhibit reluctant tolerance at best and continued triumphal supercessionism at its worst. Without a significant change in the Christian understanding of hope that is devoid of any anti-Semitism in their preaching, teaching and doctrine or nationalistic political aspiration in its social expression then Christian hope will continue to be ripe for use by those who can manipulate the language and call on the icons and imagery that stirs the very being of who Christians profess to be. If “we are what we are in hope,” then that hope must always be grounded in what is not only best for all but what is appropriate for the full context of a diverse and pluralistic world (Bultmann 101).

Connections have been shown between the core belief of Christian hope in the German Protestant tradition and the spirit of nationalism and practice of anti-Semitism as the church participated in the third Reich and its program. This was less a matter of being blinded by Hitler and his nationalistic and anti-Semitic anthems, but a deeply tragic flaw in the way which German Protestants anticipated and lived out the hope they had learned in their nationalistic and inherently anti-Semitic churches which were caught up in millennia! Idealism. Likewise, the Protestant churches emerged from the Second World War with the same nationalistic and anti-Semitic hope they carried into the Nazi state, because that is the same hope that inspired Luther, and Spener, and Francke and Schleiermacher and the rest. And while this dynamic is brought into bold relief even after the results of the Nazi state in Germany, these characteristics as they relate to Christian hope across Protestant Christianity continue to simmer under the surface across the globe as is evident in the work of the Word Council of Churches at their first Assembly in Amsterdam in 1948.

What we thus have seen, is the importance that awareness or consciousness of one’s belief system does not always preclude the maltreatment of others in human relationships. Many who professed their faith in Jesus Christ in the Protestant tradition during the Nazi-era clouded their views of fellow human beings based upon their expressions of Christian hope which ultimately led to their fellow human beings’ destruction or harm. In fact as is shown in above, potentially this attitude still xistent today including in pro Christian books like for example „New Religions And The Nazis“ (2006). It was written by Karla Poewe in close cooperation with her husband (both where working as missonairies in Africa) now a religion professor, who apparently didn’t want his name mentioned on the book cover.

As suggested in Bandura’s categories of “moral justification” and “advantageous comparison” can be used as a means to cognitively reconstruct the anti Semitic teaching and practices of the church. Applying race to their concept of Christian hope as a God-ordained doctrine for the German/Aryan people gave the Protestants an advantageous means of comparing who they are and who the Jews are not and providing moral justification for their renewed anti-Semitism. Ultimately, the German-Christians, in particular, would use other means to disengage themselves from more universal Christian standards of moral behavior. (Bandura 193-196)

For German-Christians and many other Protestants, the exclusion of Jews from the church served as a means to bring fulfillment of hope by purifying the community. Part of the millennia! Hope required the church to become pure so that Christ would come and reign ushering in the fulfillment of God’s glorious purposes in creation. “Attribution of blame” would become a means to distance themselves as Christians from the ever widening persecution and marginalization of Jews. The Protestant Christian appeal for Jews to convert to Christianity as a means to turn from God’s wrathful curse would prove to be a blinding force negating what little compassion there might have been for the plight of the Jews (Bandura 203). Bergen relates a story from a German Christian publication in 1939: Through the National Socialist revolution, that author claimed, God had revealed the secret of the racial aspect of true Christianity first to Germans. They could no more keep it to themselves than the “discovery of the Copernican universe” could have remained “restricted to one country.” Germany, the author rejoiced, was called to be a “pathbreaker” to a new age when every race would recognize that it could accept Christianity only “in a way true to its nature.” For German Christians, the establishment of an anti Jewish church was a sacred task. (28)

These aspects of anticipated hope were becoming codified in the practices of the church through revised confirmation questions and affirmations of faith, which integrated the divinely inspired racial elements into the practical and theological functioning of the church (Bergen 148,159). Loving one’s neighbor included only those of Aryan blood.

 

Conclusion

The evangelistic outreach of the church changed from the world of many different people to ingathering all the true Germans. Just as marriage could only occur between pure Aryans, Christian fellowship and community now was defined as only appropriate within the confines of one's race. As Bergen points out, "In the German Christian view, Christians of different 'races' ultimately had nothing to say to each other." (31)

Persons committed to following Jesus Christ, the "Prince of Peace," the one who emphasized the Jewish tenets of loving God and loving neighbor, were found following in great numbers a leader such as Adolf Hitler and his program. Certainly Ervin Staub provides a key way in which people travel down a continuum of destruction because of the many stresses they experience. Stanley Milgram's experiments in obedience to authority likewise illuminate the behavior of persons who place their lives and actions in the hands of figures of authority. Bandura's study on moral disengagement shows how persons and groups can turn off and on various mechanisms in order to allow themselves to do harm or to refrain from doing harm toward others.

 In fact what might be neeeded as is seen for example in the case of books like „New Religions And The Nazis,“ is a new model for analysis as exemplified by  Ervin Staub, to describe how Protestant Christians in particular and all persons in general often discover themselves doing something that they know is wrong, but doing it for what they think is right.

For example when we are in a passionate mode to do good, we can be put at a greater risk of compromising our methods and actions to bring about the desired hope just by the momentum of moving toward a greater passionate expression. Bandura paraphrases Edmund Burke's familiar saying, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" by adding, "The triumph of evil requires a lot of good people doing a bit of it in a morally disengaged way with indifference to the human suffering they collectively cause" (Bandura 206).

When we live lives that are motivated only by mediocrity then we are also at risk to drift back and forth on the bottom of the circle between good and evil. This describes the way in which bystanderism develops within the lives of the less passionate but of equal importance within the context of social and psychological interaction among groups. Like a ball rolling in the bottom of a bowl, bystanders often shift back and forth between thinking they are doing good because they are not acting destructivly, but participating in immorally because they choose not to act on behalf of others or become a hypocrite.

In this context Victoria Barnett discusses the "complex phenomenon" of "powerlessness" in relation to the motivation of bystanders. She sees within it the question "to what extent did (those in the Nazi era) 'redefinet their ethical systems in order to view the persecution of Jews as a 'good'?" (Bystanders, 1819) Whether perpetrators acted proactively or passively in the Holocaust, they drifted across the vertical line of the circular model perceiving that they began on the side of what was good for them, each driven by a form of hope that was deep in their tradition.

And if this has to be put in a Christian context to come accross; the story of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness (Matthew 4: 1-11) provides a helpful example of how curbing one's passion can maintain goodness according to the above model. Jesus is three times tempted to do something that is within his power for a good cause. First, he is tempted to turn stones into bread to feed a hungry world.

Second, he is tempted to throw himself off the roof of the Temple in Jerusalem so that Angels can come to his aid showing all who saw it that God would take care of him.

Third, he is tempted to become the benevolent ruler of all the nations in the world if he would bow down and worship Satan. Each time Jesus refuses to comply seeing the trap in which each one would ensnare him. Each action Jesus was tempted to fulfill would have achieved a good result: Food enough for everyone, proof of God's existence and his benevolent rule. In doing those things, however, he would have had to submit himself to the authority of what he called ‚evil‘.

Paul N. Anderson, in his essay Religion and Violence: From Dawn to scabeaoat tells of a young Quaker who reveals that he is going to join the armed forces. When Anderson questions him about the incongruence of enlisting in the service and Quaker ideals -of non-violence, the young man replies, "If the Russians were going to come and rape and kill your mother or grandmother, would you just stand there and let it happen, or would you use force to prevent it" (266)? In the young man's passion to do good by "protecting" his matriarchs he is willing to cross over the top of the circular model and do what in Christian lore would be ‚evil‘ to bring about that good. It is paramount in this example that the perceived threat which caused the compromise was an irrational one. Yet, religious values, and Christian hope in particular, are often trapped in such a dilemma.

Psychological power is inherent in religious expression. Anderson suggests, "Religion is powerful because it affects the human psyche and becomes one of the greatest sources of personal direction and strength" (268). He also indicates that psychological forms such as projection and perception of need play an important role in how religious systems are formed within social structures (268). In turn, religious symbols and iconography can be used to stir up strong feelings, which galvanizes motivations in those who resonate with them to do violence upon others. Religion, in and of itself, is not to blame for stirring up those feelings because those same symbols and iconography contain and can motivate altruistic behavior as well. Anderson states: The point is to connect the constructive power of religion with the fact that warfare taxes all resources, physical, economic, industrial, and psychological. Humans are inclined, in extremity, to use their resources in whatever ways. Religious power tends to create an ''us.'' It solidifies group identity and appeals to religious certainty, eternal consequences, and principled loyalties. These shape individuals and groups. (270)

Because religion in general tends to create bias, or an ''us,'' there is a need to reevaluate how in this case Christian's assess the expression of their hope--in more appropriate behaviors toward persons not in their faith community.

Recently also in the USA, the support of Christian dispensationalist group's for Israel has grown so fervent to hasten the day of the Lord that they advocate the destruction or the displacement of the Palestinians people which includes a large number of fellow Christians. Leaders like Jerry Falwell mobilized Christian dispensationalist groups to rally support for Israel to oppose the provisions of the Oslo accords in 1998 and to scuttle the "road map" for peace in 2003 because they felt these measures would negate or slow down their goal for Israel to remain and thrive in the land long enough to fulfill the bible prophecies (Wagner "Evangelicals" 1020, "Marching" 20).

The United Methodist Church in America is experiencing a decline in membership that has persisted throughout the last several decades. Church leaders have sought to find ways to reverse this trend through various evangelistic programs and emphases. The Jan-Feb 1998 issue of their clergy journal, The Circuit Rider. Published an essay by Fuller Theological Seminary President, Richard J. Mouw revitalizing evangelicals to bear witness to their faith through missions to the Jews. The United Methodist Church during these decades of decline has sought to dialogue with the Jewish community as neighbors in faith, never seeking as a denomination to convert Jews to Christianity through such dialogue. The statements of the church in The Book of Resolutions reflect at least a neutral stance on evangelizing the Jewish community (213-214). Yet, in its zeal to win converts, some in leadership have reopened the "mandate" for United Methodists to energize their evangelism for the children of Israel as a worthwhile if not necessary means to reverse the decline of membership. There are references encouraging evangelicals to be sensitive to the consequences of the Holocaust in Mouw's essay, but it is clear that ''proclamation of that Jesus is the promised Messiah cannot be silenced for the sake of interreligious civility." (20) There is no recognition that faithful Jews are in full covenant with God.

The Southern Baptist Convention has always and may always maintain their prerogative to evangelize all people, including and especially Jews. Responding to more moderate attempts by fellow Baptists and other Christian denominations to back away from approaching Jews with the gospel, the Southern Baptist Convention, as late as 1996, passed a resolution to reaffirm their call to aggressively evangelize Jews as part of their witness. A particular group in New Jersey run by Baptist minister, Elwood McQuaid leads evangelistic missions directly into the places of death in Europe. His reasoning is summed up in a fund-raising letter which states: "The month of Remembrance is a critical time for ministry to Jewish people. . . a fruitful time for witness as Jewish hearts are open to the Lord. Thousands of mourners, including many Jewish and Israeli young people, will return to the Polish towns where their ancestors lived, and visit the ghettos and death camps where they perished. On these solemn occasions, the Friends of Israel will come alongside these grieving people, comforting them in the Spirit of Christ. By God's grace, we will bring them God's message of true comfort and hope: the wonderful news of a living Messiah!" (Goldberg, 20)

Here we have Protestant Christian hope directly connected to anti-Semitic behavior under the guise of being "friends" to Jews and acting on behalf of their spiritual interests in the shadows of the Holocaust.

Similarly as we have indicated there is a growing body of scholarship that seeks to encourage and equip persons to re-energize mission to Jews in this century. In a 1999 PhD dissertation that chronicles Jewish missions from 1900 to 1950, Mitchell Glaser concludes: It is with hope for a new day in missions to the Jews, . . . that this project is completed. . .. There is so much more to be learned that will be useful to Jewish missions in the new millennium. This project is also written in anticipation that some of what has been brought forth will enable missions to the Jews not only return to the greatness the enterprise enjoyed prior to the Holocaust, but to surpass all expectations and dreams until the morning star dawns when we witness the fulfillment of Paul's words, "and all Israel will be saved." (431)

While Glaser faithfully and effectively records the activities of the Jewish Missions during this time period, in his zeal for the fulfillment of his Christian hope, he belies his scholarly voice and seeks to inspire others in the work of the missions for the future. He mentions a dedication to ''the great heroes of the faith, both missionaries and lay persons, who perished in the Holocaust. May their memory be blessed" (431). While this is a moving tribute, just like in the case of Karla Poewe and Irving Hexham, it shows a deep insensitivity to the Jews who did not convert who were lost in the Shoah, as if to say they were lost already since they did not turn to the saving grace of Christ before they were exterminated.
 

 

Bibliography and Works Cited

For updates click homepage here