862.404/148
The Ambassador in Germany (Dodd) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 15.]
Sir: In continuation of the Embassy’s despatch No. 2335 of September 25, 1935,19 I have the honor to report that the Prussian Synod of the Confessional Evangelical Church closed September 26 on a note of open defiance to the State, but received from the latter a more or less direct answer in the promulgation last Sunday of a law giving Herr Kerrl, the new Minister of Church Affairs, virtually dictatorial powers over Protestant Church matters.
Church sources are somewhat reluctant to divulge the contents of the resolutions finally adopted by the Synod, but it appears that they followed fairly closely the line the discussion was taking at the date of writing of the despatch referred to above. It is understood that the Synod, impatient at the non-fulfillment of Government promises that the expulsion orders against certain pastors would be lifted, instructed these pastors to return to their parishes to resume preaching by a specified date. Secondly, the Synod took a strong stand in favor of Christian baptism of Jews, an issue upon which Church and official opinion differs most widely. A third decision, it is. learned, enjoined upon the member churches to resist the various devices and plans for State control of Protestant finances.
The Synod evidently failed to consult Herr Stahn, Herr Kerrl’s representative, before adopting its resolutions as it had been advised to do, and therefore adjourned under the apprehension that retaliation in some form would almost inevitably ensue. A warning was first conveyed in the step taken by Saxon authorities to prevent repetition of a similar display of ecclesiastic intransigence by summarily prohibiting the holding of the Saxon Synod which was set for this week. On Sunday, September 29, the State published what in effect may be regarded as its mobilization order against the Confessionals, in the following law consisting of the single paragraph:
“The Reich Minister for Church Affairs is empowered, for the purpose of the restoration of orderly conditions in the German Evangelical Church and the regional Evangelical Churches, to issue ordinances with binding legal force. The ordinances are to be promulgated in the Reichsgesetzblatt.”
In a brief introduction which is openly described as mockery by many pastors who remember the elections which brought Reichsbishop Müller to power (see Embassy’s despatch No. 174 of September 30, 193320), the Government explains that it was “in accordance with the will of the Evangelical Church authorities” that the regional churches were gathered together in a single Reich Evangelical Church. Deep concern is expressed with the subsequent “state of affairs” which have threatened to “destroy the unity of Church-goers, shake the freedom of faith and conscience of the individual, injure the community, and expose the Evangelical Church to more serious dangers,” and the Government declares that, “filled with the desire to leave the regulation, as soon as possible, of its own affairs to an orderly Church, it had as trustee passed the present law for the protection of the Church and the establishment of order, which will enable the Church to regulate its own questions of confession and faith in full freedom and peace.”
Evidently upon official inspiration, the press hailed the new law as a step to bring peace at last within the Church after two years of strife of which all German Church-goers have had enough. The Boersen Zeitung of October 2 regarded it as unfortunate that during this period the conflict had been utilized by the foreign press to propagate lies concerning National Socialist antagonism to Christianity, and, with patent reference to recent disturbers in Ireland which have been much publicized in Germany, it observes that the religious differences in this country at least did not have to be settled by bayonets and the use of barbed wire in the streets.
The present state of affairs in the Protestant Church seems marked by a degree of confusion, perhaps more significant than ever of the whole inclusive [inconclusive?] course the struggle has so far followed. The Confessional front, which originally constituted a coalitional majority of the churches opposed to the officially favored Reichsbishop Müller régime, now shows signs of being weakened and split by the appointment of Reich Minister Kerrl and the tactics which he has been pursuing. Formerly Minister of the Interior Frick and later Kerrl have repeatedly held forth offers of negotiation which the Lutherans, in accordance with the doctrinal position of Luther himself in support of State authority, have been reluctant to reject. Lately, and particularly through the past summer, the brunt of battle has been borne chiefly by the Reformed, or Calvinist, wing of the Church whose members find National Socialist totalitarian claims incompatible with their belief in sole responsibility to individual conscience. These differences seem to have become apparent in a recent noticeable disaffection of the Reformed group from the leadership of Dr. Marahrens, Lutheran Bishop of Hanover who is nominal head of the central provisional administration of the Confessional Church.
[Page 368]Since assuming office, Reich Minister Kerrl, whether by design or conviction, has pursued a clever course of moderation. He has given assurances that there will be no more large-scale arrests of pastors such as took place last spring, and has intimated that he is willing to abandon the Müller régime, whose German-Christian followers have declined in strength through disaffection and dissension among themselves. He is understood to have proposed an administration composed of “neutral” churchmen or even moderate Confessional leaders, there being indications that he may have in mind the appointment as head of the administration of Dr. von Bodelschwingh, who was formerly Confessional candidate for the post of Reichsbishop (see Embassy’s despatch No. 2456 of June 2, 193321) but who is now reported to be in such poor health that his tenure of office, and hence the compromise which may be based on his acceptance of the position, might be of only very short duration. At any rate these overtures seem to have been received sympathetically by a large section of the Lutherans belonging to the Confessional front, as is well brought out by Mr. Hathaway’s summary of his conversations with a Bavarian Lutheran churchman, which was contained in Report 201 of September 27, 1935, from the Consulate General in Munich,22 a copy of which, it is noted, was forwarded to the Department.
The scant response these offers have met with from the more extreme Confessional wing was demonstrated by the results of last week’s meeting. This Synod to a greater degree than others is reported to have been mainly under the influence of the Reformed Church pastors, this being apparent in a smaller representation of Lutherans, and particularly in the absence of Bishop Marahrens from the deliberations. In addition to the defiant decisions adopted in the Synod itself, its leaders are understood to have rejected, in parallel discussions with Herr Kerrl, State offers on the ground that Herr Kerrl would not guarantee an administration in which their principles would ultimately prevail. While a personal relationship of some confidence has been established, these Confessional leaders, just as the Catholic Bishops who raised the same question at Fulda (see Embassy’s despatch No. 2242 of August 21, 193523), are apparently unconvinced as yet that Kerrl has sufficient authority to shield them from interference from the Party and particularly from the arbitrary action of more extreme provincial officials.
The new Church law is generally regarded as a final threat, and the most serious one made to date, to bring into line the more recalcitrant Reformed Church wing of the Confessional front. That the step [Page 369] was based on previously considered action is illustrated by the fact that the law is dated September 24, thus coinciding with the second and most crucial day of the recent Synod. Further negotiations may possibly be contemplated in the interval which will precede the promulgation of executory ordinances, but in any such negotiations Herr Kerrl will of course possess the overwhelming advantage of being able to impose upon the opposite party an arrangement they would not freely accept. Should an unsatisfactory Church administration be decreed, the dissentient pastors will then have to reflect upon the course of opposing not an impotent Church authority but a minister disposing of the forces of the-Reich, and of thus putting themselves for the first time completely outside the law.
Respectfully yours,
- Not printed.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1933, vol. ii, p. 301.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1933, vol. ii, p. 295.↩
- Not found in Department files.↩
- Not printed.↩