The Grey Book | Page 9

part of Christianity, the very notion of the Jews as a race can have no basis whatsoever in Christian theology. [31] This has been stated as early as September 1933 by the theological faculty of the University of Marburg in its statement against the "Arierparagraph". Similar statements were issued by theologians such as Rudolf Bultmann and the members of the Bekenntnis der Vaeter und die bekennende Gemeinde (Betheler Bekenntnis), 1934 [32]. Thus, even at the height of Nazi persecution and in times of the extermination of the Jews, the Church would not acknowledge Judaism as a religion in its own right and on its own terms, but insisted that a Jew who became a Christian was merely fulfilling his predestined role; such a Jew did not leave his faith, he returned to his true faith. It is most symptomatic and instructive to note that in the controversy between Heinrich Vogel, one of the leaders in the protests against the persecution of Jews and the author of the "65 Theses of Protest" (March 1933) and Friedrich Gebhart, a spokesman of the "German Christians" and the author of the "Reply to the 65 Theses" (May 1933), both sides, despite their theological and political contradictions adhere to the same traditional Christian view that the Jews are in a state of rejection (Verwerfung). One view holds that the Jew can abrogate his old covenant with Jehovah and step over to the side of the Redeemer; the other holds that the derelict Jew is beyond salvation and the redeeming influences of the Church, that Ueberzeuging cannot overcome Zeugung, that the Vollendung of Judaism in Christ should be turned into the Endloesung of Jewish existence. Both, however, despite the far reaching differences and contradictions between them, deny the Jew the right to live on his own terms and according to his own autonomy. This approach to the Jewish question on the part of those who protested against the persecution of the Jews was not confined to the Bekennende Kirche in Germany. Even the Dutch Church, in the early forties, did not deviate from its theological tradition. A typical illustration is to be found in the Pastoral Letter written by the General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church (Sept. 1941), a document that will go down in history as a striking witness to spiritual integrity and moral courage. Although the Letter emphasizes the fact that the New Testament is dependent on the Old Testament (Deut. 6, 4-5; Mark 12, 29-31) and that the love of one's fellowman also applies to the treatment of the Jew (Lev. 19, 18; Matt. 22, 39), it defines Judaism as a religion that is destined to disappear by being redeemed through and in Christianity. Again, this is in keeping with Christian tradition which holds that the metaphysical status of election and the promise of eschatological salvation as given to the Jews in the Old Testament are fulfilled in Jesus who is "...the fulfilment of all God's promises to Israel, the true king of this nation sent by God..." [33] Hence, the document continues, having rejected Jesus as the redeemer, the Jews are still sunk in sin: "...Israel did not recognize Him, but rejected Him... In this way they hardened their hearts against the grace of God... They are no longer Israel in the original sense of the lord, they are 'Jews' now. A Jew is a man of Israel who rejects Jesus Christ, and thus is to us a sign of human hostility to the Gospel..." [34] The Church that protested Jewish persecution by the Nazis with such courage and religious conviction still finds it indispensable to advocate conversion as the only solution to the problem of Jewish stubborn existence, an existence which equals infidelity:
"...The true destiny of the Jewish people lies in its Conversion to Christ, by joining the Christian Church. The Jew remains a Jew in the bitter sense which this word has for him first and foremost; the Jew cannot free himself from himself, as long as he does not come to Christ..." [35]
Are there any pronouncements of the Church that offer a Christian-Jewish relationship other than that of conversion? [36] Is there a possibility that the Church may acknowledge the inherent right of self-determination for the Jew, so that he could retain his identity and not seek to "free himself from himself?" This "bitter sense" of the Jew the Church spoke about even when protesting against Nazism, is it indigenous to Judaism or rather the result of the social and political conditions in a Christian world? Similar questions arise when we read the documents in Appendix I which do not deal with the period of the Third Reich but with the period after the Second World War. In these documents we find a number of explicit