862.404/122
The Ambassador in Germany (Dodd) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 28.]
Sir: With reference to the Embassy’s despatch No. 2030 of June 5, 1935,7 I have the honor to report more fully concerning the National [Page 351] Synod of the Protestant Confessional Church as described to the Embassy by an authority who was present in Augsburg during the meetings held there from June 4 to June 6.
The recent Synod was the third to be convoked by the Confessional Church since it gained strength as a dissident faction opposed to State domination of the German Protestant Churches, following upon those of Barmen (May 1934) and Dahlem (November 1934). Augsburg was chosen ostensibly because of its association with the birth and glories of German-Protestantism but also possibly for the reason that it is under the jurisdiction of Statthalter von Epp, a former Reichswehr General who passes as a comparative moderate and temperate official. It may have been because of his protection that the Synod suffered so little official interference, a circumstance that caused one prominent local Nazi to remark to the Embassy’s informant with maybe as much prescience as irritation, that “things will be different when Julius Streicher8 is Statthalter of Bavaria.”
Publicity and outcries to the world abroad having worked to the disadvantage of previous Synods, the closest secrecy was provided for, it being planned that the some 170 chosen delegates should be the only ones to take part in active discussion, and that attendance at the plenary sessions in the Church of St. Ullrich should be limited to bona fide members of Augsburg congregations. After the elaborate precautions taken, some dismay was caused by a young, minor official, a certain Herr Schucht, presenting himself at the first meeting armed with a telegram from the Minister of the Interior stating that he had been appointed to attend the Synod on the Government’s behalf. Herr Schucht bore with him an ostensible peace offering in the form of the news that all pastors in concentration camps had been released, but hasty investigation showed that 18 pastors were still being peremptorily detained in Sachsenburg by Statthalter Mutschmann of Saxony, who only granted their release after a renewal of urgent instructions from Berlin.
Besides the studied insult implicit in the appointment of a young man of some 27 years of age to spy upon the elders of the Church, the latter were never entirely sure that he and his ever-present secret police escort might not summarily dissolve the proceedings. Under these difficult circumstances the Synod proceeded with great caution and not always in perfect harmony. Most of the actual work was done by committees representing the three Church branches, respectively, the Lutheran, the Reformed, and the United Protestant Churches.
After internal differences had been overcome to a certain extent, a resolution was drafted the first day setting forth the duty of pastors banned by Government officials from their parishes to resume their [Page 352] ecclesiastical charges. This explicit instruction is understood to have impressed certain of the more cautious clergy as going too far, and was subsequently qualified by a reference to the “conscience” of the individual pastor concerned, the word in this sense evidently having the meaning of “discretion” or the consciousness of possible obligations to the State. Observers at Augsburg report that this division of feeling was prevalent throughout the whole proceedings, one faction urging defiance to the State in the cause of Church liberty, while the others felt almost ashamed as good Germans of having come to Augsburg. The departure on the last day of Dr. Marahrens, head of the Provisional Confessional Administration, seems to have caused considerable dissatisfaction among the first group who accused him of wishing to keep in official good graces with a view to renewing negotiations with the Ministry of the Interior.
In the end compromise and restraint prevailed and resulted in a number of declarations which while couched in discreet and temperate language are claimed to set forth principles of fundamental importance. These declarations, it is understood, were first submitted to Herr Schucht by an older pastor whose devotion to National Socialism was above reproach, and upon the former’s failing to make any objections, were adopted by the Synod unanimously. With a view to permitting State authorities to examine them before they are published, the full texts were kept secret, but according to trustworthy authority the following is their tenor.
The first was an address to the State, in which the Confessional Church claimed recognition of its legal status in conformity with the Church Constitution of 1933. Objecting to the charge that it is hostile to the State, it requested the observance of the usual judicial procedures in cases involving Church clergy, and members. Referring to the Government’s pledges in favor of Church liberty, the Synod tactfully touched upon the repressive measures recently adopted, such as banishment orders and prohibitions against public meetings. While asserting its wish that no difference should be allowed to arise between the national and religious communities, the Church emphasized its obedience to divine scripture with which no earthly power could be permitted to interfere.
The second important document drafted by the Synod was a letter to the pastors and the congregations advising them concerning the attitude they should adopt should the conflict continue. Of a definitely calming nature, the letter reminded the Church public of their duties to the State, urging them to refrain from rash action under pressure of persecution. On the other hand, it reaffirmed spiritual allegiance to the Church and is believed to have instructed the congregations that when their pastors are taken away by force they must continue worship in their houses if necessary. After due time has been [Page 353] allowed the State to examine its contents, the letter will be sent to the various congregations and will probably be read out in services this week.
The Synod next dealt with the State prohibition against professors of theology taking an active part in the Church controversy. It is understood to have instructed the Church authorities to provide suitable substitutes for the theological courses of the State faculties when these ran counter to the conscience of Confessional theological students.
At the present writing the Government has given no indication of the attitude it will adopt toward the results attained at Augsburg. While certain Confessional leaders are apprehensive of what official reaction will be, they are satisfied that they have fulfilled their duty in laying down a program of policy which accords with their doctrine of Church liberty and one which, moreover, in the restraint shown, and in the efforts made to avoid an open break, squarely places the responsibility for conciliation or the continuance of open conflict upon the Government.
An interesting sidelight to these developments is the subsidiary campaign carried on in England in support of the German Confessional movement. Immediately before and during the Augsburg Synod, letters and declarations by high English ecclesiastical authorities appeared in the Times, and it is understood that the advisability of a settlement of the conflict was brought to Herr von Ribbentrop’s attention by indirect suggestion during his first visit to England. Possibly the fear of disaffecting British public opinion at the present stage of diplomatic negotiation may have been responsible for the absence of drastic action against the Confessional group.
The letters and statements referred to above have been dealt with by the German press as an element affecting Anglo-German relations that could not be ignored, although the most telling points have been silently passed over, with the result that a not altogether accurate picture of British feeling on this subject has been presented to the German public. The Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung invites correspondence on the views expressed in England (although not on the German church question itself), but the results may be regarded as problematical to which a revival in Nazi Germany of the practice of “writing to the editor” may lead. In the Boersen Zeitung of June 16, a certain Dr. Megerle, who is a feature writer for the Propaganda Ministry, holds forth on “Christianity and the Third Reich: a Word to England,” in an article the burden of which is that National Socialism found Christianity lacking in community spirit and hence has to a large extent taken its place. The writer expresses the doubts felt by Germans as the result of “the hypocrisy with which, in the name of [Page 354] Christianity, a peace was imposed upon us which disregarded the Christian responsibility of the victor states toward the conquered. We have asked ourselves, and still continue to do so, whether the Treaty of Versailles was made by Christian or heathen statesmen.”
Respectfully yours,