Be that as it may, the Goodwill Movement was a thorn in the side of the missionaries. It represented a theological difference within the Christian community itself and a challenge to the fundamental missionary self understanding, but one the missionaries generally chose not to confront in any way other than rejection. Nevertheless, Kosmala entered the debate, and he did so with characteristic fervor. "We can accept most of these proposals (Ten Points of Seelisberg), especially 1-3 and 10, which contain simple statements of facts. Proposal five is of an entirely different kind. It urges the Churches 'to avoid disparaging biblical or post-biblical Judaism with the object of extolling Christianity.' The wording of its contents is such as to make it almost incumbent to accept its contents. However we are not sure of its implications. Of course, no Christian should disparage his fellow man, Gentile or Jew, and least of all in order to enhance his own position. But it is rather a different matter when the glory of Christ is concerned."

Consequently, Kosmala insisted that it was necessary to "show the Jews that rabbinical tradition has missed the point of the teaching of Moses and the prophets and that the moral standards of the Talmud are inferior to those of the New Testament. But just this is made an offense by the fifth proposal. If we applied the proposal to NT teaching we would have to suppress or scrap large portions of the Gospel records, especially all those passages in which John the Baptist, Jesus and the apostles criticize the beliefs and practices of official Judaism."

But what was most irritating about the Goodwill Movement was that, in rejecting evangelism, it actually promoted Judaism. Kosmala was definite about that: "So far as its religious policy is concerned, the Goodwill Movement is an outpost of Judaism."

Kosmala's paper elicited heated debate at the Edinburgh meeting. In his director's report, Conrad Hoffmann had observed that inter-faith movements were growing and gaining in popularity, indeed "they seem more popular than the missionary or evangelistic approach to the Jews. Is it because of failure on our part to improve and adapt our methods, or is it because people are losing conviction of faith and so become less zealous for evangelism? They may not be against evangelism, but, in practice, participation in the usual good-will activities does undermine and cut the nerve of evangelism." And in the subsequent discussion he elaborated to the effect that the Goodwill Movement might actually be seen as a prerequisite for evangelism.

It was a position with which some others in the Committee agreed, including Dr. Jacob Jocz of London who thought that "good-will attractively promoted was in fact the basis on which to build up proper evangelistic work under auspices of the Jewish missionary enterprise" and that it was "a thorn in the flesh of the Church and as such had justification." The Rev. H. L. Ellison, moreover, took exception to what he understood to be Kosmala's suggestion that the Goodwill Movement was "not quite honest," adding that "there was little doubt that the Hebrew Christian as such was unwanted in the usual good-will movement." And he objected to the Council of Christians and Jews "claiming to have equal standing with the missionary societies." The Rev. W. W. Simpson, who was present as a guest, demurred. He agreed that the CCJ could not be evangelistic and that most of its funds came from Jewish sources, but "with reference to Hebrew Christians...to his knowledge none had ever applied for membership...but there was nothing in the constitution to prevent Hebrew Christians from becoming affiliated."

The dialogue cat was among the missionary pigeons and, though the IMCCAJ would continue to treat it as a minor nuisance, the issue refused to go away.

Beginning of Transition

Movement toward the parish approach at Basle in 1947 was encouraged by the role the World Council of Churches (In Process of Formation) had played in refugee work during the war and, particularly, by the forthcoming formal launch of the ecumenical body, which was to take place the following year. The WCC had been, and was to be, a council of churches, not of societies or individuals--a new development on the ecclesiastical scene. Relations between the IMC and the WCC had become increasingly warm, even though the two bodies would not organically merge until 1961.

In the discussion about the relation with the WCC, Conrad Hoffmann quoted from a letter by the director of the New York office of the IMC, Dr. John W. Decker, on two points. One had to do with the primary function of the IMCCAJ: "It is recommended that the World Council of Churches give further study to the proposal that the Committee on the Christian Approach to the Jews be made a joint project of the IMC and the WCC in connection with any more comprehensive scheme of evangelism which the WCC may undertake." And the other dealt with the urgent necessity for relief and rehabilitation: "That meantime the Committee on the Christian Approach to the Jews be encouraged to request the Department of Reconstruction of the WCC for funds which it may need to supplement its program on behalf of the Jews of Europe, such requests to be considered on their merits." And, so the minutes record, "much satisfaction was expressed over this apparent willingness of the WCC to consider the proposed collaboration." The first of these recommendations was critical for the IMCCAJ, but the second, having to do with refugee relief, was of more immediate urgency.

Material Relief to Christians of Jewish Origin

During the war the IMCCAJ had been effectively immobilized. Virtually all of its continental operations had been closed and its missionaries either prevented from working or forced to flee. News Sheet continued to be published under the editorship of the Rev. Robert Smith (who actually kept the Committee as a whole functioning on a minimal basis while Conrad Hoffmann worked exclusively for the Presbyterians) and the British and American sections held occasional meetings, but it was possible to do little more than continue to develop the rationale for mission to Jews and to express concern for the plight of Jews and, particularly, Hebrew Christians caught in the Nazi maelstrom.

Conrad Hoffmann, who had long been involved with refugee work, wrote a report for the meeting of the International Missionary Council meeting at Tambaram in which he highlighted the German refugee problem. The Nazi Anschluss of March 1938 had changed everything: "The events in Europe since our Vienna meeting have greatly altered the situation, and are necessitating a change in our plans. Many of the latter have been completely upset. We are compelled, therefore, to make new plans. There, are it seems to me, certain primary tasks which we as Jewish Missionary agencies are duty-bound to undertake. The fact that we are doing Jewish mission work makes these tasks our inescapable responsibility at the present time." He then devoted the major section of his report to the refugee situation in Germany and Europe generally, noting that the mission societies, even though they faced imminent closure, were doing what they could:

Already the mission centres in Hamburg, Berlin, and Vienna and to a less extent in Prague and Budapest, have realised the needs that have arisen, and are rendering invaluable service. The Swedish friends have recently opened a centre in Paris for similar service. Provided government permissions for continuation can be obtained, these activities need to be greatly expanded by increased money and personnel.

There may be some who will feel that such emphasis on this emergency will seriously jeopardise maintenance of the regular activities of the societies. But dare we carry on our regular work and turn a deaf ear to the present cry of human need among the very people with whom we are labouring? Unless we augment our regular and normal activities such as schools, hospitals, colportage, etc., by rendering the emergency service now so imperative, our normal activities themselves will seriously suffer and become anathema.

The very distress and despair of the many non-Aryans brings them to us. They have nowhere else to go. To offer them spiritual food and refuse the material aid so necessary would be criminal irony. I am sure no one wants to play the role of the Levite or the high priest, but all of us will want to be as the Good Samaritan.

Never has there been such need, but never such opportunity to give witness of God's love to Jewry as now. There is no greater argument for Christ than such love manifested in time of need. Nor is there any greater missionary force or evangelistic power than true Christian love.

Despite eloquent pleas such as Hoffmann's there were those in the mission societies who felt that their primary task was being neglected, so much so that, three years later, Robert Smith saw the need to pen a short essay for News Sheet explaining "The Relation between Missionary and Relief Work." "Most Jewish Missionary Societies are now engaged to some extent in refugee relief work," he wrote. "Now that the war has curtailed many of our direct missionary activities abroad, a very large proportion of the money subscribed for Jewish work (probably as much as 25%) is being spent on relief in one form or another....Can we justify this expenditure?"

His answer was a clear "yes, but...":

Every missionary finds himself obliged to help distressed people at times, and it is only right that small funds should be available for this purpose....The problem arises, however, (a) where distress and the resulting relief funds are on a large scale, especially when the whole of the community becomes dependent to some extent on relief, (b) when appeals are being made on humanitarian grounds to people who would not normally support missionary work.

Let me stress my belief that it is the imperative duty of a missionary, when he encounters distress, to do something practical about it. For the missionary not to endeavor to improve the social conditions of the Jewish people would be to make any preaching vain....

The following arguments in favour of relief work seem to me to be unanswerable:

(a) We must make converts independent of the Jewish community which might discriminate against them. This was the origin of the relief funds--the need to demonstrate the reality of Christian fellowship by supporting distressed non-Aryan Christians.

(b) In a time of stress and tension refugee relief brought Christians and Jews alongside each other in a fellowship of suffering....

(c) We must clearly demonstrate to the Jewish world that Christians are on the side of those who love and not of those who hate. This is a condition of any missionary endeavour.

However, there were dangers of associating relief with missionary work. Smith listed four of them: 1) the risk of "materializing" the gospel; 2) evidence of spiritual bankruptcy: "We give money because we have nothing else to give"; 3)the risk of misleading people into thinking missionaries are not really concerned for the spiritual needs of Jews and so weakening the long-term financial support of missions; and 4) the moral danger that the missionary could "quite innocently lend himself to a kind of traffic in souls by allowing the rumour of relief funds to attract enquirers."

In the meantime, the World Council of Churches (In Process of Formation), had worked effectively from its Geneva offices to rescue thousands of Jews and had maintained close contact with the World Jewish Congress in so doing. The director of its refugee service, Dr. Adolf Freudenberg, a German pastor who, with his wife--a Jew according to the Nuremberg laws--had been marooned in Switzerland during the Nazi period, was a WCC representative to the IMCCAJ, though he was able to attend few meetings. Freudenberg forwarded a written report to Basle concerning "Material Relief to Christians of Jewish Origin" in which he expressed appreciation for the relief work undertaken by, among others, the Svenska Israels Missionen in Austria, by the Scottish Mission to the Jews in Czechoslovakia and Hungary, and by various mission and other church agencies in Poland. But the principal thrust of his report had to do with the post-war situation of "Non Aryan" Christians in Germany.

Far from what might have been expected, a mere recounting of facts and figures (which were, of course, in ample supply), Freudenberg's report was a moving plea for particular attention to "Non Aryan" Christians. "Today the German population, as a whole, particularly in the British, French, and Russian zones, very urgently needs material assistance," he wrote in words that even--or perhaps especially--when read from yellowing sheets in an archive box, bring instantly to both mind and heart the terrible years of Nazi rule and the catastrophe of war: "But it should not be forgotten that the 'Non Aryan' Frau Rosenthal, who today lives under the same sad circumstances as the Aryan Frau Schmidt, has suffered privations and hardships 8 or 10 years longer than is true for Frau Schmidt. It is only fair to consider this undeniable fact when supplies are distributed."

But when it came to Hebrew Christians "that fact" was conveniently forgotten or ignored--on two fronts. On the one hand, the Joint Distribution Committee (affectionately known by Jews as "the Joint") had raised millions of dollars for relief of European Jews and was sending a steady stream of relief materials, food, clothing, and medicine. But, as Freudenberg noted, "We as Christians are not entitled to ask the J.D.C. to extend their action to Christians, since Christian contributions to their funds are insignificant." On the other hand,

The generosity of the giving Jewish agencies has created a very sad and bitter feeling among the Christians of Jewish origin, who compare these efforts with the extremely meagre supply they receive from Christian churches and agencies in Germany and other countries. We must accept this challenge and try to do much more for our brethren in faith. But we should also be aware of the fact that the real reason for the uneasiness and disappointment of our brethren consists, primarily, in a spiritual and not in a material issue. If the Hebrew Christians in Germany felt really at home in their Christian communities and in German social life, they would not feel themselves neglected, but would receive the assistance which is fair and possible in their regard, under existing conditions.

Freudenberg thus raised the question as to whether special agencies were required to meet the needs of "Christians of Jewish origin," a question he said was continually discussed. Without directly answering, he implied that such was indeed the present need, not least because the "Non Aryan" Christians were both Protestant and Catholic, while the relief agencies of the churches were predominantly Protestant. At any rate, better coordination among the existing agencies was needed and the World Council's Ecumenical Refugee Commission had taken steps in that direction. Nevertheless, these "particular relief actions for 'Non Aryan' Christians should possibly not be perpetuated. Our aim must be to pass on the whole responsibility to the churches and to their relief agencies, particularly to the national Church Reconstruction Committees."

The IMCCAJ, which itself had received some small amounts for relief of Hebrew Christians, responded positively to Freudenberg's paper, for not only did it offer the most expeditious method of securing relief for the people with whom the Committee was most intimately concerned, but it provided an immediate avenue of cooperation with the World Council. The report of the Commission on the Church and Refugees, presented by Rev. Göte Hedenquist, who was to become Hoffmann's successor as the IMCCAJ's director, urged the WCC to make a "special appeal to the conscience of the Christian world for intercession and material aid on behalf of Hebrew Christians." And, as to the practical work of relief, the Committee recognized that "the problem of emigration of Hebrew Christians has become too great for the existing agencies to handle" and therefore "would press the matter upon the Ecumenical Refugee Commission of the World Council of Churches to take the necessary steps." And they recommended two of their members to represent the Committee on the Ecumenical Refugee Commission.

Please Turn the Page