Chapter 2: Years of Crisis

The Reverend J. A. C. Mackellar of Glasgow, who, as we have seen, was to become the second chairman of the IMCCAJ, prepared a genuinely remarkable paper in preparation for the Budapest and Warsaw conferences. Entitled simply "Anti-Semitism," it was a complete, though necessarily brief, history of Christian and Jewish relations from the beginning of the Church until his day.

"Christianity was born of the conflict of old and new ideas in Judaism--the old expelled the new, the past crucified the present and future," Mackellar began his history. "The forces of antagonism were rampant around the cradle of the infant Church, and that spirit of antagonism between the Jew and Christianity has persisted throughout the ages until a clearer conception of the mind and spirit of Christ came to His Church and the meaning of His great word of charity, 'Love your enemies,' smote its conscience and a new vision of His universality cheered its spirit, deepened its faith, emptied its heart of bitter memories, and encouraged its labour of love to seek and save those who despitefully used it."

All the elements of Mackellar's theological--for it is theological--interpretation, not only of antisemitism but of the Church, are present in this paragraph: Christianity was the "new" in Judaism, which the Jews rejected; it was only natural that the antagonism thus generated would continue; but the "mind and spirit of Christ" prevailed in the Church so that now the Church loves its enemies (Jews) sufficiently to have blotted out all the bitter memories of history and now wants only to "save those who despitefully used it."

Mackellar made certain his readers knew just how despitefully Jews had used the Church:

The leaders of the synagogue, the Jewish rabble of the streets strove to quench the dawning light of Christian truth by persecution and oppression. Apostles were beaten, stoned, expelled from their cities, done to death by Jewish fanatics. The challenge was thrown down. Battle-cries resounded. Wounds were inflicted that could not be easily forgiven or forgotten. Christianity was born in conflict with the Jew and that natal opposition became the post-natal disposition throughout most of the Christian centuries. The Jews' stubborn rejection of the Saviour, their calumnies and blasphemies, their blind hatred of Christ's claims and work raised a harsh spirit of hostility which kindled deeds of persecution and cruelty in hearts that had charity for all save the Jews.

He then buttressed further his claim for the innocence of the Church:

The blame for the bitter antagonism of the centuries rests not only on the unforgetting and unforgiving Christian, but also on the race-proud, vengeful and boastful Jew. Judaism fosters an exclusiveness and sense of superiority which often become a most objectionable and repelling arrogance, naturally resented by the people amongst whom he lives. Each day in the synagogue it compels him to pray, 'Lord, I thank Thee that thou hast not made me a Gentile.' He bears himself amongst men as one who is of the chosen people and too often acts as if the world and all that is therein were somehow or other specially made and meant for him. The reward promised by his religion for piety and observance of the law is worldly prosperity, and he takes it for granted that he should have a large place in the sun--that material success should come to him, and sometimes he is not too particular in the methods he employs to gain it. So traits of character developed on this material side of his ambitions make him repugnant to many. The iron discipline to which he has been subjected through the centuries of repression and oppression accentuate these features, making him shrewd if not cunning, thrifty if not niggardly, self-assertive if not unscrupulous, tenacious if not obstinate, gain-seeking if not grasping. This self-centred and self-seeking disposition does not commend him to non-Jews.

Mackellar immediately proceeded to observe that "the spirit of Anti-Judaism--opposition to the religion of the Jew--is reinforced by the other factors of Anti-Semitism--opposition to the Jewish race. The Jew, a Semite, with the stamp of the East upon his face and his mind, comes to the Aryan lands and the West is suspicious and distrustful of an East that dwells in its very midst. For the Jew did not assimilate."

Early in his essay Mackellar admitted that "The Apostolic Church owed much to the Jew. The ideas and ideals of the apostles were cast in a Jewish mold...It was their Jewish hope that had brought many of them to Christ, but the new spirit which He inspired, the new way of life based on His teaching, the new outlook upon God and man, soon outgrew its Jewish environment. The new wine could not be contained in the old bottles." But the Church, he declared, "forgot what it owed to the Jew in the way of blessings, but remembered what it owed to him in the way of insult, contempt and antagonism." He then proceeded to outline the doleful history of the Middle Ages and the Reformation. He noted that Martin Luther had, after an initial infatuation with the possibility of Jewish conversion, turned vengefully against the Jews, observing that "This latter attitude of the great Reformer determined the attitude of the Protestant Churches for many years--the spirit of toleration was still enchained--the dawn of spiritual freedom was not yet."

And what produced that "dawn of spiritual freedom"? It was the French revolution. Not change in the Church's theology, but "the political upheaval of the French Revolution emancipated the Jews, not in the name of religion, but of the rights of man, excluding birth, religious belief and race as tests of citizenship." From then on, according to Mackellar, antisemitism became solely a "social prejudice," with no religious connotation: "One of the features of modern Anti-Semitism is that the Christian Church is in no way directly connected with it, except perhaps in the case of one or two countries. The Protestant Churches especially give it no countenance. It is a social, commercial and political factor, but is not religious or ecclesiastical."

Just how the Church was absolved of theological responsibility for antisemitism by the French revolution, the Scottish cleric failed to explain. What he did explain was its solution: "The meeting-place is in Jesus--the Son of a Jewish home--the Christ of the Judean road, the Christ of the World's Hope-- the universal Saviour. In Him alone can the feud of the centuries be ended and the reconciliation of the seemingly irreconcilable forces be secured. In Him alone can ultimate unity be gained through the power of His Cross working in love and sacrificial service till there is 'no difference' between Jew and Christian, between the man of the Old Testament and the man of the New Testament."

Strangely, the drafters of the Findings (official statements) of both conferences paid scant attention to antisemitism, though each made reference to it without using the word. The Budapest Findings set forth an understanding of antisemitism the substance of which was to be repeated in later ecumenical declarations: "We urge Christians everywhere to repentance for prejudice and persecution which unfortunately are not yet things of the past, and in some countries are identified with professedly Christian organizations. We believe that all unchristian treatment of the Jew and all race-prejudice are great stumbling-blocks to the acceptance of the Christian message."

The Findings from Warsaw omitted even the weak call for repentance from Budapest. "As a Conference on the Christian Message to the Jews," the Warsaw delegates asserted, "we desire to put on record our goodwill and friendly feeling toward the Jewish people; we deplore the long record of injustice and ill-usage of Jews on the part of professedly Christian people; we declare such conduct to be a violation of the teaching and spirit of Christ, and we call upon Churches and Christians everywhere to oppose injustice and ill-usage of Jews and to express to them by word and act the spirit of Jesus Christ our Lord, their Saviour and ours."

That the Findings did not exhaust the discussion about antisemitism at the two conferences, however, is evident from the overall report by James Black, who offered an almost classic case of "even handedness." In four sub-sections entitled "The Church's Persecution of the Jew," "The Jew's Persecution of the Church," "The Changed Heart of the Church," and "A New Day in Jewry" he first laid equal blame for antisemitism on the Church and on the Jews and then announced that both the Church and Jewry had changed for the better.

On the Church's side, Black noted that "for a hundred foolish reasons, the Christian has regarded the Jew as the prime enemy of the Cross. Jesus, the object of Christian adoration, suffered at the hands of the Jews that historic death of shame and cruelty. Because of this, with a vindictive memory, millions of Christians have cursed the race, and have libeled an innocent nation for the sins of a guilty few, the living for the dead." Black and other Jewish evangelists were decades ahead of the rest of the Church in rejecting the so-called deicide charge against the Jewish people. As we will see later, the position Black enunciated in the Budapest and Warsaw report is virtually identical with that adopted by the 1961 Assembly of the World Council of Churches.

But he tempered his acknowledgment of the Church's guilt when he wrote such things as, "The system of the Ghetto, I believe, was originally a device of the Jews for their own safety, a rallying-ground where unity meant strength: but in the end it was their punishment."

And, then, after noting the medieval laws requiring "the Jew" to wear "the dress insignia of his nationality," etc., he observed: "By our iniquitous laws, the Jew could hold no land; and since money was the one lever that could give him a purchase on others for his skin's sake, money with its vicious usuries became the one precious thing in his outlook....It may be a fact, therefore, that we have 'bred into' the Jew some of the qualities whose excesses we deplore."

But if [he continued] that is one side; the other is fully as bitter. In their own time and opportunity, the Jews have exhibited a hate and oppression as fierce as any exercised by the Church. As a matter of history, it is fair to remember that the Jew began the sorry business! The Book of Acts is annotated with records of relentless malevolence against the young Christian Church. Both as individuals and as growing societies, the Christians of early days went in daily hazard of their life....

To balance the account finally in this appalling affair of enmity, no Jew should forget, no Christian can forget, that the Jewish people from the earliest Christian times have said unmentionable things about Jesus and His people. It would serve no good end nowadays to recall these incredible slanders...these disreputable slanders of our Lord converted many gentle-minded people into angry fanatics.

So, according to Black, the Church created the usurious Jew, while the Jew created Christian fanatical hatred of himself. Since each side is equally guilty relative to the other (although "the Jew" turns out to be the principal victim in both cases) it is only appropriate that each side should change.

The "new day in Jewry," largely as a result of the opening of the ghetto, which has already been examined, had its counterpart in the "changed heart of the Church." As his first evidence of that "changed heart," the Scottish missionary cited evangelistic endeavors among Jews. He wrote that "the conscience of the Church has been deeply stirred in regard to its duty to this scattered race who stand in the world as a miracle of God's providence. Too long have we left the Jew to himself as some one almost past reclaiming. Perhaps our manhood and our resources were too fully engaged in the overwhelming problem of the heathen, a problem that at one time seemed to offer a more immediate and proportionate reward to work and money....In a matter of high policy for the welfare of Christianity, it may be as rewarding to win fifteen millions of Jews living in the heart of Christianity and subtly colouring its culture and ideals, as to win thirty millions who live outside it."1

When seen against the backdrop of the centuries of persecution, rejection, hatred, and genocide that preceded the Emancipation, for the Church to claim it has a duty to and for Jews, even if that duty is to convert them to Christianity, must be seen as a major change of heart indeed. And it was just this reversal to which the second aspect of the changed heart called attention: "Christians at last have gained the insight and the courage to condemn the devil's spirit of persecution and ostracism." The significance of this courage and insight, however, was that "nothing has more helped the Christian outlook for work among thinking Jews than the open and frank repentance of the Churches for all ancient wrong and outrage."

The third point came closer to being specifically theological: "Christians are re-seeing the forgotten fact that Jesus was a Jew, sprung from Jewish stock and reared in the Jewish environment and faith....The implications of this fact are plain and commanding for any thinking Christian--the Jews are His brethren, His kinsmen, His 'ain folk.' He loved them; He worked for them; He longed to win them; He died by them and for them....I think it is a matter of fine promise that good people speak of the Jews less as Christ's murderers and more as Christ's brethren!"

The fourth point: "This is the final thing to say--that it is the Lord's will that His own people, the lost sheep of the House of Israel, should be saved."

The understanding of antisemitism as outlined by Mackellar and Black was prevalent among the missionaries. It was "the devil's spirit of persecution and ostracism," not the consequence of anything the Church might have believed or done. Nevertheless, it had to be overcome because it was a barrier to Christian mission. In an address to the Atlantic City conference on "The Origin and Cure of Anti-Semitism," Dr. Frank Gavin of New York's General Theological Seminary reflected Mackellar's position at Budapest-Warsaw in declaring the non-religious nature of antisemitism. "I do not believe," he wrote, "that there is such a thing as 'religious' anti-Semitism....but when we look close into the cause of anti-Semitism, there is just enough color of the allegedly 'religious' element to make it seem plausible that it is a factor. This is, however, true only in a sense--but not in the sense ordinarily given. For Judaism when practiced by observant Jews, certainly appears to the non-Jew as a religion of exclusiveness, making its adherents peculiar, and setting them apart from the ordinary world. Within this quite limited meaning of the word 'religious intolerance' there is some basis for its existence, but the creating word, the determining factor, is not to be cast up to the gentile but to the Jewish side of the ledger."

Nevertheless, antisemitism was recognized as an evil to be fought with all available weapons and Christians could and should be faulted for practicing it. They were called to love Jews despite the fact that Judaism was repugnant. "The positive force of pulsating love in life, thought, and action is the spiritual antidote of that evil thing called anti-Semitism."

But loving Jews was far from an easy or simple thing to do, especially in the Europe of the late twenties and early thirties. Antisemitic sentiment and activity had been rising dramatically in Europe, especially in Germany, during the twenties. Adolf Hitler's Munich "beer hall putsch" (November 1923) did not succeed but the tide of political antisemitism had continued to rise. Though Hitler was not to become German chancellor until 30 January 1933, those attending the Budapest-Warsaw conferences were uneasy about the social and political developments around them. In spite of that, however, it was still possible for them to insist that "[E]conomic and social progress is evident among the Jews of nearly all countries. The passing of the Ghetto is a fact."

By May 1931 the situation of German Jews was more evident, though the missionaries were no more able than anyone else to foresee the horrific events of the next decade and a half. Even so, the record of the Atlantic City conference (which, granted, took place in the United States and thus far from the European scene) provides only the barest awareness that antisemitism had taken a turn for the worse. That bare evidence is found in a one-sentence resolution passed near the conclusion of the conference: "We, the assembled delegates to the Atlantic City Conference on the Christian Approach to the Jews, associate ourselves in sympathy with the widespread suffering among Jewish peoples in Central and Eastern Europe and commend all well-directed efforts to provide relief to the support of Christian philanthropy."

But one year later, at the first full meeting of the Committee on the Christian Approach to the Jews in Digswell Park, London, 13-14 June 1932, antisemitism was front and center, with papers by Otto von Harling of the Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum in Leipzig on "Antisemitism in Germany" and John Stuart Conning on "Anti-Semitism in America."

Pastor von Harling pleaded for understanding of conditions in his country, explaining that "In every country there is a point of limit for the absorption or the digestion of Jews." In illustration of his point he compared the situation in Germany with that in Poland, where "there are now one Million of Jews too many in the country. Poland is certainly not overcrowded; but a surplus of one Million of Jews would, one should say, be too many, because the point of absorption has been passed...This 'too many Jews' one feels especially strongly where they penetrate into the system of the spiritual organism with the same energy as they do in the economical and political regions of the people. This is especially the case in Germany. The Jewish question, therefore, is more in the forefront here, and the Jewish element is felt more as a foreign element in this country than in others....When as in Germany the struggle against the Jews takes the fanatical and rough form, as it has of late, it throws indeed a bad light upon the German people. But for the sake of justice we must try and understand, why such a passionate struggle may arise in a people which is otherwise rather peaceful."

He then proceeded to list three reasons for that "passionate struggle":

An influx of "Eastern Jews" into Germany, who "made themselves rich by thrift and cunning speculations, not infrequently resorting to meltrical (sic) and dishonest methods....The German people did not like this, not simply for envy's sake, but also because they for good reasons distrusted the Jews, suspecting them to use dishonest means."

The Jews "belonged largely to the political left wing, who had no sense for historical traditions, and who regarded the Manchester Liberalism or the socialistic and communistic revolution as real progress.... We had in Germany already enough of foreign influence viz. from Rome. But stronger than against this is the popular feeling stirred against the Jewish influence: here both religion and blood speak."

Though Jews had contributed greatly to German culture, "in spite of this and of the fellowship in cultural interests much was found foreign to the spirit of the German people,--to this must be added the fact that many of the most destructive moral influences in art, literature, and journalism were Jewish. Already intellectual overproduction, the thrift, and the display with which the Jews bring their achievements on parade, as well as the superficiality which very often is hidden behind high thoughts and excellent expressions are likely to make the intimate connection between the Jewish and the German spirit antagonistic."

Thus, von Harling concluded that, "even though the struggle against the Jews has... become very ugly and rough, it may be understood from the point of view of human nature that it had to come....But so much we can say that love to Israel in no other country means more than with us, where today antisemitism is the normal feeling, so that if a German should love a Jew, he must be driven to it by the Holy Spirit....Finally therefore I pray you: Please try to understand our conditions and show us the confidence to believe that we will carry on our struggle as our conditions demand and our power allows."

In his discussion of the climate in America, John S. Conning did not resort to blatant justification of antisemitism "as our conditions demand" as his German colleague had, though he pointed to a number of similar factors present on his side of the Atlantic. In the post-war horror and revulsion produced by the Shoah, it is often forgotten that antisemitism was rife in the Americas at the same time and Conning pointed that out.

Unlike in Germany immediately before the advent of Hitler's chancellorship, in the United States prior to Franklin Roosevelt's election as president (1932) antisemitism was not a political force. "Jews are eligible for every public office and now occupy many high positions," Conning wrote. Those positions included "governors for five states and [representation] in both houses of Congress. As ambassadors and ministers they hold office in several foreign countries. There are two Jewish judges on the bench of the Supreme Court, and in the judiciary of various states they occupy prominent positions.

"Nor does the economic factor enter largely as a disturbing factor in the relationship of the Jew to his neighbor. Jews are prospering in America."

Jews may have been prospering economically--and certainly they did not face eminent danger as in Europe--but everything was far from perfect. "More serious is the growing resentment against the disproportionately large number of Jews entering professional life. Though Jews constitute but three per cent of the population of America, their sons and daughters constitute ten per cent of the student body in the higher schools of learning," Conning reported. The resulting resentment, he explained, was leading toward efforts to limit the number of Jewish students entering colleges and universities. In fact, the vice-chairman of the IMCCAJ revealed, "some Jewish leaders in America have proposed the establishment of a university entirely Jewish, with medical and other special faculties, to provide training for Jewish young people who are refused admission to existing institutions."

The perceived disproportionately large number of Jews in the professions and academic institutions was not the only parallel with Germany for, "Without question...the social factor is the most fruitful source of discrimination against Jews in America. Jews are a peculiar people. They keep to themselves. Some of them exhibit characteristics which are peculiarly offensive to their neighbors, and tend to create resentment against all Jews. Their coming into a neighborhood is a signal for Gentiles to move out. Certain hotels, apartment houses, clubs and schools are entirely closed to Jews. In many colleges the fraternities refuse membership to Jews, and on the campus they are subjected at times to considerable ostracism."

John Conning, however, did not condone this antisemitic social climate. "Unfortunately," he lamented, "the prevailing attitude toward Jews, in large centers of Jewish population, is at times reflected in the Christian Church....Jews themselves are in constant revolt against discrimination in every form....Indeed, their tendency is to exaggerate every manifestation of prejudice and to see anti-semitism where none exists. On the other hand there is enough latent and expressed anti-Jewish feeling to command the serious consideration of all thoughtful Americans."

The records from Digswell Park give no indication as to how Otto von Harling's paper was received, but the paper by John Conning was thoroughly debated. The result of that debate was a formal statement on "Anti-Semitism":

The Committee is deeply conscious that difficulties in the relationships of Jews and Christians, individually and corporately, persist through the old forms of repression in some lands and through new and more subtle forms of ostracism in other lands.

The Committee feels that while prejudice and misunderstanding often arise from circumstances for which the blame does not entirely rest on one side, Christian consciences should be profoundly stirred by the situation. Discrimination against any race is utterly contrary to the mind and example of Christ, and the situation throws a special responsibility on Christian people to show the love of Christ in their attitude to the Jews.

The Committee deplores the continued prejudice and welcomes every approach between Jew and Christian. It believes that on the Church rests the urgent duty of doing everything possible in the Spirit of Christ to remove causes of misunderstanding, prejudice and hatred.

The Committee records with gratitude to God that there is an increasing number of people who are troubled by all manifestations of race-hatred and seek to remove its causes and consequences.

The Committee regards itself responsible for making these views known throughout the Church and among the Jews themselves. It will seek to foster study and discussion of the realities of the situation in the hope of leading to definite efforts to eliminate the evil.

In general, the missionaries' interest in and concern for antisemitism was focused on the need to overcome an obstacle to their conversionary efforts. They were acutely aware that no Jew would listen to the declaration of the gospel if even the slightest hint of antisemitism could be detected in the evangelists' attitude. This pragmatic reason for combating what was repeatedly called an "evil" was to remain the effective motivation for combating antisemitism for decades. At the same time, the specter overshadowing continental Europe, with its less threatening but nonetheless disturbing reflections in England and America, prompted another type of rationale for combating Jew-hatred, a rationale evident in the Digswell Park resolution: human rights.

John R. Mott had reminded the delegates to the Atlantic City conference that their responsibility was to develop and implement a Christian approach to the Jews. Now the Committee declared that "Discrimination against any race is utterly contrary to the mind and example of Christ, and the situation throws a special responsibility on Christian people to show the love of Christ in their attitude to the Jews."

Christian love toward the Jews meant at least two things to the missionaries. On the one hand it meant attempting to remove "all manifestations of race-hatred," including "its causes and consequences." On the other hand it meant declaring the gospel of Jesus Christ. As the editors of the International Review of Missions (IRM) succinctly put it, "the fully Christian attitude [is] both a desire to share Christ with the Jew and a desire to demolish those causes of fear and hatred which have kept Jews and Christians apart. Jews strongly resent the evangelistic purpose as they have known it, and the antithesis between 'goodwill' and 'evangelism' is for many, both Jews and Christians, complete, though the antithesis is neither logical nor religious."

Please Turn the Page