The first post-war enlarged meeting of the International Missionary Council's Committee on the Christian Approach to the Jews convened at Basle, Switzerland, 4-7 June 1947--almost exactly ten years after its last such gathering in Vienna, 28 June-2 July 1937. As the Vienna conference had convened on the eve of the Nazi Anschluß of Austria, so now the Committee met as momentous events were about to occur. On the ecclesiastical scene, the organizing Assembly of the World Council of Churches was scheduled for the next year and the IMC, though not at the moment planning to coalesce with it, was collaborating closely with this new form of church cooperation. And on the political scene, the United Nations was soon (29 November) to adopt its controversial resolution for the partition of Palestine, which was to lead to the proclamation of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948. Both events were to have significant if not determinative consequences for the Committee on the Christian Approach to the Jews, though their extent could no more be imagined in June 1947 than the events of 1938 and beyond could be imagined in June 1937.

The Basle meeting was opened by Chairman C. H. Gill, who spoke of "the unexampled changes which have occurred especially among the Jewish people throughout the world since the last meeting in 1937, and of the resultant necessity of reconsidering and adapting the methods of presentation of the Gospel to this new and changed situation." Changes had taken place in the Committee as well. A number of familiar faces were missing, among them John S. Conning, William Paton, and J. Macdonald Webster who, with others, were remembered in a memorial service. And still others, mainly delegates from Germany, were absent because they were unable to secure the necessary permissions to travel. The consequences of these changes of actors were more than cosmetic; there was need for change in the script of the drama as well.

The changes in the social, political, and religious world were daunting. In his report, entitled "A Changed World Demands Cooperation," Director Conrad Hoffmann not only "stressed the needs for cooperation in facing the tasks of reconstruction and rehabilitation after the war" but also called attention to the demand upon Christians if they were to "fulfill [their] God-given tasks." In the face of the "annihilation of six million Jews, Christendom, which had been unable to prevent this catastrophe, needs to engage in an act of penitence before God and contrition before man. Only through acknowledgment of our guilt may we hope for God's forgiveness and liberation to proclaim the Gospel to all men."

Hoffmann pinpointed five problems that accompanied the changed situation: political Zionism, rescue of the survivors, growing secularism in Jewish as in Christian circles, intensified antisemitism, and weakening of religious conviction; he emphasized that "we must discover new and ethically legitimate methods and recognize and stress the responsibility of the churches for Jewish evangelism." The membership of the conference, accordingly, was divided into six "commissions"--The Church and Anti-Semitism, The Church and Zionism, The Church and Evangelism, The Church and Hebrew Christians, The Church and Methods, and The Church and Refugee Relief--to look at these problems and offer solutions.

The problems identified by the Committee's director in many ways were not so much new problems as old ones exacerbated by the war and the Shoah. But in 1947 those old/new problems were to be addressed by men (no women's voices were recorded in the records of the Committee's deliberations) who had struggled with their own consciences and that of the Christian community during the preceding ten years. A goodly number of them, including Conrad Hoffmann, had been young (though not inexperienced) in 1937 but now were seasoned. Though not diminished in their missionary zeal, they were willing to come to terms with a changed situation and to seek challenging possibilities.

The next chapters, which take their structural guidance from this first international enlarged meeting of the IMCCAJ after the Second World War, are, therefore, devoted both to a look backward and to a look forward, in order to examine the ways in which the theology of the missionaries to the Jews developed and changed (or did not change) and how it was to be shaped in the post-war years.

The Parish Approach to the Jews

The titles of the commissions (sub-committees or work groups) at Basle, all of which began with the words, "The Church and...," represented a conviction on the part of the Committee that had grown during the years of war, namely that the churches, and not missionary societies only, must assume responsibility for mission to Jews. In short, the parish approach. In his survey of the world-wide missionary scene for 1942, William Paton, editor of the International Review of Missions, had written that "There is increasing recognition of the fact that the best Christian approach to the Jew is through the Church. Not all churches in Europe have been free of anti-semitic tendencies, but it is along lines of church action, aided by the special knowledge of missions, that progress can best be made. It is therefore probable that the future of Christian work for the Jew in Europe can best be seen in the context of the close co-operation of the churches in Europe with those of America and Britain in the work of post-war reconstruction" What, indeed, was the relation between the mission societies and the churches? And what was the significance of the parish approach for the missionaries' understanding of the Church?

The parish approach was not a brand new idea. Conrad Hoffmann, shortly after he assumed responsibility for the Committee, wrote that "we are forced to recognize the utter inadequacy of present efforts to promote a Christian approach to the Jews....And they will remain so until the Church becomes corporately and fully responsible for financing, coordinating and promoting the work, not necessarily by creating new enterprises but rather by functioning through accredited existing agencies and, in addition, by promoting the parochial approach wherever possible."

Other leaders of the movement also emphasized it. John S. Conning, for instance, in explaining the distinction between evangelism and proselytism at the 1931 Atlantic City conference, had declared the Church to be engaged in evangelism, while the mission agencies were in danger of engaging in proselytism. And before that, in 1927, Alfred E. Garvie, Principal of New College, Hampstead, London, wrote:

One might have expected that the cause of Jewish missions would have found widespread sympathy and support among the Christian Churches; but with some honourable exceptions, the work has chiefly been left in the hands of independent societies, with a rigid theological outlook, weak in their resources of money and men, which have failed to secure a wide circle of support. There have been many devoted workers in these missions, and some of the converts have been men of conspicuous ability and influence; but, with all respect and gratitude to those who have hitherto recognized this call it must be conceded that here as elsewhere the Christian Churches have proved themselves unequal to their task. What is urgently necessary is that Jewish missions should be taken out of their isolation, in inward disposition as well as outward organization, and be brought into the full current of the missionary enterprise of the Christian Churches; and that the Churches should be brought to realize their obligation to the Jew as well as to other non-Christians, for there are multitudes who are enthusiastic about foreign, but indifferent to Jewish missions.

Indeed, the parish approach represented a radical shift, particularly for a committee that was largely composed of representatives from Jewish missionary societies. It was, moreover, a matter for discussion that was not limited to the IMCCAJ, for the entire International Missionary Council was moving in the same direction, particularly in light of the IMC's experience in India, where, according to Eleanor Jackson, who discussed Hoffmann's work in connection with that of William Paton, "whole families and social groups were admitted into the church together, in a way natural to the organization of Indian society where the individual is subordinated to his caste group or family." Jackson thought the parish approach was "the most important single contribution to the understanding of evangelism."

In the years leading up to the 1947 conference in Basle the parish approach received regular attention by theorists of the missionary enterprise, most notably in the United States, where Conrad Hoffmann continued his work through the mission department of the Presbyterian Church and the YMCA. Small items appeared during the war in the Committee's bi-monthly publication, News Sheet, to the effect that the parish approach was gaining ground. Thus, for example, the July-August 1938 number could note that "Progress is reported in the parish approach to the Jews in various cities in America. In Detroit some seven churches are now definitely organized with local committees...." Nevertheless, the progress had been slow. In 1944 News Sheet disclosed that "In spite of much progress since 1927, it cannot be said that this method has yet been adopted at all widely in Britain and the United States." In sum, the parish approach did not have much appeal for the parishes, and that in the face of repeated assurances by missionaries that "the evangelistic emphasis cannot be maintained unless the Church as a whole recognizes the urgency of Christian witness to the Jew."

With few exceptions--notably the Presbyterian Church (which paid the director's salary) and the Church of Scotland (in 1841, the first church to integrate Jewish missions into its regular mission program)--the churches had never been very enthusiastic in their financial support of the IMCCAJ, and the various societies for mission to the Jews were, themselves, constantly strapped for funds. As has already been noted, mission to the Jews was never high on the agenda, either of the major church missionary societies, which by the 1940s and 50s had become the most affluent of national and mainline denominational agencies, or of the parish churches themselves. In conference after conference the IMCCAJ pleaded for the churches urgently to assume responsibility for the evangelism of Jews, but to no avail. What was the problem?

Perhaps at least a partial answer may be found in remarks made at the Atlantic City conference in 1931, the third of the three formative conferences sponsored by the International Missionary Council. The missionaries who were instrumental in the founding of the Committee on Christian Approach to the Jews were acutely aware of the objections some Christians had to an evangelistic approach to the Jews. James Black, for instance, had observed that there were those who believed that the Jews had a "good enough religion," particularly since they possessed the Old Testament and an extremely high morality. And John Conning, even more explicitly, had noted that there actually were church people who thought that, since Jews had so much, they did not need Christ. Of course, these objections were quickly and emphatically refuted by the missionaries, but, as in the case of Hamlet's mother, there was a trace of too much protest in what they said.

In any event, the likelihood of bishops, synods, and dioceses declaring that Jews were in no need of Christ was slight and few parishioners would have dared venture such a claim. Though theological objections to the Jewish mission usually were not the overt cause of the difficulty in implementing of the parish approach, they were not inconsequential. Indeed, advocates of the parish approach constantly felt the need to justify their missionary specialty. A single example may suffice.

In 1945 Hoffmann, as part of his work for the Presbyterians, held a series of conferences throughout the United States on the parish approach to the Jews with pastors and leading lay people. In each city he explained that the parish approach meant "the inclusion of the Jews in the normal ministry of the local church rather than the exclusion of the Jews from such ministry or the singling out of Jews for special ministry." He then suggested that the assembled parish representatives adopt a set of recommendations, which included such organizational matters as explicitly establishing the parish approach in one or more churches in every presbytery, making sure that clergy with training in Jewish evangelism be secured whenever a vacancy occurred in a parish church, surveys of the religious attitude of Jews and gentiles in every community, and increased financial support for the "Church's responsibility to the Jews." But the first recommendation was always: "Reaffirmation of the validity of Jewish Evangelism." Discussion of the ecclesiological significance of the parish approach and of the theological validation for Jewish evangelism come later but here it may be noted that the essential necessity of the Church's mission to Jews was not as self-evident as was the mission to people of other religions or none. It required a special kind of justification.

Nevertheless, the IMCCAJ and its leadership continued to treat the parish approach primarily as a methodological issue. Taking for granted that the Church was, by definition, committed to preaching the gospel to the Jews, they were, themselves, committed to finding the most efficacious way of fulfilling the Church's commitment. And the parish approach met the qualifications, particularly in the changed post-war conditions, as the Report of the Commission on Church and Methods at the 1947 meeting spelled out:

The Church as a whole must confess that its witness and protest were not vigorous enough to prevent the barbaric persecution of the Jews in Europe. Its indifference to the moral and spiritual needs of the Jews is equally blameworthy. The best reparation it can make is to recognize the evangelisation of the Jews as the responsibility and task of the whole Church, and in all its denominations it must organize and equip itself to carry out this task. In every congregation the spiritual concern for the Jews should be awakened and promoted by the education of the whole membership as to their responsibility for, and the best methods of approach to, their Jewish neighbors. They must also learn the duty of sharing in the sending of the Gospel beyond their own borders. In those areas where there is no organized Church, the missionary societies, which are the Church's agencies in the building up of a Christian community, will be able to provide expert knowledge. World conditions are changing rapidly in every sphere, and the churches must be prepared to experiment in new methods, especially in the approach to secularized Jews. Particular attention should be paid to the task of reaching the intellectuals and students of universities.

The aim of all such methods should be to express the relevance of Christianity to every aspect of life, and to witness to the saving power of Jesus Christ through His Church.

There is urgent need for further study and research and for the publication of a pamphlet on this subject. The ministers and the future ministers should be especially addressed to ensure a growing interest throughout the whole Church. The study of the history of Jewry since the time of Christ should be an integral part of the theological curriculum. The Christian Institute of Jewish Studies is of vital importance in this connection.

Here the emphasis was on the necessity for the whole church membership to be active in missionary study and activity, while utilizing the "expert knowledge" that was available from trained missionaries to Jews. The aim was "to express the relevance of Christianity to every aspect of life, and to witness to the saving power of Jesus Christ through His Church." Whereas the founders of the IMCCAJ almost without exception spoke only of the saving power of Christ for all people and most especially the Jews, the parish approach necessitated the strategic utilization of the churches toward that end and, in the process, the development de facto of a different ecclesiology.

The Missionary Society and the Church

The membership pattern, thus, was quite different from that of the Faith and Order and Life and Work movements, each of which solicited participation from (initially Protestant) churches as such. Faith and Order and Life and Work were, therefore, in position to unite in a World Council of Churches, which they did even during World War II as the World Council of Churches (In Process of Formation), whereas the IMC was unable to join them until 1961.

As far back as 1927, the Budapest Conference on the Christian Approach to the Jew had appealed to the IMC "to consider...how it can draw more closely together in co-operative action the various Societies, and how it can make the work among Jews more central in the plans and sacrificial devotion of the Churches." The 1928 Jerusalem meeting of the IMC had supported that appeal by calling upon "all the churches" to increase their "support of all the recognized agencies now labouring among [Jewish] people." But it was only at the first full meeting of the IMCCAJ (Digswell Park, 1932) that the issue got a full-scale airing and Conrad Hoffmann could see the magnitude of the challenge before him--for his intention was to "direct the entire programme of evangelism into being a church responsibility, whether as that of the local congregation welcoming the Jews in their midst, or in terms of the national church leadership sponsoring conferences, training for clergy and so on." That first Constitution as adopted at Digswell Park included among the aims of the Committee the intention "To stimulate action in the various Christian communions with the purpose of enlisting local congregations in a ministry to the Jews in their parishes."

The attachment to the long-established mission agencies on the part of many Committee members was intense, for in 1932 many of them had already been involved in the work for a considerable number of years. Eleanor Jackson pointed out that "although a good cross-section of scholars, members of mission boards and pastors involved in work in Poland and Hungary were nominated, their average age was over seventy, reflecting the average age of workers in missions to the Jews, but creating a built-in cause of friction for younger men such as Paton and the director, Conrad Hoffmann."

But Hoffmann, an American whose salary was paid by the Presbyterian Church and who came from a church (as opposed to a mission society) background, had little sympathy with the old-line, mainly European, mission approach and almost none for the North American non-church-related agencies. "Within Christian circles," he wrote, "one finds devoted individuals and active groups who urge Jewish mission because of Biblical prophecy. They are oftimes not only the most zealous and ardent, but also the most generous if not sacrificial, in support of Jewish missionary enterprises. To them the saving of the remnant of Israel as a sine qua non for the second coming of the Lord is a primary motivation. They are the mainstay of support of most of the independent missions to the Jews, which in turn continue largely because so few churches take corporate responsibility for Jewish missionary effort." In fact, Hoffmann believed that the "existing missions to Jews were so fundamentalist and independent of church control as to be more of a hindrance than a help to evangelism. He even discussed starving out all agencies not accreditated with churches....Successfully carried to its logical conclusion, this aspect of the [IMCCAJ's] policy would have led to the demise of such societies."

Please Turn the Page