Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-04T19:14:29.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Volkskirche, ‘Christian State,’ and the Weimar Republic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Daniel R. Borg
Daniel R. Borg
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of European History, Clark University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In recent years growing numbers of German and American church historians have turned their attention to the spectacular Kirch enkanipf (Church Struggle) under the Nazis but have so far largely neglected the preceding Weimar period. And yet it stands to reason that the ambiguous response of Evangelical churches in the 1930's to a seemingly demonic use of political power can be explained, at least in part, by their political and social attitudes in the 1920's.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , June 1966 , pp. 186 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. In 1959 a group of scholars formed the American Committee on the History of the Church Struggle with Nazism, which Prof. Franklin H. Littell has since served as secretary. Even earlier the Evangelical Church in Germany had created the Kommission für die Geschichte des Kirchenkampfes in der Nationalsozialistischen Zeit, chaired by Prof. Kurt Dietrich Schmidt of Hamburg. Under the Kommission's auspices quite a number of monographs on the Ohurch Struggle have already appeared. ( Littell, Franklin H., “The History of the Church Struggle with Nazism,” Newsletter No. 1, 10 1, 1959.)Google Scholar

2. The only noteworthy study so far has been Mehnert, Gottfried, Evangelische Kirche and Politik 1917–1919 (Düsseldorf: Droste-Verlag, 1959).Google Scholar Mehnert deals primarily with the sensitive reaction of Evangelical churchmen to the unexpected Revolution of 1918.

3. Evangelical church statistics can be found in Johannes, Schneider (ed.), Kirchiiches Jahrbuch (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1914–29)Google Scholar, Vols. XLI–LVI. The Jahrbuch also contains valuable summaries of developments in various areas of church life.

4. See ibid. for relevant statistics and information; of. also Staeglich, , Das evangelisehe Deutschland 08 8, 1926, PP. 249–50Google Scholar, and August 15, 1926, pp. 258–59.

5. Schneider, (ed.), Kirchliches Jahrbueh, XLI (1914), 109.Google Scholar In Germany as a whole, pre war church attendance probably averaged between five and ten per cent of the Evangel ical population and declined somewhat during the Weimar period. Attendance in the countryside generally surpassed that in the cities. Though attendance in Darmstadt (outside of Prussia) reached 12.4 per cent in 1913 and 8.5 in 1919, the percentage in large Prussian cities seems to have been much lower. On the period 1913–19, see Schian, Martin, Die deutsche evangelisehe Kirehe ira Weltlcriege (Berlin: Verlag von E. S. Mittler & Sohn, 1925), II 154–63.Google Scholar

6. See, e.g., resolution in Positive Union, special issue, 1925, p. 34; Herz, Johannes, Proiestantenblait, 07 23, 1921, p. 271Google Scholar; and flaug, Theodor, Licht und Leben, 09 11, 1927, p. 580.Google Scholar

7. Verhandlungen des 2. deutschen evangelisohen Kirohentages (Berlin-Steglitz: Deutsches evangelisches Kirchenaussehuss & Evangelischer Pressverband für Deutschland, 1921), pp. 121–38.Google Scholar Hereafter cited as Kirohentag 1921. Primarily representing church synods, the Kirehentag acted as the legislative assembly of the permanent church federation (Kirohenbund) created by the twenty-eight German Evangelical churches after the war. Probably the main reason for its creation was the desire of churchmen to create a united front for the defence and advancement of church interests in the new Republic.

8. Ibid., p. 131.

9. For a synoptic description of the constitutional development of the Prussian church, based on works of recognized authorities, see Oxenius, Hans Götz, Die Entstehung der Verfassung der evangelischen Kirche der aitprensaiaehen Union von 19 (published Doctor's thesis, University of Cologne, 1959)Google Scholar and Gerhard Niemöfler, “Die Verfassung der evangelisehen Kirche in Preussen von 1919 bis 1933’ (unpublished essay, 1953).

10. Schnabel, Franz, Deutsche Geschichte im neunzehnten Jahrhundert (second edition; Freiburg: Herder & Co., 1949), II, 25–34.Google Scholar

11. Stahl, F. J., Philosophie des Rechis (second edition; Heidelberg: Mohr, 1845–47), I, 486–502Google Scholar; II, 69–83, 162–203; III, 1–18, 102–52; Stahl, F. J., Das monarchischePrincip (Heidelberg: Mohr, 1845)Google Scholar, passim. See also Shanahan, William, German Protestants Pace the Social Question (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1954), I, 241–54.Google Scholar

12. Stahl, F. J., Der christliche Staat (excerpted in Parteiprogramme von Vormärz bis zur Gegenwart, ed. Wilhelm, Mommsen [Munich: Isar Verlag, 1956]);, pp. 17–18.Google Scholar

13. Fischer, Fritz, “Der deutsche Protestantismus und die Politik im 19. Jahrhundert,” Historische Zeitschrift, CLXXI (05 1951), pp. 474–87Google Scholar; Shanahan, , Social Question, I, 194 ff.Google Scholar

14. Buchlieim, Karl, Geschichte der chriatlichen Parteien in Deutsohiand (Munich: Kösel Verlag, 1953), pp. 175–77.Google Scholar

15. See, e.g., Rolffs, Ernst, Die christliche Welt, 11 16, 1916, pp. 885–87;Google Scholar also Fiseher, , “Politik,” pp. 498–502.Google Scholar

16. Kirchentag 1921, p. 125.Google Scholar

17. Pfennigsdorf, E., Geisteskampf der Gegenwart, 08/09 1920, p. 121.Google Scholar See also Philipps, Wilhelm, Die Reformation, 02 17, 1918, P. 53.Google Scholar

18. For an excellent analysis of the peculiar way in which German churches were “dis established,” see Cazelles, Henri, Eglise et état en Alleinagne de Weimar aux premiéres années du IlIe Reich (Paris: Rousseau et Cie, 1936)Google Scholar; Zscharnack, Leopold, Trennung von Staat und Kirche (Volksschriften zum Aufbau, No. 1. Berlin: Verlag des Evangelischer Bundes, 1919)Google Scholar explains in a fairly typical manner the demands raised by Evangelical churchmen.

19. Winekler, Friedrich, Verhanlunger der achten Generalsynode der evangelischen Kirche der altpreussischen Union in ihrer ordentlichen Tagung (Berlin: Verlag von Martin Warneck, 1926), I, 6.Google Scholar

20. Geisteskampf der Gegenwart, 03 1918, pp. 57–59.Google Scholar

21. Die Staatsideen der politischen Parteien (Im neuen Deutschland, No. 4. Berlin: Vossische Buchhandlung, 1920), pp. 5–9.Google Scholar

22. Kirchentag 1921 p. 130.Google Scholar

23. “Historische Fragmente aus dem Nachlass,” Jacob Burckhardt: Gesamtausgabe, Albert, Oeri and Emil, Duerr, editors (Leipzig: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1929), pp. 421–63.Google Scholar

24. See, e.g., Brunstäd, , Staatsideen, pp. 12–30Google Scholar; August Pfannkuche, , Eiserne Blätter, 08 1, 1920, p. 65 ff.Google Scholar, and October 10, 1920, p. 225 ff.; Holstein, Günther, Luther und die deutsche Staatsidee (Recht und Staat in Geschichte und Gegenwart, No. 45. Tübingen: Verlag von J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeek], 1926).Google Scholar

25. This distinction is drawn in Eger, Hans, Der evangelisch-soziale Kongress: Ein, Beitrag zu seiner Geschichte und Problemstellung (published Doctor's thesis, University of Heidelberg, 1930), p. 3.Google Scholar See also Shanahan, , Social Question, I, 3.Google Scholar

26. Shanahan, , Social Question, I, 372.Google Scholar

27. Hermelink, Heinrich, Das Chrintentum in der Menschheitsgeschichte von der französischen Revolution bis zur Gegenwart (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1955), III, 60–68.Google Scholar

28. Frank, Walter, Hofprediger Adolf Stoecker und die christlich-soziale Bewegung (Berlin: Verlag von Reimar Hobbing, 1928), pp. 31–80.Google Scholar

29. Ibid., p. 85.

30. Eger, , Kongress, pp. 13–24, 71–78.Google Scholar

31. On the problems besetting the Congress, see Heuss, Theodor, Friedrich Naumann (second edition; Stuttgart: Rainer Wunderlich Verlag Hermann Leins, 1937), pp. 71–99;Google ScholarFrank, , Stoecker, pp. 326–58Google Scholar; Eger, , Kongress, p. 43.Google Scholar

32. Frank, , Stoecker, pp. 361–71.Google Scholar

33. Eger, , Kongress, pp. 81–84.Google Scholar

34. See, e.g., Kaftan, , Kirchentag 1921, p. 125;Google Scholar find here aiso (p. 139) statement by Wilhelm Philipps that “there is probably no one among us who wishes to restore the old relationship of state and church.”

34. Kirchentag 1921, pp. 126, 131.Google Scholar

36. Ibid., pp. 155–56. My italies.

37. Seeberg, Reinhold, System der Ethik (second edition; Leipzig: A. Deicherische Verlagsbuchhandling Dr. Werner Scholl, 1920), pp. 97, 130–44.Google Scholar

38. Ibid., p. 135.

39. (Berlin: Furche-Verlag, 1927), pp. 75–77Google Scholar, 128–29, 223–48.

40. Verhandlungen des ersten deutsehen evangelischen Kirchentages 1924 (Berlin-Steglitz: Deutsehes evangelisches Kirchenausschuss & Evangelischer Pressverband für Deutsehland, 1924), pp. 215–19.Google Scholar Hereafter cited as Kirchentag 1924.

41. Claussen, W., Die innere Mission im evangelischen Deutschland, 05 1925, p. 138.Google Scholar

42. Kirchentag 1924, p. 230.Google Scholar

43. Eberlein, H., Positive Union, 03 1925, p. 18.Google Scholar

44. Die christliche Welt, 07 17, 1924, pp. 559–63.Google Scholar

45. Seeberg, , System, p. 144.Google Scholar

46. Reformirte Kirchenzeitung, 07 5, 1925, p. 167;Google ScholarZeitwende, 02 1925, p. 209.Google Scholar

47. As quoted by Leese, Kurt, Die christliche Welt, 10 15, 1925, pp. 959–60.Google Scholar

48. See, e.g., “‘Segen der Sünde,’” Der Reichsbote, 09 17, 1925.Google Scholar

49. For developments during and after the Nazi period, see Littell, Franklin Hamlin, The German Phoenix (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday & Company, 1960). Littell stresses attempts of Evangelical churchmen to avoid previous forms of religious “cultural accommodation,” also implicit in Christian conservatism.Google Scholar