Theological Existence To-Day!. Karl Barth

to be necessarily called for, it has not taken place entirely in a legal manner with the proper matters.

      DID THE CHURCHES DECIDE THIS REFORM?

      If, however, the question be asked, to what extent at the time the resolution was taken “to build this tower,” it could have happened, that things were not done in quite an adequate manner, then it seems to me that one comes up against a remarkable and dangerous lack of clarity, because one most fundamental, at the critical place. I mean the lack of clearness as to the relation between the Revolution, now a political fait accompli, and what the Church thought it had to plan and do in view of this event. We ask, Did the decision for this purpose and action issue from the Church itself? Or, in other words, From the Word of God heard by the Church? Or, was it a suggestion not inwardly necessary, but one arising from political enthusiasm, or, perchance political scheming: a decision not essentially of an ecclesiastical character, though embraced within and by the Church? If the first question cannot be answered in the affirmative, plainly, and with a good conscience, then the dissatisfaction and discord of the previous proceeding can be no puzzle. Rather, the first question cannot be affirmed outright and with a good conscience.

      When I look directly at the most important official and private proclamations, issued at that time of the resolution and after it, I am continually brought up against the very strange phenomenon of certain political preambles in which, with an insistency surprising in a Church business, with a more or less openness and explicitness, the writers feel called upon, first and foremost, to give their positive judgment for, and appreciation of, the Revolution which took place in March, and also of the State thus formed. As one example out of many I cite the Appeal of the so-called “Committee of Three”* of date April 28th, 1933:—

      “A mighty National Movement has captured and exalted our German Nation. An all-embracing reorganisation of the State is taking place within the awakened German people. We give our hearty assent to this turning-point of history. God has given us this: to Him be the glory.

      “Bound unitedly in God’s Word, we recognise in the great events of our day a new commission of our Lord to His Churches.”

      In accordance with this proclamation there was often heard—from the Church side, mark you—such cries as, “The New State needs the Churches,” and “The Church is ready to ‘co-operate’ with the New State”: (a very competent writer added, “with its mighty forces.”) On the background of this Proclamation of the Fundamental Article of the newly-to-be-constituted Church, written afresh or in terms very similar, were then placarded the various proclamations, demands, programmes, and even confessions of faith, which were the object these announcements had in view.

      What is to be said of all this? Above all, this:—that what has happened must not be set down to an irresistible pressure from outside, to which the Church had to subject herself in order to salvage what she could in the new situation. The new Government, by the mouth of the Reichs-Chancellor, Adolf Hitler, declared on March 23rd:—

      “The rights of the Churches will not be diminished, nor their position as regards the State be altered.”

      On the same occasion he spoke of “an honourable joint-life in common between State and Church,” but no mention was made of any “Gleichschaltung” (“assimilation”) whether from within or from without, on the part of the Church on behalf of the State. On the basis of this declaration of Hitler’s, which has even been called the Magna Carta of the new Church within the new State, the Church was not asked to found itself upon this Fundamental Article. And, apart from isolated attacks and mistakes, the State, or the Government of the State till now (i.e., June 25th) has nothing to be blamed for in this respect. Here I may recall the very precise declaration of Dr. Rust, the Prussian Minister for Education, in the “Kreuzzeitung,” No. 125, for May 7th, 1933:—

      “For Prussia at any rate there exists no ground for anxiety that the State will interfere in the Church’s inner life. Not even with its little finger will the State poke into those corners of the Church which are solely within her province to settle.”

      To-day one cannot disregard to what extent the latest events indicate only a very peculiar interpretation of these utterances and declarations, or that their repeal has become necessary in the eyes of the Government. But at the time when these statements were being made they pointed to an opportunity supplied to the Church, in view of which perhaps she durst not make herself responsible for the conduct of State Government, lest once more she should be untrue to herself.