“‘Together a Step Towards the Messianic Goal’

12^ Paul Mendes-Flohr has called these inter-religious efforts “largely unsuccessful” as long as the issue at the core of the dialogue was the interpretation of Scripture. However, Mendes-Flohr also recognizes efforts of personal encounter beyond scriptural interpretation. In those personal encounters - Mendes-Flohr mentions the friendship of Paul Tillich and Martin Buber - Jews and Christians discovered the true meaning and challenge of faith and dialogue. See Paul Mendes-Flohr, “Ambivalent Dialogue: Jewish-Christian Theological Encounter in the Weimar Republic” (1987), in Paul Mendes-Flohr, Divided Passions. Jewish Intellectuals and the Experience of Modernity, (Detroit, 1991), 133-167 (159-160).

13^ Ibid., 157.

14^ Heinrich Frick, “Antisemitismus,” in RGG I (Tuebingen, ²1927), 393-397; Otto von Harling, “Judenmission,” in RGG III (Tuebingen, ²1929), 466-469; Gerhard Kittel, “Judentum III. Judentum und Christentum,” RGG III (Tuebingen, ²1929), 491-494.

15^ See Der Jude, ibid.; Michael Brenner, The Renaissance of Jewish Culture in Weimar Germany (New Haven, 1996), 33.

16^ Hermann Kutter, “Gott und die Ideen,” in Der Jude. Sonderheft: Judentum und Christentum (1927), 1-4.

17^ Martin Dibelius, “Mensch und Gott,” in Der Jude. Sonderheft: Judentum und Christentum (1927), 16-23.

18^ Alfred Jeremias, “Christentum und Judentum,” in Der Jude. Sonderheft: Judentum und Christentum (1927), 41-50

19^ Christoph Schrempf, “Christentuemer, Judentuemer, und die Wahrheit,” in Der Jude. Sonderheft: Judentum und Christentum (1927), 82-83.

20^ See Kutter, ibid., 1.

21^ Nowak summarizes the Weimar era as “Weimar – The explosion of modernity.” See Kurt Nowak, Geschichte des Christentums in Deutschland (Muenchen, 1995), 205-242.

22^ The First Amendment to the constitution was signed December 15, 1791. It contains two clauses: 1. The prohibition to establish a national religion by the government (“establishment clause”) and 2. The guarantee to exercise religion freely (“free exercise clause”).

23^ August 11, 1919 was the day when president Friedrich Ebert signed the Weimar constitution, which was written under the chairmanship of Hugo Preuss. See also Gerhard Besier, “Germany and Prussia,” in Encyclopedia of Religious Freedom, Catharine Cookson (ed.), (London/New York, 2003), 163-168 (166): “Not until the revolution of 1918 was the power of sovereign princes over the church removed. The constitution of the Weimar Republic established that there was no state church, and also prohibited churches from exercising state-like powers.”

24^ Detlev Peukert, Die Weimarer Republik. Krisenjahre der Klassischen Moderne, Frankfurt/M. 1987, 12.

25^ See Donald L. Niewyk, The Jews in Weimar Germany (New Brunswick/London, ²2001); Nowak, Geschichte des Christentums in Deutschland, ibid., 234; Brenner, Renaissance.

26^ Klaus Tanner, “Protestantische Demokratiekritik in der Weimarer Republik,” in Richard Ziegert (ed.), Die Kirchen und die Weimarer Republik (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1994), 23-36; Hans-Joachim Kraus, “Die evangelische Kirche,” in Werner E. Mosse (ed.), Entscheidungsjahr 1932. Zur Judenfrage in der Endphase der Weimarer Republik (Tuebingen, 1965), 249-269; Hans-Joachim Kraus, “Tora und ‘Volksnomos’,” in Erhard Blum/Christian Machholz/Ekkehard W. Stegemann, Die Hebraeische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte, Festschrift fuer Rolf Rendtorff (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1990), 641-655.

27^ See Werner E. Mosse (ed.), Entscheidungsjahr 1932. Zur Judenfrage in der Endphase der Weimarer Republik (Tuebingen, 1965). For the concept of “culture war” see James D. Hunter, Culture Wars. The Struggle to define America (New York, 1991).

28^ Beate-Carola Padtberg (ed.), Das deutsche Judentum und der Liberalismus; German Jewry and Liberalism (Koenigswinter, 1986); Nowak, Kulturprotestantismus und Judentum, ibid.

29^ Alan Levenson, “Missionary Protestants as Defenders and Detractors of Judaism: Franz Delitzsch and Hermann Strack,” The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series 92 (2002), 383-420.

30^ Alexander Szanto, “Sozialistische Stroemungen im Judentum,” Zeitschrift fuer Religion und Sozialismus 1,6 (1929), 21-25 (25)and Szanto, “Neues vom religioesen Sozialismus im Judentum,” ibid. 3 (1931), 233-236.

31^ Kutter, ibid.

32^ Baeck himself calls this period of renewal a “renaissance,” which had affected especially the younger generation of German Jews. See Leo Baeck, “Judentum: II B. Neue Zeit und Gegenwart,” RGG III (Tuebingen, ²1929), 486-491. For the new Jewish theology in Weimar see also: Leo Baeck, “Theologie und Geschichte,” in Berichte fuer die Lehranstalt fuer die Wissenschaft des Judentums 49 (1932), 42-54; Michael Brenner, “Leo Baeck und der Wandel des liberalen Judentums waehrend der Weimarer Republik,” in Georg Heuberger/Fritz Backhaus (eds.), Leo Baeck 1873-1956. Aus dem Stamme der Rabbinern (Frankfurt/M. 2001), 60-70.

33^ Harnack developed his ideas in Das Wesen des Christentums (1900). Harnack claimed the purity of Jesus’ thought together with the strength of his personality as highest form of religion, which was represented best in modern Protestantism. This highest form of religion stood against the background of a Judaism of ritual and institution, represented by the Pharisees. The book provoked a massive response by Jewish scholars. The best one known today is Leo Baeck’s The Essence of Judaism of 1905, which was not the most read back then. Uriel Tal concludes at the end of his essay that modern Judaism did not fit into the modern worldview of liberal Protestant intellectuals. Since these intellectuals were also staunchly opposed to anti-Semitic ideas, Tal suggests that any tensions between liberal Jews and liberal Protestants might be based on the commonality of their worldviews. See Uriel Tal, “Theologische Debatte um das ‘Wesen’ des Judentums,” in Werner E. Mosse (ed.), Juden im Wilhelminischen Deutschland 1890-1914 (Tuebingen, 1976), 599-632. See also Wolfram Kinzig, Harnack, Marcion und das Judentum (Leipzig, 2004); Christian Nottmeier, Adolf Harnack und die deutsche Politik (Tuebingen, 2004), 240-41.

34^ Friedrich Thieberger, “Der juedische Erloesungsgedanke,” in Der Jude, ibid., 51-57 (51).

35^ Max Dienemann, “Froemmigkeit in Judentum und Christentum,” in Der Jude, ibid., 30-40 (30).

36^ Kittel, ibid., 493.

37^ See, for instance, Kittel, ibid., 492.

38^ Dibelius, ibid., 16.

39^ Dibelius, ibid., 18. Eleonore Lappin in her discussion of the special edition of Der Jude maintains that the dialogue was helpful only in regard to Jewish identity, but not very fruitful for any re-definition of the Jewish-Christian relationship. According to Lappin, the discussion showed “how Jews could live their tradition in a Christian environment, but Judaism and Christianity didn’t come any closer in their religious opinions.” But in her otherwise thorough and erudite scholarship, she dismisses the Christian arguments too easily and she seems to disregard the previous debate on Harnack’s Wesen when she writes that “The Christian arguments were known before, but now there was a clear Jewish response.” See Eleonore Lappin, Der Jude 1916-1928. Juedische Moderne zwischen Universalismus und Partikularismus (Tuebingen, 2000), 227-241 (241).

40^ Jeremias, ibid., 50.

41^ Dienemann, “Froemmigkeit,” ibid., 30. Still in 1937 Hans Joachim Schoeps draws on similar ideas while paralleling the Christian Lord’s prayer with the Jewish Kaddish prayer. See Schoeps, Juedisch-Christliches Religionsgespraech in 19 Jahrhunderten (Berlin, 1937), 158-59.

42^ Kittel, ibid., 493.

43^ It is clear from the context that the term “law” refers to the ceremonial law of the Torah as well as the divine commandments. For Kittel, the distinction between law and grace plays out in at least four more areas: The absolute commandments of the Sermon on the Mount which stand against any fulfillment of God’s commandments as supposed by Jewish ethics; the authority of Jesus as the ultimate completion of the Torah; the notion of God for whom all human merit counts for nothing, and whose love welcomes the sinner out of pure forgiveness; and finally, the last certainty of salvation which Christians find in God’s forgiveness in Christ.

44^ Dibelius, ibid., 16.

45^ See, for instance, Martin Dibelius, Geschichtliche und uebergeschichtliche Religion im Christentum (Goettingen, 1925), 100-101 and 146. Like Kittel, Dibelius seems to refer to the ceremonial law as well as God’s divine commandments when he speaks of “the law.”

46^ Dibelius, “Mensch und Gott,” ibid.

47^ “The Judaism which edited the Mishnah did not have the ambition to defend its theology with the means of Hellenistic theology, and thus it has to do without a central intellectual element of the occident” (ibid., 19).

48^ In Der Jude it is especially Max Eschelbacher, who criticizes Dibelius’ separation of law and grace. According to Eschelbacher, Judaism also teaches the imperfection of man and the necessity of divine grace. Additionally, Eschelbacher reminds his Protestant colleague that the concept of Christian grace has its roots in the Hebrew bible. In Eschelbacher’s opinion, the lack of clear religious ethics on the Christian side is what separates both Judaism and Christianity. See Max Eschelbacher, “Das juedische Gesetz,” Der Jude. Sonderheft: Judentum und Christentum, (Berlin, 1927), 58-66.

49^ While Luther assumed that faith in the gospel eventually produces good works with a kind of inner logic, Melanchthon acknowledged the necessity of positive laws for good works. Melanchthon’s position later became the position of the theological majority. See, i.e., article VI of the Confessio Augusta (1530), in Robert Kolb/Timothy J. Wengert (eds.), The Book of Concord (Minneapolis, 2000): “It is also taught that such faith should yield good fruit and good works and that a person must do such good works as God has commanded for God’s sake but not place trust in them as if thereby to earn grace before God” (emphasis added).

50^ Kutter, ibid.

51^ Religious socialist Paul Tillich gave this living in the reality of faith a more political spin when he underscored the common bond of Jews and Christians in the “prophetical protest against political romanticism.” See Paul Tillich, Die sozialistische Entscheidung (1933), (Berlin, 1980), 30.

Former pastor Christoph Schrempf (1860-1944) also had an anti-establishment approach to inter-religious dialogue, and tried to detach the dialogue from historical religions. Since Schrempf had resigned from his office as pastor, however, he was largely contained to the role of an outsider in Weimar theology. His “Unitarianism” was of no lasting influence in and beyond Weimar. His short contribution to the matter, in Der Jude. Sonderheft: Judentum und Christentum (1927), 82-83.

52^ Otto von Harling, ibid.

53^ See Gerlach, ibid., 31, who cites Harling’s article: “Antisemitisms in the Christian press” of 1920.

54^ Jeremias, ibid. An appreciative obituary can be found in the Central Verein Zeitung 5 (January 1935).

55^ Oskar Wolfsberg, “Christliche Stimmen ueber das Judentum,” in Der Jude. Sonderheft: Judentum und Christentum (Berlin, 1927), 83-85.

56^ See Mendes-Flohr, ibid., 151-159.

57^ Rudolf Smend, Deutsche Alttestamentler in drei Jahrhunderten (Goettingen, 1989), 180.

58^ In this context, Zionism is criticized by Jeremias for not being religious enough. According to Jeremias, a religious state in Palestine wouldn’t be a very enticing idea for modern, assimilated European Jews.

59^ See, for instance, Peukert, ibid., 162.

60^ Niewyk, ibid., 59.

61^ In this regard, Matthias Wolfes refers to the conflict between Rudolf Bultmann and Georg Wobbermin. See Matthias Wolfes, Protestantische Theologie und modern Welt (Berlin, 1999), 334. At the end of his Kulturprotestantismus und Judentum, Kurt Nowak notes that the cultural, liberal Protestants who were faithful to the Weimar constitution were among the most important advocates of Jews in Weimar (see Nowak, ibid.).

62^ See Robert Raphael Geis/Hans Joachim Kraus, ibid., 255.

63^ Otto Baumgarten, Kreuz und Hakenkreuz (Gotha, 1926). Hasko von Bassi, Otto Baumgarten. Ein ‘moderner Theologe’ im Kaiserreich und in der Weimarer Republik (Frankfurt/M., 1988), 240-251.

64^ Hugo Gressmann, ibid., 2.

65^ Hermann Frick, ibid. Frick had already spoken up against anti-Semitism at other occasions. In his preface to Julius Goldstein’s Rasse und Politik (Schluechtern, 1921), for instance, he considered anti-Semitism “one of the most concerning illnesses of the present” (13). Here, Frick also underscored the idea of biblical prophetism as common bond between Jews and Christians, and considered any move away from the biblical prophetical heritage a move towards paganism (9).

66^ See Werner E. Mosse (ed.), Entscheidungsjahr 1932. Zur Judenfrage in der Endphase der Weimarer Republik (Tuebingen, 1965).

67^ In this additional clause we can easily identify three groups of the Protestant mainstream, merged together by Frick in an almost congenial manner. We can identify the old heilsgeschichtliche theology with its emphasis on the mission to the Jews (“actively proselytizing among Jews”); we also recognize traditional liberal theological thinking in the emphasis on the free mind and its activity, and in the degradation of race and blood (“blurry racial distinctions”, superstition of the blood”); and finally, we can acknowledge a new religious language at the very end of the essay by Frick’s use of the term “religious decision.” This term was familiar to Weimar Protestants at least since Friedrich Gogarten’s Die religioese Entscheidung (Jena, 1921), which quickly became a key text among the young dialectical theologians. In Die religioese Entscheidung, Friedrich Gogarten, in his typical expressive language, rejected religion as an arrogant human enterprise to overcome the absolute contradiction between creator and creature. The text represents the attempt to define a new language of God and revelation beyond history.

68^ I borrow this term from Ulrich Stutz’s classical characterization of the relationship of Church and state in Weimar as a “limping separation.” See Ulrich Stutz, Die paepstliche Diplomatie unter Leo XIII (Berlin, 1926), 54.