LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

sake of the public witness it is important that we form one big community. We went so far as to say to them: We ask this not only for your sakes but for ours, because our Bruderhof is much too weak. We need your help. Has the hour come for us to stand together as one great witness? What concerned us was that the world is going to destruction and the kingdom of God is approaching, but this did not fall on good soil and hardly sank in . . . We have heard from all sides that a real unity in the Spirit and a true spiritual community has been missing at the Werkhof for a long time. Therefore the Werkhof cannot be thought of as “church” in the sense of true community of the Spirit and a way of life. We are not asking the members of the Werkhof to come to the Bruderhof, but we are ready to unite with those among them who believe in the spirit of unity and are ready to unite with us in obedience to that spirit.

      The question of where that shall take place—whether on our little hill or in a Swiss canton, on the American prairie or in the Canadian Rockies, or in some completely different place—all that we leave open. We declare ourselves ready for everything the Spirit says to the churches. We are certain, however, that the Spirit says the same to all the churches. And when it is a question of uniting in life community, we have to be completely one and we must not make any conditions.3

      Eberhard respected Ragaz’s calling as similar to that of John the Baptist, of “a voice calling in the wilderness.”4 But he believed that unity was the decisive mark of the church of God and the most important witness needed in the world.

      The most necessary premise—the uniting spirit—is missing at the Werkhof, though we do have great respect for the reality of a life devoid of private property . . . Our times are so tremendously serious that there is nothing more needful than the witness of a life based on the spirit of unity. Only a witness of deed and action can be of any help. Words are now being suppressed in Germany . . . Their place has to be taken by the witness of deeds and by passing on the call from person to person.5

      Unfortunately, those left at the Werkhof resented the Bruderhof’s desire to join forces. Ragaz felt that his work was being criticized, and he accused the Bruderhof of presuming to be the only true church. As he wrote on February 22, 1933:

      Dear friends, I agree with you regarding the evaluation of the church, both in itself and also in relation to the organized church, as well as to socialism. I also believe that the church is the ultimate word of holy sociology; I believe in the promise given to it, I believe in its blessing and in its authority, and I believe that you on the Bruderhof are a church of this kind and share in its promise. But at this point the problem arises, which amounts to a question to you, or rather to the question to you: Are you only a church or the church—excluding other forms of the church, which might also still be found elsewhere? . . . Several statements in letters and otherwise during the past few months make me unsure regarding this matter, and I am turning to you with the request now, to give me completely clear information regarding this.6

      This question led to serious discussions in the Rhön brotherhood on the meaning of the term “church.” On March 9, Eberhard answered Ragaz:

      We thank you warmly and respectfully for the brotherly service in your letter of February 22. It touched us deeply, and we took it as a service from one who calls like John the Baptist, one of the few who have pointed to and prepared the way that has led us into the charge of the church and of the kingdom.7

      If anyone asks us if we, a group of weak and needy people, are the church of God, then we must answer: No, we are not. We are the objects of the love of God like all other people. Like all other people, and still more than they, we are unworthy, unfit, and incapable for the working of the Holy Spirit, for the building of the church, and for the mission to the entire world. But if the question is asked: Is the church of God with you? Does the church of God come down where you are? Then we must answer: Yes, it is so. Wherever believers are gathered, having no long­er any other will but the one, single will that the kingdom of God may come and that the church of Christ may be made manifest as the perfect unity of his spirit, there, in every such place, is the church, because the Holy Spirit is there.8

      Unfortunately, however, stemming from this discussion Ragaz grew more critical of Eberhard and the Bruderhof. As the evil of Hitler’s policies became more strongly evident—which should have brought together all who wished to serve God’s kingdom—the rift between Leonhard Ragaz and Eberhard Arnold grew deeper.

      v

      A new election of the Reichstag had been scheduled for March 5. During the campaign, Hitler proclaimed repeatedly that Marxism was the archenemy of his party. “Our fight against Marxism will be relentless, and every movement which allies itself to Marxism will come to grief with it.”9

      Two days after the election, on March 7, a police officer appeared at the Rhön Bruderhof. He informed the community that complaints alleging that they were communists had reached the district administrator’s office in Fulda, accusing them of printing inflammatory pamphlets and hiding weapons. Since the district administrator at the time was Baron von Gagern, a friend of the Bruderhof, it was easy to counter these accusations, and things seemed to settle down.

      On March 23, the Reichstag convened in the Kroll Opera House (since the parliament building had burned down), and Hitler introduced the measure that would enable the Reichskanzler to prepare laws without the approval of the Reichstag and without reference to the president. As he stepped forward to stand beneath a swastika banner in his brownshirt paramilitary uniform, he was greeted with “Heil!” by his party.10

      He started out by speaking of the “dethroning of the German monarchy” in the Revolution of 1918 and of the dangers of communism. This worldview, he said, had permeated society and threatened its basic principles of religion, morality, family, and economy.

      Starting with the liberalism of the past century, this development will end, as the laws of nature dictate, in Communist chaos . . . Beginning with pillaging, arson, raids on the railway, assassination attempts, and so on—all these things are morally sanctioned by Communist theory . . . The burning of the Reichstag, one unsuccessful attempt within a large-scale operation, is only a taste of what Europe would have to expect from a triumph of this demonical doctrine . . .

      The Government of the National Revolution basically regards it as its duty, in accordance with the spirit of the Volk’s vote of confidence, to prevent the elements which consciously and intentionally negate the life of the nation from exercising influence on its formation. The theoretical concept of equality before the law shall not be used, under the guise of equality, to tolerate those who despise the laws as a matter of principle or, moreover, to surrender the freedom of the nation to them on the basis of democratic doctrines . . .

      The Reich Government intends to undertake a thorough moral purging of the German Volkskörper. The entire system of education, the theater, the cinema, literature, the press, and radio—they all will be used as a means to this end and valued accordingly. They must all work to preserve the eternal values residing in the essential character of our Volk. Art will always remain the expression and mirror of the yearning and the reality of an era . . . Blut und Rasse [blood and race] will once more become the source of artistic intuition . . . Reverence for the Great Men must be instilled once more in German youth as a sacred inheritance. In being determined to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, the government is creating and securing the requirements for a genuinely profound return to religious life . . .

      The National Government perceives in the two Christian confessions the most important factors for the preservation of our Volkstum. It will respect any contracts concluded between these Churches and the Länder [states].

      Their rights are not to be infringed upon. But the Government expects and hopes that the task of working on the national and moral regeneration of our Volk taken on by the Government will, in turn, be treated with the same respect. It will face all of the other confessions with objective fairness. However, it cannot tolerate that membership in a certain confession or a certain race could mean being released from general statutory obligations or even constitute a license for committing or tolerating crimes which go unpunished. The Government’s concern lies in an honest coexistence between Church and State; the fight against a materialist Weltanschauung

Скачать книгу