II. 100 Years of German and British Baptists, 1834–1934

The Baptist movement began as an outgrowth of English Separatism in 1609 when John Smyth baptized himself and other English Separatists residing in Amsterdam. Although Smyth would go on to identify with Dutch Anabaptists, Thomas Helwys and a group of other like-minded Baptist Separatists rejected Anabaptist Christology and returned to England from Amsterdam to form the first Baptist church in England on the outskirts of London in 1612.Footnote ¹⁰ Upon his return to England, Helwys penned a treatise to James I entitled “A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity” which demanded universal religious liberty. Helwys was arrested and died in prison a few years later. Baptist calls for freedom of religion from state encroachment grew out of the primary Baptist doctrine of the Believer's Church, “the conviction that those who would claim church membership should first profess faith in Christ, followed by believer's baptism.”Footnote ¹¹ Baptists argued that only those who had experienced conversion and baptism as a proclamation of faith might become church members. Following the example of Helwys, many British Baptists faced imprisonment in the first decades of the Baptist movement until the passage of the Toleration Act of 1689. The period from 1689 to 1790 was marked by tensions between Calvinist Particular Baptists and Arminian General Baptists.Footnote ¹² These tensions lessened as British Baptists shifted their emphasis to international missions through the influence of William Carey and Andrew Fuller.

Distinctions between General and Particular Baptists in Britain continued to decline through the end of the eighteenth century into the first decades of the nineteenth century, resulting in the foundation of the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland. The Baptist Union started as a society of Particular Baptists in 1813 and began accepting General Baptist churches in 1832. British Baptists grew rapidly in the nineteenth century from around 176,000 attendees in 1801 to over 750,000 by 1851.Footnote ¹³ In 1891, the New Connexion (the largest General Baptist society in Britain) and the Baptist Union merged to represent nearly all Baptists in Britain. The Baptist Union existed as a voluntary society that exercised no authority over autonomous individual churches, but it provided these churches with an organization through which annuities for aging pastors, funds to provide pastors to impoverished churches, and other collaborative efforts could be collected into a central entity.

Whereas British Baptists located their lineage in English Separatism, German Baptists traced theirs to Johann Gerhard Oncken, the first German Baptist pastor who was baptized along with six other people in the Elbe River by an American Baptist in 1834.Footnote ¹⁴ From 1834–1934, German Baptists grew from one church of seven people to 280 Churches with 530 preachers and elders and 68,000 members.Footnote ¹⁵ Baptist churches spread throughout Germany and to the east as far as Russia under the leadership of Oncken, Julius Köbner, and Gottfried Lehmann.Footnote ¹⁶ These churches, though started largely by German-speaking Baptist missionaries, nevertheless bore the mark of English Protestantism in the widespread adoption of Sunday schools.Footnote ¹⁷

German Baptists identified with the British Separatist heritage of Baptistic doctrine, and they faced substantial resistance from both established churches and local governments. Some accused them of being an Anglo-American sect, which led some German Baptists to adamantly assert their nationalism at times of national crisis (for example, during World Wars I and II).Footnote ¹⁸ Oncken was reared Lutheran but had a conversion experience while in England and returned to Germany as a missionary funded by an English missionary society. He would later become convinced through study of the Bible that baptism following conversion was the biblical mode, and the American Triennial Baptist Convention funded him following his baptism.Footnote ¹⁹ Oncken and his compatriots identified themselves with Anglo-American Baptists rather than other credo-Baptist groups by adopting the anglicized term Baptisten rather than the term Täufer (or Wiedertäufer), which was used in reference to Anabaptists. Due to their early ties with British and American missionary societies and continued relationships with international Baptists, German Baptists were often accused of national disloyalty. This led to responses trumpeting national loyalty, such as “The Baptists in Germany were always national.”Footnote ²⁰

German Baptists experienced varying levels of official and unofficial persecution at the hands of political and ecclesiastical authorities. Despite their numerical growth through missionary expansion and devotion to social ministries, German society largely viewed Baptists with suspicion. Due to their Free Church ecclesiology (considered less German than the established Protestant churches) and foundational ties to Anglo-American Baptists, German Baptists were accused of opposing German national identity. Established churches resented the presence of the Baptists, and they made life difficult for them throughout Germany. In Prussia, the government even denied Baptists citizenship and passports.Footnote ²¹ This period of hardship in the latter half of the nineteenth century remained fresh in German Baptist memory in the Nazi era. Despite the difficulties of persecution, they considered the early years as formative for advancing the Baptist message. German Baptist seminary professor Carl Schneider concluded: “In the crucible of time, the pure metal of the Baptist idea has been separated from the dross. Purified and tested by the struggles and tribulations of the past, the German Baptist Church crosses the threshold of its first century.”Footnote ²² German Baptists looked upon persecution according to the New Testament language of refinement and believed that their patient perseverance would be divinely blessed, although Schneider's rhetoric is eerily similar to Nazi proclamations of victory for the Alte Kämpfer.

Given their history as a persecuted minority and their strict interpretation of Romans 13, German Baptists did not exhibit a propensity for active resistance. Romans 13 states: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. . . . For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.”Footnote ²³ German Baptists applied Romans 13 literally in all discussions regarding the relationship between church and state. According to their interpretation, the state must be obeyed as the servant of God, and disobedience would justly be met with violent retribution by the state as any rebellion against God-ordained leadership equated to rebellion against God. German Baptists espoused an amalgamation of Baptistic separation of church and state and a Lutheran-influenced view of the two kingdomsFootnote ²⁴ which led to a free church that staunchly opposed any government interference in church matters but refused to actively resist government actions. This conviction contrasted with English Baptists who fought in the English Civil War for the Parliamentarians and occupied key roles under Cromwell.Footnote ²⁵ Rather than fighting for political equality, German Baptists concerned themselves with evangelism. Hans Luckey, professor at the Baptist seminary in Hamburg, summarized the German Baptist position in 1938: “We Baptists are found at work in the Gospel mission, and not in the political battle. Our Lord has shown us that we are the salt and light of the earth. He never counseled us to draw the sword.”Footnote ²⁶ This mindset persisted after World War II, as exhibited by Paul Schmidt's—editor of the German Baptist weekly Der Wahrheitszeuge and a leading figure in German Baptist life—post-war assertion: “The clear word from Romans 13 cannot be bent . . . this word denied the church a political-revolutionary stand.”Footnote ²⁷ Thus, German Baptists presented their relationship to the state in terms that harkened to the persecuted church of the New Testament which was primarily concerned with missionary endeavors, not political resistance. For, according to their interpretation of Romans 13, both Caesar and Hitler were given their positions by God.

Although German Baptists were pleased with aspects of the National Socialist rise to power, such as a stated public emphasis on morality and temperance, some voiced early concern about Nazi tactics.Footnote ²⁸ The German Baptist weekly newspaper Der Wahrheitszeuge proclaimed in the results of the March election the completion of the “National Revolution,” and celebrated Nazi condemnations of nudism, which they associated with the decadence of the Weimar Republic.Footnote ²⁹ Yet, weeks earlier, following Hitler's accession to the chancellorship, editor Paul Schmidt wrote: “Whether the government brings a period of national salvation, we will soon find out. We certainly know that these men cannot turn water into wine.”Footnote ³⁰ A circular letter among Baptist ministries described the political events as an “avalanche,” but reminded readers that nothing happens without God's approval.Footnote ³¹ For the first time in Germany, Baptist churches were recognized by the state and granted tax-exempt status.Footnote ³² They praised the new regime's attitude toward the Free Churches. Yet, years of governmental and ecclesiastical intolerance lingered in German Baptist memory and fear remained that this newfound favor would turn against the small German Baptist Union, leading one Baptist to write: “I see in National Socialism a major threat to Christianity.”Footnote ³³ Schmidt framed the German Baptist experience as one of ambivalence, both suffering and striving for the national good and standing to the side “and praying in boldness of faith: ‘Lord, your Kingdom come!’”Footnote ³⁴ Questions concerning the relationship between German political developments and the German Baptist movement would confront German Baptists throughout the Third Reich and become a source of conflict between German and British Baptists.

From Oncken's conversion in Britain to German Baptist self-identification as Baptisten instead of Wiedertäufern, the history of German Baptists was decidedly intertwined with the history of Baptists in Britain. These groups shared much in common in terms of doctrine and past experiences of persecution, although German Baptist history was a third as long as the British Baptist experience. This close relationship of these two European Baptist groups that had recovered from the Great War and weathered worldwide economic crisis would become strained in the early years of the Third Reich as national and geopolitical developments taxed doctrinal and fraternal bonds.

III. German and British Baptist Periodicals, 1933–1934

The rise of National Socialism strained relations between German and British Baptists. British Baptists saw in Nazism the threat of a bellicose and uncivilized regime bent on payback for the Versailles Treaty. German Baptists spoke among themselves about their concerns regarding National Socialism, but they defended their government against British Baptist attacks by praising the Nazi defeat of Bolshevism in Germany. As the fifth Baptist World Congress approached, British and German Baptists managed to put aside nationalistic differences to cooperate in the largest ever public gathering of Baptists in Germany. These strained relationships and conscious decisions to cooperate for the sake of common doctrine and mission are evident in the primary newspapers of British and German Baptists: The Baptist Times of London and Der Wahrheitszeuge of Kassel.

German and British Baptists read each other's periodicals throughout the 1930s, and these papers reflected growing nationalistic and doctrinal differences in conflicting interpretations of German political and social developments.Footnote ³⁵ The Baptist Times ran weekly and most issues in 1933–1934 featured updates on German political developments or discussion of the established German Protestant churches.Footnote ³⁶ Meanwhile, Der Wahrheitszeuge reported on Nazi opposition to communism with little concern for the established Protestant churches except for occasional refutation of Deutsche Christen teachings. Concerning German rearmament, the Baptist Times stated: “All available evidence seems to show an observer on the spot that Germany is determined to recover almost all she has lost and has no hope of doing so by peaceful means.”Footnote ³⁷ Earlier the paper had referred to German boycotts of Jewish businesses as a return to the “Dark Ages.”Footnote ³⁸ In May 1933, Paul Schmidt challenged British interpretations of German political developments proclaiming:

In this article, Schmidt argued that National Socialism could only be properly understood in terms of the Bolshevik threat. In defeating Bolshevism, National Socialism had strengthened the German Volk. Schmidt also pointed to Nazi declarations of a return to morality. According to Schmidt, with the threat of Bolshevism removed, Germany would now grow in strength of spirit and morality. In his mind, a strong, prosperous Germany was a matter of German domestic politics and need not concern other nations.

The Baptist Times reprinted a translation of Schmidt's editorial four days later with expressions of goodwill toward their German counterparts. Yet, the article challenged Schmidt's characterization of National Socialists as fundamentally peaceful saying: “We cannot overlook the fact that it persecutes and silences workers for international goodwill, and that its detestation of pacifists is on a level with its hatred of Jews. . . . We are shocked to find that while Hitlerism differs from Bolshevism in its aims, it closely follows the Russian Communists in spirit and method.”Footnote ⁴⁰ British Baptists refused to accept the German Baptist contention that the Nazi regime's victory over Bolshevism excused moments of excess. Rather, they asserted that Nazis and Bolsheviks were cut from the same totalitarian cloth. German Baptists would continue to accuse British Baptists of remaining ignorant concerning the realities of the German domestic situation both in print and in person.

Baptist leaders continued to debate German political developments in the Baptist Times and Der Wahrheitszeuge throughout 1933. The May 25 issue of the Baptist Times included a summary of Hitler's May 17 Reichstag speech in which he espoused willingness to disarm, but only on the condition that the surrounding nations did so as well. After summarizing the contents of the speech, the writer retorted: “The worth of this remarkable declaration of policy depends, of course, on how far it can be relied on as a sincere exposition of Nazi aims. . . . The utterances of responsible German statesmen and the domestic policy of the Nazi Government during recent weeks seem to show that the old, overbearing, brutal, militaristic spirit of pre-war Germany is not as dead as Herr Hitler would have the world believe.”Footnote ⁴¹ By essentializing pre-war Germany as a brutish and bellicose nation, the Baptist Times painted the current German regime with the same guilt claims of the Versailles Treaty.

German Baptist Carl Schwill countered this article with an excoriating response in Der Wahrheitszeuge (August 6, 1933) that was translated by the Baptist Times (August 31, 1933). Schwill defended German nationalism against the distrust he perceived among British Baptists. “For them Germany is to this day the peace-breaker among the nations,” he railed, “and the struggle of an entire nation for freedom and the right to live means nothing more to them than the reawakening of the old, overbearing, brutal, militaristic spirit of pre-war Germany. . . . They distrust everything that is called German.”Footnote ⁴² Schwill asserted a strong German nationalism against accusations of German bellicosity and brutality. He argued against British assertions that a strong Germany meant an aggressive Germany. The Baptist Times affixed a response to Schwill that identified “a nationalism which is a deadly enemy to Christianity,” but that also assured German Baptists that: “We have confidence that . . . the heart of German Baptists has no enmity toward us, and . . . we have nothing but affection for them.”Footnote ⁴³ Shortly thereafter, the Baptist Times sought a more conciliatory tone, not wishing to unnecessarily damage relations with their co-religionists, but these tensions foreshadowed future relational difficulties stemming from British analysis of German events.

As the fifth Baptist World Congress approached, J. H. Rushbrooke provided a mediating voice between British and German Baptists. An English Baptist who studied at the University of Berlin under Adolf von Harnack,Footnote ⁴⁴ Rushbrooke married a German and served as Commissioner for Europe and then General Secretary of the Baptist World Alliance. He maintained close relationships with leaders of the Baptist Union and the editor of the Baptist Times, J. C. Carlile. In the midst of the heated debates in Der Wahrheitszeuge and the Baptist Times, Rushbrooke met with leaders of the German Baptist Union to remind them of the long history of good relations between German and British Baptists. The German Baptists received him warmly, but they restated their belief that outside observers did not appreciate the danger atheistic Communism posed in Germany.Footnote ⁴⁵ Following Rushbrooke's visit to Germany, the Baptist Times continued to cover German political developments and news concerning the Confessing Church and the Deutsche Christen’s ongoing struggle for influence in the Reich Church, but disagreements between British and German Baptists were no longer featured. The sudden cessation of debate following Rushbrooke's visit to Germany may be attributed to the approaching Baptist World Congress and the desire to present a united front in the months preceding it. To this end, Rushbrooke and others wrote in the Baptist Times and Der Wahrheitszeuge promoting the congress.

From September 1933 until the congress in August 1934, relations between German and British Baptists began to normalize. The Baptist Times printed numerous articles encouraging British Baptists to visit Germany and to support their counterparts by attending the congress. An article from September 1933 recounts a holiday taken by six German, one Dutch, and seventeen British young Baptists in the Rhineland—it even reported that everyone enthusiastically greeted Hitler as he passed on a steamboat!Footnote ⁴⁶ Rushbrooke became a regular contributor to the Baptist Times, writing articles about the World Congress, inviting British Baptists to travel to Germany, and offering advice on proper etiquette.Footnote ⁴⁷ Rushbrooke was also quoted often by Der Wahrheitszeuge, including from an interview in The Times in which he discussed the guarantee of freedom of speech at the congress.Footnote ⁴⁸ The Baptist Times also printed an invitation to the World Congress from German Baptist elder and BWA Vice President F. W. Simoleit.Footnote ⁴⁹

In spite of the positive press concerning the Baptist World Congress, the Baptist Times editor J. C. Carlile still considered Berlin's hosting of it a dilemma. He went so far as to caution international Baptists to practice restraint, for, he argued: “It would be foolish and fatal for speakers to denounce the German Government. Their utterances might be cheered by delegates from other lands, but would cause consternation among Germans.”Footnote ⁵⁰ Despite assurances to the contrary, British Baptists continued to question whether a democratic religious body could successfully meet in Nazi Germany. The Röhm Putsch heightened these concerns as the Nazi regime murdered dozens in the National Socialist Party, former Center Party leaders, and others who were deemed ideologically unreliable. While Der Wahrheitszeuge largely remained silent about the Putsch, it seemed to confirm earlier British Baptist condemnations of Nazi brutishness.Footnote ⁵¹

The rise of National Socialism led to tensions among British and German Baptists. Both groups espoused the doctrine of the separation of church and state, and they had intentionally identified with one another throughout their shared history. When British Baptists voiced concerns that brutal measures were symptoms of inherent bellicosity in Nazi ideology, German Baptists heard only the identification of the new regime with the war-guilt blame thrust upon Wilhelmine Germany. Thanks largely to the influence of J. H. Rushbrooke, these escalating tensions were set aside in view of the approaching World Congress, which would prove a high point of British and German Baptist relations in the interwar period.

IV. The Fifth Baptist World Congress, August 1934

German and British Baptists alike celebrated 1934 as a year of anniversaries: it marked the centenary of the founding of the first German Baptist church, the birth of Charles Spurgeon (the most famous of all nineteenth-century Baptist preachers), and it commemorated the death of William Carey. Der Wahrheitszeuge included an image of Oncken, Lehmann, or Köbner, with Oncken's motto “Every Baptist a missionary,” in every issue that year and recognized Carey and Spurgeon with lengthy retrospectives.Footnote ⁵² As discussed above, the centenaries of Oncken, Spurgeon, and Carey figured prominently in the organization and presentation of the fifth Baptist World Congress as all national Baptist groups claimed and shared these heroes. Oncken's call for every Baptist to be a missionary unsurprisingly resonated throughout the proceedings. The fifth Baptist World Congress exhibited Baptist unity as delegates from around the world approved resolutions and measures in support of the separation of church and state and opposing racialism, chauvinistic nationalism, and war with near unanimity.Footnote ⁵³

The Baptist World Alliance was an unprecedented international fellowship of Baptists responsible for the organization of the Baptist World Congress. The BWA began as a voluntary organization in 1905 intended “to be a forum for fellowship, an agency of compassion, a voice of liberty, an instrument of evangelism, and a channel of communication.”Footnote ⁵⁴ The BWA served as an extension of various Baptist associations, unions, and conventions. Anglo-American Baptists envisioned it as a voluntary organization that exercised no hierarchical authority but that allowed diverse Baptist groups to unite for encouragement and mutual assistance. The first World Congress was held in London in 1905, and in Philadelphia in 1911, delegates voted to hold a congress every five years. The third congress was slated for Berlin in 1916, but the events of World War I postponed it indefinitely. It reconvened in Stockholm in 1923 and then in Toronto in 1928.

Although the BWA accepted the German Baptists’ invitation to hold the fifth congress in Berlin at the 1928 congress in Toronto, the congress in Berlin faced financial, political, and logistical obstacles, as well as dissenting voices among international Baptists. Baptists in the United States, Australia, Scotland, England, and the Soviet Union called upon the BWA to denounce Hitler's policies or even to reject the invitation to Berlin.Footnote ⁵⁵ In February 1934, American historian Conrad Moehlman proclaimed the dire need to stand against Nazism in his “The Baptists are Going to Berlin.”Footnote ⁵⁶ Moehlman challenged the German Baptists to read Mein Kampf and to summarize National Socialism for the international group. Moehlman voiced an anxiety shared by many: “Suppose one of those radical, irrepressible Baptists decides to speak his mind? Suppose the [N]azis discover that Baptist fundamentals include democracy, rule of the majority, the autonomy of the local church, missionary work among Negroes and Asiatics, peace, brotherhood, the kingdom of God?”Footnote ⁵⁷ The separation of church and state and liberty of conscience represented two key convictions common among the vast majority of Baptists worldwide and concerns about these rights were answered with surprising guarantees by the Nazi government.

In spite of a program that included reports from commissions on nationalism and racialism, German government authorities guaranteed freedom of speech for the World Congress delegates. The German Embassy in Washington reported rumors that some in the BWA were considering relocating the 1934 Congress to Zurich. The embassy related to the Foreign Ministry the enormity of the Baptist movement, which consisted of over 12 million members worldwide. They urged the Foreign Ministry to court the BWA, because the “moving of the session to a non-German site would . . . mean a very regrettable vote of no confidence for the new Germany.”Footnote ⁵⁸ In turn, the Foreign Ministry wrote to BWA Vice President and German Baptist Missions Director Friedrich Wilhelm Simoleit guaranteeing support and requesting updates on preparations.Footnote ⁵⁹ Simoleit travelled to New York to speak to the BWA Executive Committee in favor of holding the congress in Berlin. He informed the committee that government authorities had examined the congress program and were willing to grant full liberty of speech to all delegates (as no explicit mention of National Socialism was outlined). His assertion was supported by assurances from the Foreign Ministry and even by a telegram from Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda Joseph Goebbels.Footnote ⁶⁰

In spite of financial difficulties, political fears, and international dissent, the fifth Baptist World Congress convened as scheduled on August 4, 1934. The Congress opened with a greeting from Simoleit, in which he attempted to set the tone in terms of the separation of church and state. He proclaimed: “The character of this Congress, according to its constitution and its tradition, is thoroughly religious. We are not concerned with the political conditions in any land that is represented here.”Footnote ⁶¹ Though freedom of speech had been granted to the delegates, the German Baptists desired to avoid any negative mention of the Nazi state or its policies. Certainly, memories of the recent bloodshed of the “Night of Long Knives” cast a long shadow on this guarantee of free speech, as even leading Nazis were not safe from the regime if deemed ideologically unreliable. Moreover, in return for freedom of speech, the delegates were subjected to propagandistic speeches from the Oberbürgermeister of Berlin and representatives of the Reich Church and the Deutsche Christen. In light of this, American Baptist John Sampey quipped: “The German authorities . . . were resolved to explain to us the principles of the National Socialistic Party.”Footnote ⁶² Though unimpressed by Nazi propaganda, congress attendees listened politely to state representatives for the sake of their hosts.Footnote ⁶³

The fifth Baptist World Congress differed from previous congresses that centered on discussion forums, sermons, and efforts of missions and evangelism because it was the first to include reports from commissions sanctioned at the Toronto congress of 1928. They included 155 “representative men and women” from forty-five different countries. These commissions took up five pressing ethical issues: nationalism, racialism, family morality, temperance, and economics. Rushbrooke acknowledged that these reports could not possibly reflect the opinion of all Baptists in every aspect, but he hoped “that they [would] provide evidence of a common mind and outlook, so that they [might] be commended to our constituent bodies as guides to definite action and a starting point for further study.”Footnote ⁶⁴ All five commissions also reflected key issues for the Nazi regime, which had proclaimed a return to family morality, temperance, and economic recovery. The reports on nationalism and racialism were most relevant to German and British Baptist relations, as nationalism and racial ideology were key components of National Socialism that caused concern among other European nations. By the time of the congress, the regime had already passed laws removing Jews from civil service positions and severely limiting their access to universities due to supposed racial inferiority.Footnote ⁶⁵

The commission on nationalism's report denounced “chauvinistic nationalism” and was approved unanimously. Still, the rejection of chauvinistic nationalism concerned German Baptists because of its apparent challenge to National Socialism. Paul Schmidt illustrated this anxiety with both his request that the report be amended prior to the congress and an attempt to redirect denunciations of nationalism away from German nationalism at the congress.Footnote ⁶⁶ It is unclear whether he was told to make this request by governing authorities or if he feared potential repercussions if the commission denounced German nationalism explicitly. Upon the completion of the report, Schmidt opened discussion and sought to divert attention away from concrete applications to the National Socialist platform by framing the conversation in terms of the separation of church and state. He explained: “Before the Church of Christ may pronounce on the subject in the sense of the leading proposals before us, she must note the line of demarcation between the realm of the Church and its order, and the realm of the world State and its order, and seek for fundamental divine principles.”Footnote ⁶⁷ He stressed that the Church belonged to the order of redemption (Heilsordnung), whereas nations and governments belonged to the order of the world (Erhaltungsordnung). Such a division meant that the church should pursue social justice and inculcate peace, but it must avoid “direct political counsels and demands.”Footnote ⁶⁸ Schmidt thus successfully redirected the conversation away from Nazi chauvinism and toward the separation of church and state.

Although many international Baptists agreed with Schmidt's emphasis on the separation of church and state, the thinly veiled anti-Semitic response of another German Baptist pastor surprised them. Heinrich Fiehler—father of the Nazi Oberbürgermeister of Munich, Karl FiehlerFootnote ⁶⁹—challenged the report's blanket denunciation of nationalism. He argued that all nations and races were equal before God, but that if a race proved harmful to a nation, that nation could place barriers against the offending race in self-defense.Footnote ⁷⁰ The Congress overwhelmingly rejected this reference to the Nazi party line that Jews posed a threat to the German Volk, and in spite of Fiehler's challenge, the report passed unanimously. As this unanimous agreement illustrated, nationalistic debates among German and British Baptists were not inevitable and further cooperation between the groups could be expected.

From its multinational and multiethnic constituency to its forceful condemnation of racialism (and specifically anti-Semitism), the Baptist World Congress stood against National Socialist ideology. The congress included delegates from over thirty-five countries, and although it mostly featured speakers of European descent, both an African American Baptist leader and a pastor from India gave well-received addresses. The German publication of congress minutes included many more pictures than the English publication, illustrating the diversity of the congress. One image of various national representatives in traditional attire featured the caption: “They came to the World Congress from all peoples (Völkern), colors, and languages.”Footnote ⁷¹ This diverse congress listened to Rev. Charles E. Wilson's presentation of the report of the commission on racialism which followed the report on nationalism. The report condemned racialism and directly attacked anti-Semitism. While it did not mention Hitler, Germany, or National Socialism, it denounced anti-Semitism declaring: “We deplore the long record of ill-usage of Jews on the part of professedly Christian nations, and declare such injustice to be a violation of the teaching and the spirit of Christ. We desire . . . to express to the Jews by word and act the spirit of Jesus Christ our Lord.”Footnote ⁷²

The forcefulness of this Christian denunciation of anti-Semitism went largely unmatched by other German Christian groups, as most did little more than speak in general terms of human dignity.Footnote ⁷³ Even when Pius XII became fully aware of the mass murder of Jews on the eastern front, the most forceful of his condemnations failed to mention Jews by name. Rather, he vaguely spoke about “hundreds of thousands of people who, through no fault of their own and solely because of their nation or their race, have been condemned to death or progressive extinction.”Footnote ⁷⁴ The Baptists’ explicit rejection of anti-Semitism in 1934 stands apart from vague proclamations of human equality given by German Catholic and Protestant leaders.Footnote ⁷⁵ Thus, it is no surprise that this condemnation of anti-Semitism elicited praise from international Jewish groups, including an article in The English Jewish Chronicle entitled “The Baptists in Berlin: Anti-Semitism Strongly Condemned.”Footnote ⁷⁶

The fifth Baptist World Congress represented the zenith of interwar British and German Baptist solidarity as they rejoiced together at the guarantee that the German Baptist churches would not be forcibly united into the Reich Church. Aside from Heinrich Fiehler's aberrant anti-Semitic comments, the congress minutes bear no further witness to overt conflict between British and German Baptists.Footnote ⁷⁷ Reich Bishop Ludwig Müller invited the BWA Executive Committee to a special meeting. Müller was cordial but firm in his assertion that the matter of the unification of the Protestant churches in Germany was only a matter of concern to Germany—a comment meant especially for British Baptists as the Baptist Times repeatedly castigated Müller for being a puppet of the Nazis. In a surprising move, however, Müller personally guaranteed that the Free Churches of Germany would not be forcibly united under the authority of the Reich Church.Footnote ⁷⁸ It is uncertain when this decision was made, but it may be assumed that its announcement to international Baptists was a calculated propagandistic move intended to draw attention away from the Kirchenkampf. Regardless of propagandistic intent, this news was welcomed. British Baptist M. E. Aubrey concluded: “If our visit to Berlin drew that promise, that alone may have made it worth while.”Footnote ⁷⁹

Discussion of the separation of church and state pervaded the Congress, and it culminated in a forceful resolution denouncing state interference in church matters. The resolution on church and state denied “the right of the State to interfere in matters of religion, and equally the right of any church to enter into such relations with the State as may compromise its witness or limit its freedom to follow the Will of Christ as revealed to its members.”Footnote ⁸⁰ This resolution passed without discussion, demonstrating the solidarity of international Baptists on this issue, but differing interpretations of this doctrine would lead to a breakdown of German and British Baptist relations in the coming years. This resolution, alongside shared declarations against nationalism and racialism, seemingly exhibited a pronounced rejection of National Socialist ideology. Yet, as National Socialism came to dominate the world stage, German and British Baptists would view these doctrines in markedly different ways.

V. German and British Baptist Relations after the World Congress, September 1934–1939

British and German Baptists alike rejoiced over the success of the World Congress. In the Baptist Times, J. H. Rushbrooke related a letter he received from a German Baptist leader: “God has protected us from all difficulties within and without, has given His grace for the Congress proceedings, and, through the marvelous fellowship with one another, has mediated to the German world a testimony from the worldwide brotherhood of Baptists. Perhaps we German Baptists have the largest gain from this Congress. In any case, an opportunity such as we never had before is opened to us in our future work.”Footnote ⁸¹ According to this attendee, the increased publicity and prestige the congress granted the small German Baptist Union furthered opportunities for ministry within the Reich. German Baptists were elated by both Müller's guarantee that they would not be absorbed into the Reich Church and by the positive publicity the Congress received in Germany. Rushbrooke went on to praise the German Baptists, saying that, in spite of occasional misrepresentation abroad: “Their loyalty and courage have not failed amid the kaleidoscopic changes that came upon their country, and they have been led through a difficult period with wisdom and tact as well as courage.”Footnote ⁸² German Baptists continued to ride the wave of enthusiasm, with Der Wahrheitszeuge featuring articles on the congress for two months. Der Hausfreund—a German Baptist newspaper published in Łódź—quoted one German Baptist attendee of the Congress: “From all the speeches, lectures, and sermons, amidst the jumble of languages, I heard two words clearly ring out: Jesus Christ. These two simple words grabbed hold of and captured me . . . they sound equally beautiful in English and German.”Footnote ⁸³ Despite differences of nationality and language, Baptists united around their common faith and mission.

Though united in a sense of accomplishment following the Congress, German and British Baptist relations soon deteriorated as British Baptists identified more and more with the Confessing Church. At the congress, British and German Baptists had supported a joint Baptist statement affirming the separation of church and state. It became apparent, however, that each group applied this doctrine differently. British church leaders viewed the Kirchenkampf in terms of liberty, heralding Martin Niemöller and other Confessing Church leaders as champions of church freedom against Nazi intrusion. In so doing, however, they failed to acknowledge several Confessing Church leaders’ support of Nazism. Confessing Church members were largely content with the established structure of the German Protestant churches, and they viewed their struggle as one of orthodoxy, not freedom. Most British discussion of the Kirchenkampf, however, framed the Confessing Church's struggle as a fight for freedom under the Nazi state, and thus called upon German Baptists to align themselves with the Confessing Church and its struggle against the state.Footnote ⁸⁴ German Baptists, however, rejected challenges to align themselves with the Confessing Church as gross misinterpretations of the Kirchenkampf.

German Baptists argued that they were free to minister without hindrance by the state, and they asserted that the Kirchenkampf was a matter of inner-church politics that did not affect them. Before the Congress, Paul Schmidt had emphatically asserted: “It is certainly not our job to represent the interests of the national church, nor are we ever to interfere in the religious conflicts.”Footnote ⁸⁵ According to the German Baptists, conflict between the Confessing Church and the Deutsche Christen arose from the marriage of church and state within German Protestant churches.

German and British Baptist relations devolved further with revelations of German Baptist self-censorship. British Baptists proclaimed upon returning from the Congress: “Fleet-street has quite a list of daily and weekly journals banned by the Hitler authorities. The Baptist Times is now added to the number.”Footnote ⁸⁶ They had planned to distribute copies of the Baptist Times during the congress but were forbidden to do so once they arrived. They assumed this was an act of the Nazi state, but German Baptists informed them later “that the paper was withdrawn from circulation, not by the action of the German Government or the Police Authorities, but on the authority of the Publication Department of the German Baptist Union.”Footnote ⁸⁷ The Baptist Times printed this explanation without comment, but this event suggests that transnational Baptist cooperation was limited by German Baptist concerns of running afoul of Nazi censors. In spite of a sense of betrayal this engendered among some British Baptists, the Baptist Times did not feature any harsh critiques of the German Baptists concerning their actions during the Congress.

By the mid-1930s, the Baptist Times included more articles supporting the Confessing Church than ones that concerned German Baptists. German Baptists would continue to enjoy Nazi permissive toleration through 1937 when Baptist, Methodist, and Old Catholic leaders represented Germany at the ecumenical World Conference on Church, Community and State held in Oxford while Lutheran and Confessing Church leaders were refused passports.Footnote ⁸⁸ Bishop F. H. Otto Melle, Paul Schmidt, and Professor Rudolf Kreussen represented Methodists, Baptists, and Old Catholics respectively. Most members of the conference only learned that these leaders attended the meeting after they protested the conference's letter of support to the Confessing Church in its struggle for Christian liberty.Footnote ⁸⁹ One contributor to the Baptist Times’ “Open Forum” suggested that British Baptists should be sympathetic with German Baptists and called upon them to recall how early English Baptists would have responded to conflict between the Anglican Church and the British State.Footnote ⁹⁰ Despite the author's plea for understanding, his article met with criticism in subsequent “Open Forum” posts, in which other Baptists maintained unqualified support of Confessing Church leaders. British evangelical leaders viewed German Baptist participation at the Oxford conference as a betrayal of the Confessing Church, which nearly ended contact between the groups. They accused the German Baptists of choosing state favor over biblical faithfulness by siding with the Nazi regime against the Confessing Church. Once again, German Baptists met this charge with the assertion that the state did not limit church activities and by claiming that the Kirchenkampf was an inner-church problem that did not affect them.

The sixth Baptist World Congress, held in Atlanta in July 1939, was a low point of German and British Baptists' relations before the complete break of World War II. Although it was to be expected that the number of German Baptist delegates would decline substantially from Berlin to Atlanta due to travel expenses, the severity of this drop was staggering—from over 1,700 to six. In his opening address, “Between Berlin and Atlanta: Five Years of the History of the Baptist World Alliance,”Footnote ⁹¹ J. H. Rushbrooke, then president of the BWA, discussed the influence of the Berlin Congress. He explained that: “For months afterwards, reports of the Congress, and pamphlets dealing with it, circulated freely in Germany. I think the strongest evidence of the pervasive influence of our great gathering is the fact that some eighteen months after it had taken place the authorities suppressed the further circulation of reports.”Footnote ⁹² Rushbrooke attributed such censorship to the German public's continued interest in the congress's condemnations of war, nationalism, and racialism.

The threat of war loomed large over the sixth Baptist World Congress, which contained many addresses related to contemporary political events, including: “What Baptists Can Do to Avert War and Promote Peace,” “The Present Crisis and Evangelical Religion,” and “Christianity and the Totalitarian State.” These addresses denounced Nazi interference with German pulpits and decried the lack of religious freedom in Germany. M. E. Aubrey, General Secretary of the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland, praised Martin Niemöller alongside Saint Paul, Martin Luther, and Thomas Cranmer as a victim of a godless state whose name would be remembered long after his oppressors were forgotten.Footnote ⁹³ Aubrey's speech aptly summarized the sentiments of previous speakers who addressed the situation of the German churches. Paul Schmidt immediately followed Aubrey's address with a speech entitled, “Liberalism, Collectivism, and the Baptists.” Schmidt retorted: “We might well have given an account of actual conditions in Germany, but no one at this Congress has thus far asked us to do so.”Footnote ⁹⁴ He went on to chastise Aubrey, and others, for identifying the Church of Christ with a single political system, namely liberal democracy. He argued that the church would not wield lasting influence on worldly governments until the return of Christ. This moment reflected the growing tension between these groups following the fifth Baptist World Congress in Berlin as both sides dug in their heels in defense of their respective national political identities. Any hopes for reconciliation were dashed a few weeks later with Germany's invasion of Poland and the advent of the World War II.