The girl that could not be named Esther
- -
- 100%
- +
He didn’t stay. When word got out that he would not receive the position of pastor in Spenge, his supporters assembled in protest, something unprecedented at that location. Two- to threehundred Protestants blocked the parish house and railed against the church authorities who had ordered the transfer of Assistant Pastor Luncke. The police had to be called to break up the meeting.17› Reference
His ordination as pastor, which finally took place on August 18, 1935, in Gelsenkirchen-Bulmke, met with unusual difficulties, which Luncke — and not Luncke alone — attributed to the Nazi-sympathizing German Christians (G.C.). In this vein, the congregation of Bulmke questioned the Confessional Synod of the Province of Westphalia on June 28, 1935 about the possible intervention of the German Christians:
Your refusal of ordination must certainly have been done with blinders on. Or might the refusal have been the fruit of meetings with three G.C. [German Christian] men last Monday at the consistory office?
Luncke belonged to the Confessing Church, which fought against National Socialist church policy and its puppets, the German Christians. He spoke out quite frankly, even though the Confessing Church had its cautious and lukewarm members as well. Belonging to the Confessing Church did not mean unambiguous opposition to the Third Reich. Traditional Lutheran ideas on obedience to authority, which appeared in the circles of the Confessing Church as well, could accommodate the brown shirts who held power. Besides them, there were of course the German Christians, who were faithful to the Nazis.
In Gelsenkirchen, in the immediate vicinity of Friedrich Luncke, the Superintendent in charge was Theobald Lehbrink, whom we recently met in our search for Pastor L. from G. At Christmastime 1935, Lehbrink authored a nasty tract entitled On God and Authority, which was nothing more than National Socialist propaganda expressed in theological vocabulary. The style shows what was going on in the heads even of theologians. The Swiss theologian Karl Barth, the Father of the Confessing Church, had been a professor at the University of Bonn until the end of 1934. Since he had refused to take the oath of service to the Fuehrer, prescribed as of August 1934, he had been discharged. Lehbrink wrote the following about him:
A theologian like him seems a noxious weed to every National Socialist who understands the Fuehrer and his inexpressible deeds for Germany’s welfare...
A holy rage should come over us when we use our yardstick of Luther against the unbiblical and anti-German thought of Karl Barth, the chief inspiration of the Barmen Confessional Synod, the Swiss foreigner, the one-time Social Democrat...18› Reference
Lehbrink gets worse, as he merges the Crusaders’ cry of Deus Vult! — God wills it! with the triumphant model of the Protestant Reformer to create a hymn to Adolf Hitler. Even the party-faithful comrades might have thought that he had gone too far, had they received this sorry work to read:
“Since our heart belongs to God, it also belongs to this genuine revolutionary, who is leading the God-created people of our ancestors and of our posterity into the promised land of the future. We will be faithful to him to our last breath, for: ‘God wills it!’...
The Fuehrer Adolf Hitler, by the good and gracious will of God, has overcome the deadly rule of liberalism for the good of the widest possible living space for the German people. He rules and guides the existence of the entire nation according to ‘natural’ laws of life as set down by God, which are inspired by a single Will, all to insure the existence of the People for all eternity. Since the Third Reich is being led according to God’s laws of creation and preservation, we must cast off the theologian Karl Barth, the effect of whose teachings can be identified with the spread of liberalism...
Martin Luther overcame mortal sin against the belief of our people and by the truth of God became the great reformer of the way of life of all men. Adolf Hitler overcame mortal sin against the life our people and thus gives Christians the God-given opportunity to proclaim themselves ready to undergo a test of the truth of God for the life of faith of all men.“19› Reference
The Third Reich and God’s laws, Hitler as a God-given opportunity and as one who has overcome mortal sin, Karl Barth as a foreigner and former Social Democrat, as a noxious weed who must be driven out. Wasn’t Superintendent Lehbrink verging on sacrilege with such words? Wasn’t the idolatrous placing of Hitler on the level of the Messiah pure blasphemy? What need did the German Christians have of the Messiah from Nazareth when this one from the Austrian town of Braunau was active among them in the flesh? Where was the church protest, where was the lightning which should have struck against such profanity? We know nothing at all of any response to this tract.
Still, the language of the ecstatic Theobald Lehbrink was a language that was not out of the ordinary. The language had been long prepared; it was well entrenched even before 1933. Deeply entrenched.
In opposition, there stood the Confessing Church. Not that resistance was the rule in the Confessing Church, not through silent protest and not through word and deed. It was rather the exception. Protestantism, too, could show a significant anti-Semitic tradition, one which was not so easy to lay aside. In Bismarck’s day (chancellor, 18641888), the well-known royal court preacher Adolf Stoecker had not only preached anti-Semitism; he had also made it the center of his Christian party platform. Consider this – on December 11, 1935, the Confessing Church celebrated Stoecker’s 100th birthday. You could hardly hush up his struggle against the Jews.
The Temporary Leadership of the German Evangelical Church went even further. They sang the praises of Stoecker’s campaign against the spirit of unbridled egoism and unbounded arrogance; they lauded Stoecker with words applicable to their own times:
He saw this spirit of the age driven by a Jewry disengaged from its religious roots and by an irresponsible liberal press. He took up arms against both of them.20› Reference
The courage to resist the spirit of the times that now appeared was the exception. The brave ones included Pastor Luncke from Leithe, who laid into the German Christians in a controversy between the Evangelical Church Service Club for Men, maintained by the Confessing Church, and the German Evangelical Men’s Group, set up by the German Christians as a competing group. He accused the German Christians of deceit, and if something was fraudulent in his eyes, he let everyone know it.21› Reference He even got involved physically when some German Christians tried to take over his pulpit. He grabbed the intruders by the collar and singlehandedly threw them out of the church.22› Reference
Despite all its weaknesses, the Confessing Church provided the theological support that was indispensable even for men like Friedrich Luncke. In its theological declaration of May 1934, the denominational synod of Barmen had formulated six church truths23› Reference against the errors of the ‘German Christians’ and the present-day national church administration that are ravaging the churches and destroying the unity of the German Evangelical Protestant Church. In this cry for help, dramatically underscored with the Latin closing words, Verbum Dei manet in aeternum — The word of God remains for ever and ever — the Confessing Church spoke out clearly against the false teachings of National Socialism. Here is an example of what they said:
We reject the false teaching that the church, which is the source of the word of God and the source of its teaching, can and must recognize other events and powers, figures and truths as God’s revelation...
We reject the false teaching that there are areas of our lives in which not Jesus Christ but other lords are sovereign, areas in which we do not need Him for salvation and healing...
We reject the false teaching that the church should turn over the shape of its mission and its order to the discretion of others, or that it should turn over such definition to the currently ruling world view and political outlook of others...
We reject the false teaching that the church may with human arrogance place the word and the works of the Lord in the service of arbitrary wishes, goals, and plans chosen in some high-handed manner...24› Reference
The conflict was now an open one with the authority of the Hitler regime. The way led to the Memorandum of the Confessing Church to the Fuehrer and the German chancellor on May 28, 1936. The memorandum complained about the many forms of dechristianizing being carried on by the state. It criticized the idolatrous reverence for the Fuehrer. About the anti-Semitism in the National Socialist view of the world, the memo had this to say:
If blood, race, national traditions, and honor achieve the status of eternal values, the Evangelical Christian is forced by the First Commandment to reject this mode of thinking. While others glorify the Aryan human, the word of God testifies to the sinfulness of all men.
If Christians are required by the National Socialist world view to adopt anti-Semitism and are required to hate the Jews, this is opposed by the Christian commandment to ‘Love thy neighbor’.25› Reference
The closing words of the declaration betray an oppressive taste of the prevailing atmosphere. It was written and submitted to Hitler in 1936, two months before the beginning of the Summer Olympic Games on August 1, which would gather the youth of the world in Berlin and which were supposed to communicate and did communicate to them a spruced-up picture of the new German state. The memo ended with these words:
We ask for the freedom of our people to make their way into the future under the sign of the Cross of Jesus, so that our descendants will not curse their forefathers for having built and left behind a state on this earth while closing off to them the Kingdom of God.
The duty of our office requires us to say to the Fuehrer what we have said in this document.
The church stands in the hands of God.26› Reference
So that descendants will not curse their forefathers — Pastor Luncke could have preached that. That was his belief as well. Presumably, that is what determined the choice of a baptis-mal name for his daughter Esther. The external successes of the Third Reich, its widespread international recognition after the Olympics of 1936, the reunification with Austria in March 1938 and the practically unanimous approval of the union by the population — these did not change his negative attitude. The more the state accumulated power and external glory, the more strongly did Friedrich Luncke internalize his beliefs. When he chose his baptismal name for his daughter Esther, he consciously opposed the haughtiness of the state powers with the hymn to Christ from Paul’s letter to the Colossians:27› Reference
For in him all things were created,
in heaven and on earth,
visible and invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or
principalities or authorities —
all things were created through him and for him.
This confession of faith and the choice of the name Esther were one for the parents. They had decided on this name, which they found beautiful and appropriate. There was no family tradition to be sustained, either in the family of the pastor or in the family of his wife, of perpetuating the names of uncles or aunts, godparents or ancestors. In the choice of names, they were happily independent of such familiar constraints. They were free. Free to protest as well.
But were they really free?
Esther did not reveal her people or her kindred, for Mordecai had told her not to reveal it.
The Book of Esther, 2:10
Aert des Gelder, Esther and Mordecai, 1685
Chapter 3
There could be no unlimited freedom in the choice of a name – that much was clear to the Lunckes as well. The concern for state orderliness took precedence. Names were not strictly a private affair.
Names have always been something special. In the beginning there were only first names; people had no need of anything more to distinguish themselves. In the Bible, which is the beginning of the history of names for us, the first people were named Adam — Hebrew for human being — and Eve (Khava), which can be translated as Mother of Living Beings or Creating Life. Many biblical names are dependent on the circumstances of the birth. Very often they are plays on words, which are lost in translation. In the telling of the story of the twins Jacob and Esau, the Bible ties together a double folk etymology. Jacob (ya-akov), Hebrew for May God protect us, at birth held on to the heel (akev) of his twin brother Esau: And they called him Yaakov, 28› Reference that is, one who grabs the heel. Esau, later tricked out of his right of the first-born and of his father’s blessing, complains to his father Isaac, and says, Was he then named Jacob that he might supplant [akav- deceive] me these two times?29› Reference Akav means deceiver. The two words sounded very similar, something that allowed Esau a bitter play on words with the names. Later, after wrestling with God — I will not let you go unless you bless me — Jacob received the name Israel, which can mean he who struggles with God. 30› Reference The name Sarah, which cannot be skipped here, stands for princess or mistress. More on that later.
In the New Testament, the angel Gabriel appears to Mary and announces to her that she will bear a son, whom you shall name Jesus. 31› Reference In Hebrew this name was Yeshua, with the letter “Y” becoming “J” in English. Jeshua, Jehoshua, Joshua, or Josua — all mean God (Yahweh) helps. We will meet this name again as well.
In later periods names were supposed to be good for a healthy or lucky life. Wishes, hopes, magic, incantations – even today parents take all these into consideration when choosing names for their children. For the state, on the other hand, names principally have the function of distinguishing one individual from another. The state is interested in an orderly society. Given the large number of distinguishable family names, there must be order in given names as well.
Up to the middle of 1938 this was administered relatively liberally. According to section 1627 of the Civil Code, the father had parental power and with it the right to determine the given name of his child. There were no legal limitations on the choice of names. The only limitation lay in the old principle that given names should not be offensive to customs and order; they could not be senseless, ridiculous, or offensive.32› Reference It was in the interest of the children to put certain reins on any parental naming fantasy that got out of hand.
There were always attempts by some parents to show their political preferences or their patriotic spirit in the choice of names for their children. Bismarck as a given name was acceptable.33› Reference There was an amusing story about this. When Bismarck was still alive — he was then 70 years old — a Livonian (now part of Estonia) named Trampeldang had applied to the chancellor with the request to be allowed to name his first-born son Bismarck. Bismarck had approved, adding the personal comment, If heaven should bestow on me at my advanced aged another son, I will not miss the opportunity to let him be baptized with the name Trampeldang.34› Reference Lassaline (after Ferdinand Lassalle, considered the father of German Socialism) was approved as a girl’s name in 1912.35› Reference Inadequate regulations led to remarkable flights of fancy. Quite often such names turned out to be a burden for the children, who subsequently requested a name change.
That this form of hero worship was to be expected or even to be feared after 1933 as well is attested to by the Directive of the Minister of the Interior on July 3, 1933 (just a few days after Hitler took over the office of chancellor):36› Reference
If a registrar receives the request to register the name of the Reich Chancellor as a given name, even in the feminine form of Hitlerine, Hitlerike, or the like, he is to require that another name be chosen since the adoption of this name is unwelcome to the Reich Chancellor.
Too close an identification with the currents of the day when choosing a name had its down side as well. After a few years, the acknowledgment of this or that political orientation as expressed in a name became quite embarrassing for many a father. The post-war years had examples that were not restricted to the name Adolf, and it was the same in the Weimar period (1918-1933) and in the Third Reich (1933-1945). In such cases the district court could often be helpful after the fact. For example, in 1936 the given name Lenin, pushed through by a father for his son born in 1928, was stricken by the district court in Darmstadt on the grounds of its being offensive. The court wrote:
The surname ‘Lenin’ as a given name for a German child may have been admissible in the year 1928 in consideration of the then-reigning perception of the law. It was the expression of a time when the administration of justice demanded neutrality even in the face of forces that threatened the people. At that time there were no legal means to forbid the name ‘Lenin’ while permitting family names of historical personalities to be used as given names – e. g., Bismarck, Zeppelin, and so on. This value-free expression of justice has been superseded. Although foreign names for German citizens are not essentially inadmissible, there is no longer any room in a German birth register for the name of the Russian Bolshevik Lenin as the given name of a German child.37› Reference
We are not told exactly which new legal means had emerged, in contrast to 1928, to allow the district court to decide as it did. The applicable legislation had not changed.
The district court in Darmstadt had in any case been able to overcome the administration of a type of justice that demanded neutrality, whatever that’s supposed to mean.
All of this should have been no hindrance for the name Esther. This biblical name had nothing to do with current politics. The name was certainly not ridiculous or senseless, nor was it offensive. There was not only a book of the Bible named Esther; many authors had written about Esther, Mordecai, and Haman, including Hans Sachs, Lope de Vega, Racine, and Grillparzer. Georg Friedrich Handel had composed an oratorio on this biblical story. Even Goethe had written about Purim (in his early play Plundersweilern Fair), a Jewish festival commemorating the rescue of the Jews from Haman’s plot against them, and thus every year celebrating Queen Esther, who saved them.
Apparently even more important for the registrars in 1938 was the fact that in the German Unified Family Record Book, the name Esther stood alongside Edith, Elisabeth, and Eva.38› Reference
The family record book, which was given to Pastor Luncke on his wedding by the registrar in Wanne-Eickel, had an almost official character.39› Reference A name from the list in this unified family record book could simply not be inadmissible; it belonged, so to speak, to the canon. To be sure, the list of names differentiated between Given Names of Foreign Origin, including Esther, and the puffed-up list entitled Given Names from the Treasures of the German Past, but it nonetheless contained over one hundred female names of foreign origin without any limitation or warning. Nothing stood in the way of parents naming their daughter Esther. A limitation on the choice of this name, and thus a danger for the name Esther, could come about only if there were a legal regulation expressly forbidding such a name or if a court should find that the name Esther was offensive or a breach of morals and order.
Pastor Luncke could not foresee how his choice of the name Esther would move him to the edge of a precipice. The Lunckes could not know what state regulations were in the works and would come into effect one week after the birth of Esther. Except for a few people in the know in Berlin, no one could have explained to them that they had wandered into a sideshow of the National Socialist war against the Jews, a war in which the judicial system would participate with all its might. In matters of naming, the mills of the ministerial bureaucracy had started to turn again in 1937 and were grinding away slowly and relentlessly, but the average citizen had hardly any clue about what was going on. The judicial system gave their day in court to Pastor Luncke from Wattenscheid and the West Prussian forest ranger Cuno Lassen from the district of Marienwerder in order to set a precedent on the highest judicial level of how the administration of a type of justice that demanded neutrality could indeed be overcome. The new order had to obtain in matters of naming. The forest ranger and the pastor had never met, but the Supreme Court brought them together.
Up until the middle of 1938 the question of names, whether correct or incorrect, admissible or inadmissible, had stirred up just a few people. To be sure, even at the time of Esther‘s birth there was no biding regulation, just some very general principles for the choice of names, principles that had existed since the end of the previous century. This liberal situation was increasingly treated with hostility. A look at these voices is therefore absolutely necessary since in populist times such signals can be significant.
Sie hatte nicht gedacht,
so langen Gang zu tun mit allen Steinen,
die schwerer wurden von des Koenigs Scheinen
und kalt von ihrer Angst. Sie ging und ging –
Und als sie endlich, fast von nahe, ihn,
aufruhend auf dem Thron von Turmalin,
sich türmen sah, so wirklich wie ein Ding:
empfing die rechte von den Dienerinnen
die Schwindende und hielt sie zu dem Sitze.
Er rührte sie mit seines Szepters Spitze:
...und sie begriff es ohne Sinn, innen.
She had not thought to walk so far,
to come laden with all these jewels,
which all the time absorbing the King’s majesty
grew heavier, and colder too as they took up her fear.
Gradually she drew nearer. Now she saw
him, upright on his throne of tourmaline,
as potent as a tree or tower.
A servant by her side still steered her on
as weak with terror she began to swoon,
fell senseless to the ground before the King.
His sceptre touched her. She knew everything.
Rainer Maria Rilke, Esther, 1908
translated by Stephen Cohn
Chapter 4
Everyday citizens had no idea what was brewing under the surface, but press reports conveyed an inkling of what was going on. If you look at the professional literature of the registrars, especially the publications of the Journal of Registry Office Affairs (StAZ), even before 1933 and then afterwards you could hear the demand sounding louder and louder, German names for German children! At first, this resembled the path laid down by the campaign for the purification of the German language from Romance language influences, but after 1933 the drive became increasingly aggressive. Leaders began to lose self-control, though at first only in their language.
It began moderately in the foreword to the names section of the first edition (1921) of the German Unified Family Record Book, written by a Mr. Wlochatz, retired director of the registry office and a regular contributor to the Journal of Registry Office Affairs.
That German parents should prefer to give good German names to their children is a duty not only to their People, but even more to their children. We don’t need to be ashamed of the old German names! We have no lack of them! On the contrary – we have a rich supply of them from our Teutonic history, a host of names with a wonderful sound and with great meaning! One glance at the riches we have inherited reveals to us the depths of the Germanic soul. These names ring out with superior virtues, with the outstanding properties of the spirit and the heart of the Teutons of antiquity. The ancient Teutons were a warrior people, and many names breathe the spirit of battle and armed victories. If we were to add such names to our vocabulary, this would have the effect of eliciting in every way the heroic spirit and victorious power needed for the great struggle for existence in which we now find ourselves. The old names, resonant with battle and triumph, can be well used in a symbolic sense.40› Reference