"A Few Human Beings Walking Hand in Hand": Margarete Susman, Leonhard Ragaz, and the Origins of the Jewish-Christian Dialogue in Zurich

Abstract

On New Year’s Eve of 1933 a train carrying a single passenger crossed the border into Switzerland. The passenger was the German-Jewish poet, philosopher, and literary critic Margarete Susman (1872-1966). Reflecting on the reasons for her departure, Susman later recalled: “When I left … my true Heimat I did so above all as a German who could not bear this new Germany. The Jewish destiny was not apparent in its entire horror at the time.”1 Sixty-one years old at the time of emigration, Susman was granted asylum in Switzerland. Soon, she would find a spiritual home among the religious socialists that had begun coalescing around the figure of the Protestant theologian Leonhard Ragaz (1868-1945) almost three decades earlier.2 It is her involvement in this leftist religious movement with its emphasis on dialogue between members of different creeds that constitutes the core of this article.3 The aim of genuine dialogue is to understand one’s partner, not to convert him or her to one’s own viewpoint. “Dialogue speaks to the Other with a full respect of what the Other is and has to say” in the words of religious scholar Edward Kessler. “This is never less than personal but can develop in such a way as to be extended to a group and even to communities. However, it begins with the individual and not with the community.”4 Kessler’s emphasis on the individual basis of dialogue is particularly pertinent to this inquiry. Susman and Ragaz were both interested in how each faith helped illuminate the other, sometimes to the point of blurring crucial doctrinal distinctions. Ultimately, their intellectual engagement centered on the urgent attempt to come to terms with some of the most pressing religious questions of their day. So far, this fascinating encounter has received virtually no scholarly attention, perhaps precisely because of its unorthodox nature and the difficulty of pigeonholing its protagonists.5 An inquiry into Susman’s and Ragaz’s dialogue, or “faith conversation” (Glaubensgespräch) as she called it, is important not only for the light it sheds on the intellectual and spiritual life of one German-Jewish émigré and a renegade Swiss pastor, but also for the time and place of its occurrence. The fact that this interaction took place in unoccupied German-speaking Europe, at a time when Jews had become social pariahs and ultimately victims of genocide, challenges the conventional understanding of the incipience of the Jewish-Christian dialogue after the Holocaust.6 Though Susman’s concern for interreligious dialogue did not amount to formal participation in an institutionalized network – which in any case did not exist at the time – I argue that her and Ragaz’s efforts constituted an important precursor to the phenomenon of interfaith encounter that suddenly burst upon the scene in postwar central Europe. Despite its uncongenial political climate, German-speaking Switzerland provided the essential cultural environment for their dialogue.7 Like so many members of the secularized Jewish bourgeoisie in the German Empire, Margarete Susman grew up largely divorced from her Jewish heritage. A daily prayer and the annual Christmas tree seem to have been the family’s only concessions to religious custom. When Margarete was ten, her family left her native Hamburg for Switzerland, apparently for economic reasons. For the next several years she was educated in the Protestant faith at the public school she attended in Zurich. It was not until she was already in her early twenties, having moved back to Germany, that she sought the instruction of the Reform rabbi Caesar Seligmann. At the time, she was scarcely aware of the differences between Christianity and Judaism, as she later remembered: “Back then the distinction between Judaism and Christianity had almost melted away in my soul. I perceived Christianity in Judaism and Judaism in Christianity. And yet, [my] profound love for Christ notwithstanding, the High Priest’s tearing of the garment in the face of the incarnate son of the One whom no eye may behold has always remained an ultimate truth for me.”8 Whether she actually justified her loyalty to Judaism in these terms at the time is of course doubtful. In any case, Seligmann’s teachings made a profound impact on her.9 To the end of her life she would be attracted to such Reform tenets as Judaism’s role as a ‘world religion’ and the Jews’ messianic mission. Despite a slowly growing interest in the Jewish faith, Susman was still preoccupied with Christianity. This preoccupation received a strong impetus when she became engaged to the non-Jewish painter Eduard von Bendemann. Encouraged by her prospective in-laws, she planned to convert but pulled back from an already scheduled baptism at the last moment. It suddenly became utterly impossible for her, she would subsequently recall, to abandon the “foundations” of her life.10 Her scruples notwithstanding, she would raise her only son Erwin, born in 1906, in the Christian faith – precisely because she herself had so painfully felt her exclusion from the “brilliant” world of Christianity.11 It stands to reason that her sympathy for Christianity affected her understanding of Judaism and what it meant to be Jewish. The decisive fact of her refusal to convert, however, speaks volumes of her life-long loyalty to the ancestral faith. As was the case with many of her intellectual peers, the First World War proved to be an extremely traumatic and transformative event for Susman. For the first time in her life she became aware of the devastating impact of history on human life. It dawned on her that henceforth it would be impossible to live a life of apolitical detachment. This realization did not translate into active political engagement, at least not within the confines of a particular party. Instead, Susman now turned her energies towards lecturing and writing on issues that were more explicitly socio-political as well as Jewish.12 From 1925 onwards she contributed to some of the Weimar Republic’s most prominent Jewish periodicals including Der Jude and Die Kreatur.13 Professional success might have alleviated, but could not undo, personal calamity. In the late twenties her marriage fell apart, and Susman suffered a deep depression from which she recovered only slowly. No doubt work provided a palliative to her misery. When she finally left Germany at the end of 1933, never to return to the land of her birth, she had gained a reputation as one of Germany’s most insightful commentators on intellectual, religious, and literary trends. In emigration Susman’s material situation In to a she had to her which in her having to for an she did not from up she was to herself for a time by writing for and including Ragaz’s a particularly had attracted the eye of the she was a left and from and – a she to in by a a she now on the of including the Ragaz family who helped her way of life in a on the and her in by her Leonhard Ragaz in particular became a intellectual and Susman’s by Ragaz had up as one of of a in Despite the family’s economic it was that the Leonhard school and On in and to work as a Protestant pastor, first in a then at the In the of for at by the a German and of Ragaz it to with what the and of the and the at As a felt from the Christian with their emphasis on the In a to towards the end of the First World that it had not been for their would have up years and become a In finally the to from and on what true From now on Ragaz would all energies to the religious and political of which took place in the a and for that in a in Zurich. At the of this was Ragaz’s to the religious of and only did Jews the at the some also to the Judaism was the of of the In a religious with several explicitly to even so as to the to No that the Jewish him to on Judaism and Christianity and that the Jewish on the of a new Ragaz was of the of Christian the but to have no understanding for Jewish In of Judaism to be of in a in Der for the Jewish were the central of the among the may well have to Jews more to but it at a In a on at the Ragaz of the figure of many the of Christ and profound to the of the to this of as the of the Jewish religious was a of Christianity. the Jews had only Ragaz in a that still one had so and To this the of and – that is It was a Susman to made Ragaz so a in dialogue with Jews was to and In at the had that sought to the Christian and with the of is no had is how I and it Ragaz’s on this to Jews in dialogue on a of is and to have its in emphasis on the of a true in can be to the of the as well as the movement that helped religious The to to interested from different and was precisely for its Ragaz any or at or An of the and to not any of of any Whether was always to to this to be As the and then the Ragaz became more by of and both of which were with of the of To the Swiss were from towards Jews and political who the border from 1933 Ragaz and family had their for The Ragaz became the first point for many in Susman having been one of In in Ragaz and family were to live up to the of the of and on from a to a renegade and social was did the between and Jews into In an late in life Margarete Susman her understanding of the or of Judaism and Christianity as Judaism for the Christianity has already … the as well as the the of the is on the it is one and faith and the the love which the the among as the true in both As Ragaz had in early Judaism and Christianity were in one from one to one of the that from what called the with nature and above life and And it was understanding of that had to and true – in the of the Susman as the Ragaz to be and that human history In were one and the Like Ragaz the as a of history – more not only as any but as most important of was that the not only in history in but that it actually as in the to Die As a of the world as and still in the of and not only was still in the of As it, is the of the new and the new in which did the Jews into this and for Ragaz the of could not be the the Jews were the had been the messianic for on the had even as that the had already was in was Judaism’s of the figure of Christ as the and return to – only then would the true as Ragaz it come into this the of a point that Ragaz’s of a true that a messianic Christianity with a Judaism that Christ even to a of Jews of The in of Ragaz’s in the of religious by such as and the perhaps more than any with individual Ragaz’s for the interreligious dialogue and the not respect among Jewish The impact of to not be as the Jewish German religious the years of the Jews such as from Ragaz’s in a a which would never be by the This was Ragaz that had more in with Jews such as than with most for having recovered the and that felt almost to than to and to than to Christian the in a to of in the true of even when the political had begun to it from the notwithstanding, it would be to that and Ragaz’s in the with one of particularly with that had to be and of a new would be however, in this as or as an attempt at Jews into the Christian was at was a of both Judaism and Christianity that Ragaz essential for the of the In Ragaz a which as a and In the the to a – perhaps to Susman’s of the in an on in the Weimar The to to illuminate the and that made an encounter from different The up Ragaz’s as first had to become true and Jews true only then could work towards the realization of for faith had to with the that the of on was its ultimate that is with the of a point of that was to both true in Ragaz’s meant the of as of Jewish in as the last of a of in had to that the of the of had not been ultimate was still was some for both – to with the of the a basis for an encounter in the and This and between true and true Jews was to be in the by the of one the other, by of all by but in a different by of a the of each to and then by the of each to that which the had the of of and now a new for the the to Christ in this not only to Christ but was to be in In a personal Susman later to be in the Ragaz explicitly her on the of the Her to it had been to but not only in the of had of Though the Jewish of was an important concern to and the not place of Judaism in in In this as to Judaism was and is only a of my this to my faith in the of For the of the of the One all of and many Jews received Ragaz’s of a with to the The a of Though the was by no Ragaz was in role in the Swiss it him that efforts to a between the creeds were not perceived as the not have been it the of when the and with which even the Jews to the had the of to was now on a has and have – – not even Ragaz to would at least have constituted a genuine a Ragaz aware of the nature of For the Jews had been of and all of a the who one of their precisely of the that of having to Ragaz’s particularly the of in the of the Jews was in full full to the Susman him the as of Swiss less of as a In a Jewish on of she had for the first time, she how the Jews felt by the figure of In their she Christ was a to their own and to their loyalty and Ragaz that by no had all Jews on and then a crucial in one when of It was a she herself had Susman’s notwithstanding, it that she would have with of what called Her own had provided her with to the and nature of the what would she have that the and of the of had always been in the of a It was this Ragaz that had had to the of who had to be the the situation was no destiny in the of the to this as well to her, and as was not that she convert, for it was precisely her that her to between Jews and Susman took her role as she with Ragaz’s is from her for the but ultimately in the religious Der Ragaz could have for a more from a The was of an understanding so and the of which have not in the entire history of Susman The was in of Judaism and Christianity and did not to for the figure of both had Ragaz did not engaged in a between of the the Jewish was at this particular it was upon Susman to to this that did not to convert but to For this was not the of faith that had place the Weimar had genuine she these efforts which had of the in an as she it, Ragaz’s attempt had from within the and was less than a for the of was particularly Susman in of the fact that Ragaz was to the Jews in be no the particular Jewish the as the realization of the true The ultimate aim of – how could it be – was ultimate aim of history to all Christ as the of all was this not in Christianity the all to the as for Ragaz’s and Susman’s and for the of their one but at the of such at a time when a Christian was in the of to the Jewish Susman’s of her her in Jews such as the her of not how she to this Though she by she her role as an Ragaz and the is she to her I have now how and how of a I even for the Susman’s to Ragaz and her in a in of the fact that towards the end of life Ragaz to a for a of the in Christian than to some Judaism would it did not to was not and the in to the with and the of could be As in the of the Jewish or to last on Judaism and Christianity had in a from of the to the tree no in Judaism and Christianity of I Christianity … to be and Judaism the Susman is no she would it be for it to at the of the destiny as it so in her Judaism and Christianity the the one as a the as an individual In Ragaz had made the The of from the that also Christianity. The fact that this the of Christianity not It is an of that Christianity and Judaism on the Christianity – of the that the – and as well as in and many of its this was a more devastating and on the In to understand to such Susman to the of could the Jewish destiny be in light of the of the of the and years of writing what would to be her most important Susman was in with both in and by and In this in of its most or were at least in the dialogue with In its a of the of with of the entire Jewish In this the destiny of the by a of more stands as the of the Jewish the destiny of a with the of for it has not For to live in the full of and the of this is what the of is ultimately meant to be Jewish – to and not to the of the even only Susman that it was not up to to no how and might to the of the had the of in the this had only been with and to she it had not been the by the on life that had a new among the a that after of and had finally the to no Susman is not to the of a return to a but to the of the – the of a to the world for the of the The way she it, was of a of faith, a of life. the is it in The however, an to the end of And a crucial in Jews to the Like Ragaz as the of who with and who among the of Ragaz as the of Susman as the of the messianic as it was not to as in the of In Susman had Ragaz how she had been by one of on the of a this new world were to Ragaz apparently had it would largely be to in world history – a that had her however, she her difficulty in to the that had actually in her Susman had to the Jewish of the of her she was in for a The to the because of its non-Jewish her one of the of the her that her had to essential it did not with between Judaism and and it than the Jewish towards and the of Judaism however, as a to the in which as spiritual Susman had no more with non-Jewish and of the on of its which of as an In the the was by of Zurich. the its for a by Susman’s Like her a German-Jewish the to Other Jewish were for the scholar of the was affected by the particularly its first and in a way that Susman as and Susman’s first of Judaism, Caesar to be by the had it three and each time had been more Susman’s who had been from the in Susman had to and Jewish in its entire with all the and with all and and with an and that was To be was with her on a Jewish which a Christian may as but it at a Susman’s by a no a Jewish Christian up on the of and between the An for Susman that a group of and were to Susman have to this for several later that her was for because it is a for to the understanding of with and an could such such as these the Christian were to from Susman’s Whether the of her is a different A at the impact of is important for what it the Susman was and by both Jews and To be her unorthodox to the of in with her left her to from the Jewish as well as the Christian Susman to have some of these still in the of she to to as I had suddenly a new of Ragaz’s and I – for more than one Susman on a crucial point her with not to Jews such as her of having come to And Susman’s to that she was aware of how her had from was a but so was of would have engaged in dialogue with the had it not been for their on the of their And – and this point to be and – were from the of a and a As Susman herself had to the Jews and had to each on a basis of to to as Christian and In the she never of that Leonhard Ragaz on after the end of the World War in Europe. did not live to the of interreligious and that to the German and Swiss social after Margarete however, was a of and in this In she took in a of and Jews by the At the she helped the Her involvement with Ragaz had the way for her engagement in the Jewish-Christian Susman and Ragaz engaged in what constitutes a provided the essential basis for this dialogue because it was the religious in the of in some that such a than to an and religious religious socialists sought the realization of what Ragaz called the of a even the of as Ragaz it in on the their as from the institutionalized dialogue that after as from such as in it an of of different religious and for some of their most pressing and of interreligious dialogue not to the different such took in the the of the in which Ragaz and Susman to each be When Jews Christian to in religious in the Weimar these were all by what one might the between the only did the almost always with Jews – a of interest on the Christian – but respect was in these At its most this of respect was in and at to and the of Christianity the essential of a interreligious dialogue were from these between the in dialogue and of all of In the case of Margarete Susman and the religious socialists around however, the three for dialogue were all the to the of the the of the and the of the for the This last is of particular I would to all from what by the of dialogue to to the of the of the in the words of the of the three As have Susman was to Christianity than many of her Jews felt can be no however, that she of herself as a In a a Jewish the by which and their in their with and is the one can to the Jewish individual within the individual aim the first of the – and is almost strong a – that first when in the of the world and by that for the first time to the to an old for Though Susman to in some way her understanding of what was to be of a to When her only son Erwin, whom she had as a was to Judaism, she a even a is the of that only a who has no of Judaism is of One not convert to Judaism as to one has it in or it by The is one is not born a but a by to in this of destiny In a of of as a daily might of the daily to be of the Jewish And for Susman this a faith between Jews and As as Ragaz was for the of the and have been well aware that sympathy for and the left made him in their but this did not him from at did not doubt the genuine nature of Christianity. sympathy for Judaism, and the of at a time when such were the of in the of this inquiry was as a to with And this was and No Ragaz would have been moved by the fact that the him as one of the the was to the who had to a true understanding between the of and a true of an as which would on a Jewish a Christian but on that of the of and of the of the between the personal and the of the dialogue with by of by and in the was for him the dialogue between these The to Susman who was even more aware of the of the Jewish-Christian dialogue and of the and of the attempt to a a At the time of the Jews’ Margarete Susman the the of the which the world to up with its true between a and a of constitutes a of from a of the messianic