Ambassadors Of Reconciliation

Volkmar Deile was a pastor and the director of Action Reconciliation, an organization in the German peace movement particularly active in the churches when this interview appeared. In early spring 1982 he toured the United States with other leaders of the European Peace Movement and stopped in the Sojourners office, where he was interviewed by Jim Wallis and Danny Collum.
--The Editors

Sojourners: Could you share with us your impressions of your trip through the United States?

Volkmar Deile: One of the most interesting things for us is that we have been very, very well received, and the response to us is very encouraging. It has been very surprising for us that when we have spoken in meetings, our audiences have arisen and applauded us.

We have the feeling that there is an awakening in this country about disarmament; people are interested and want to know about it. The main goal of our trip, and I think we have reached it, was to give some of our European hope on this issue.

The freeze campaign is known all over the country, although sometimes people haven't known the difference between the nuclear freeze proposal, which calls for a bilateral freeze now on all nuclear weapons, and the proposal Reagan made that first we must reach equality and then we can freeze. But at most meetings, the people knew that Reagan's proposal is a trick, using the phrases from the peace movement--the words "freeze" and "arms reduction"--but playing the old game, always saying to justify their own military buildup that we must reach equality.

On most of the phone-in talk shows we participated in, the first question was, "What about the Russians?" We met very often the fear that tomorrow the Russians will invade us if we take one step of disarmament. And that is, for us in Europe, very astonishing, because we live nearer to the Russians than the American people do.

And we ask the people who put such questions to us, have you ever spoken to people from Russia? No. Have you ever seen a Russian? No. Is there in your country an organized communist party? No. Is there in your town a man or a woman who is a communist? No. They have really no experience with communists, but they fear them as if they were coming tomorrow to invade or kill them. The feeling is very irrational.

I think that this should be one of the points about which the peace movement, and especially the church and the Christians, should speak. We have the same anti-communist fear in our country. It has been part of German tradition from the Third Reich. We try never to preach anti-communism, but also to speak our criticisms of the policies of the Soviet Union.

I think it would be very helpful to develop a program of contact between people from the U.S. churches and those in Eastern Europe. It could be the first step in understanding that not only do the American people fear the Soviets, but people living in the Soviet Union fear the Western countries.

The historical experiences of the two superpowers are very different. The United States has not had foreign soldiers on its soil for 200 years. In the Soviet Union, the remembrance of the last war is still alive.

When a couple has a wedding, they go to a place where there is a memorial of the last war. It gives their being together a deeper meaning. They remember the experience of the Second World War and the fact that they lost 20 million people. You'll find that in each family there is a living connection to this part of their history.

I think that this points to one of the main differences between the European and the North American peace movements. We in Europe started with the experience of two wars in our countries in the 20th century, while for North America, war is a foreign affair.

Sojourners: As a German, what do you think the Soviet threat is or isn't, how real or how imagined? And what should be our response to it?

Deile: Anti-communism is not just a question of propaganda. It answers people's fears. We met a young boy at a college in your country, where we had a discussion with his group about war and peace, and he said, "I don't trust anyone, and therefore I need a gun."

In another town I met an old man. He was a member of the Sons of the American Revolution, and he carried a very heavy iron stick. He told me that the Soviet Union is 10 times superior in weapons to the United States. He had been told that by his organization. Later we learned that he had his heavy iron stick not because he needs the stick, but because if he goes into the streets of his town, someone could come and take his money away or try to kill him.

There is a relationship between this kind of fear of people in their own neighborhoods and strong anti-communist feelings. In Europe we are living with the so-called Iron Curtain in the middle of our continent. The Eastern European countries have forms of society we don't want. We are glad to have a democratic society.

We in Europe, living in the nuclear age, can't imagine the possibility of a war either with nuclear weapons or with conventional weapons. It makes no difference for us. Conventional weapons are so developed that they would have the same results as nuclear weapons. So one of our main questions is how to live together with the Eastern European countries in a way that helps both of us to learn.

One of the steps we took in the past was the so-called policy of detente. We have experienced positive consequences of this policy, which I can describe in a very simple example. Before 1970 when we went from West Germany to East Berlin, we had to cross the borders twice, and at each border it took one and a half or two hours to inspect the luggage, the car, and the passports. Today we go over the border sitting in our car, giving our passport and getting it back after three or four minutes.

In earlier years it was difficult to invite people to come to meetings we held in West Germany. Now we have the possibility of inviting people who weren't allowed to travel 10 years before. Today we invite people from, perhaps, Action Reconciliation, which is in East Germany too.

There are a lot of contacts between the churches in East and West Germany. For example, on the first of September, 1979, the 40th anniversary of the beginning of the Second World War by the Germans, the East and West German Protestant churches made a common declaration asking Christians whether we can live with the nuclear threat and how we can overcome the situation in which we are knowingly doing wrong in spending money for the arms race.

There was a time when the synods of East and West Germany were still together. We had great controversies about the question of German rearmament after World War II. Then because of West Germany's integration into the Western bloc, we had an army again. The politically engaged wing of the former Confessing Church resisted this rearmament, some of them with the hope that the Germany which is not again militarized will be able to re-unify.

And then in '58, we had a very great controversy about the question of nuclear weapons. But the churches were divided as a result of the war in 1961. The church in both Germanys had to exist autonomously. Then the questions about nuclear weapons went very different ways.

There was a statement in 1965 from the federation of the Protestant churches in East Germany saying that the sign for the present love of God is the resistance to the military service. We have had at no time in the post-war history of West Germany such a statement. And in September, 1979, the East German churches got a pastoral letter from the Dutch church people. A theological study group in the federation of the Protestant churches in East Germany asked their government to answer this letter of the Dutch Reformed Church, which called for a unilateral step to disarmament. They asked for the withdrawal of the nuclear weapons carrier systems from the soil of East Germany. And that was a very revolutionary step in that kind of socialist society.

The next step was an initiative of 4,000 young Christian people who signed a declaration asking for social peace service as an alternative to military service. All the synods of the Protestant churches in East Germany supported this initiative. They haven't been successful, because in both the East and the West, governments say that peace must be armed.

The government in my country has the same worries about this pacifist stream. In 1975 the World Council of Churches asked in Nairobi that the church and Christians be prepared to live without weapons of mass destruction. Then a group grew in West Germany, "Life Without Weapons," and it collected 25,000 signatures to the WCC declaration. The signers are organized in hundreds of groups all over the country, and they are doing their work as Christians.

That worried our government so much that Chancellor Schmidt and our president took the opportunity to speak at a church during a Protestant lay people's meeting to say that the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount is only for individual Christians, and that they admired people who strive to live after this ethic, but it is not the ethic of political reality.

Our newspapers printed the Sermon on the Mount. It became a document, and the people discussed it. One of the people in the peace movement wrote a long article about what it means to love our enemies, because politicians normally understand it to mean that we are to neglect the differences and conflicts and see our enemy as a friend. He wrote that the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount is not to neglect or to deny the differences, but to work through the conflicts for the goal of reconciliation.

In East Germany a synod decided not only against deployment of nuclear missiles in Western Europe, but also asked for the reduction of the tanks and the reduction of the SS-20s in Eastern Europe. And at the anniversary of the bombardment of Dresden, 6,000 young people gathered with stickers on their jackets with the phrase, "Make peace without weapons, and turn swords to plowshares." They went to a destroyed church, which is there still today as a memory to the last war, and had a candlelight vigil and prayers.

Sojourners: Too often we in democratic countries think that we do all the work for peace, while nothing is going on in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. So we fear that we'll lose all our weapons through disarmament and give them all the advantage.

Deile: In November there was a huge women's conference about peace missions in Amsterdam, and a delegation from the Soviet Union was there. One of the consequences of this meeting was that the Soviet women who had been at the conference wrote a letter to Brezhnev asking him for an initiative on disarmament.

Last fall there was a demonstration sponsored by the government in Rumania against the deployment of nuclear missiles in Western Europe and for the reduction of SS-20s in Eastern Europe. And we have heard that there are talks between Greece and Rumania and perhaps Yugoslavia to declare a nuclear-free zone.

The Soviet Union has an interest in disarmament because of economic reasons. From people in the Soviet Union I've got the impression that growing numbers fear to be forced into an arms race that will end in bankruptcy. But they hear people in influential positions in the U.S. speak about wanting to see the Soviet Union on its knees. I'm sure the Soviet Union will take part in the arms race whenever there is the next military buildup in the West, because of their nightmares and fear. But it will create a very difficult situation for the Soviets, especially economically.

Each side has so much overkill capacity that we could take steps toward disarmament without losing any of our so-called military security; and after one, two, three, four, five steps, we will see if the other side will follow in such a process. We haven't tried this in history before. If we don't leave the logic of the arms race on this question, then I think we will have to face a nuclear war and the annihilation of humankind.

One of the parts of being prepared for a war in my country is to have this "worst-case" thinking. It is one of the most terrible things we can have, because it corrupts the policy itself. Policy is becoming more and more based on worst-case thinking rather than finding a better way of living together in more just relationship to the countries of the Third World and so on.

We are developing more and more dangerous weapons, and the technology isn't any longer under human control. The military experts say, oh, the weapons are wonderful and will avoid a war, and then, after they are deployed, we try to control the consequences politically. We put the second step before the first.

Sojourners: How would you describe the strategy of the European Peace Movement?

Deile: The most important question we have is how to reach a process of bilateral disarmament. We know the answer of arms control, and we know the answer of limiting military buildups, and both are not the answer. The theory, the philosophy, of arms control and military buildups is oriented toward reaching equality before going into a process of disarmament. With the argument that we have to reach equality in military buildups, we have justified the last 35 years of the arms race. Therefore, independent of the question of whether one is personally a total pacifist, a nuclear pacifist, or neither, we should consider the possibility of independent initiatives, or unilateral initiatives.

The situation today is one in which we can't any longer justify our military buildup by looking to the other side. Today we have to look at the responsibility we have personally, and then we should ask our governments to see their own responsibility in this question.

In Europe we have different ways of asking for this responsibility. In Scandinavia the peace movement is asking for a Nordic nuclear-free zone as the beginning of a nuclear-free Europe. In the Netherlands the peace movement is asking for a denuclearization of the country. The idea is that one country or nation gets rid of nuclear weapons, and that becomes a bilateral process of denuclearization.

We in Germany have a more difficult situation because of our history of living with a border of confrontation in our country, and it's not a reachable aim for the next few years to say we want a nuclear-free Federal Republic of Germany. We have that as a goal eventually, but we are today asking for unilateral steps in refusing the deployment of nuclear missiles on German soil and asking our government to withdraw its consent on the NATO decision of 1979, which agreed to the deployment of U.S. missiles in Western Europe.

A second, very important, step in Germany is to ask for a stop of the arms trade because of our German history in starting the last war and being guilty for the deaths of 55 million people. We had an arms trade limitation when we developed a new army in the '50s. But now because we have become a rich and influential country, there are some political streams in our society asking for new guidelines for the arms export. Our government tried to deliver highly developed tanks to Saudi Arabia, and it tried to deliver submarines to Chile and Argentina. We were successful in stopping that.

The problem of nuclear missiles, on the other hand, must be taken up in NATO. No one country can address it alone. We must ask NATO to change its policy.

A third unilateral step which is discussed in my country, in the unions and in other places, is the question of a defensive armament. That means that the army in West Germany will have no weapons with which they are able to attack other countries, but they are able, in the case of attack, to defend themselves. There are a lot of military experts thinking about this question.

Sojourners: In light of the European strategy, how do you view the freeze campaign?

Deile: The question we have is, how will both powers be able to find the point where they can together freeze? I think that's a main problem, and it depends a lot on the political situation in a country, if the people think we are now equal to the other side or not. And if there is a majority thinking we are now in an equal situation, I think it will be possible to freeze. But if this feeling is not in a society, then the bilateral freeze will not be able to work.

We in Western European countries want to support the freeze as much as we can, and, on the other hand, we are asking the American peace movement to support us in our no to the deployment of nuclear missiles in Western Europe. We ask if perhaps the avoidance of the deployment of nuclear missiles in Western Europe is not a first step of this process of freezing. There is a connection between these two points, because if the new missiles are deployed in Western Europe, we'll have a new arms race all over the world. The Soviet Union feels very threatened, especially by the Pershing 2s, because they are highly accurate weapons, and they can reach the Soviet Union in six minutes. I think the answer of the Soviet Union will be a military buildup too. That means that the rest of the policy of detente we have between East and West will be destroyed and any chance of the bilateral freeze is over.

Sojourners: Is the peace movement in Germany being shaped by theological reflection?

Deile: The Protestant churches in Germany have just had a new memorandum, which repeats the position of 1959, which said that it is still possible for Christians to save peace and freedom with nuclear weapons. It's exactly the same position 22 years later.

What has changed is that there is a broader recognition in the memorandum of other initiatives in the realm of the church. It mentions the "Life Without Weapons" movement, the "Make Peace Without Weapons" movement, the peace week initiatives, and the Protestant and Catholic group, "Steps to Disarmament," which is asking for unilateral initiatives to move us into a bilateral process of disarmament.

This memorandum is a little step forward, but we have not been successful in reaching our churches to the degree that the Dutch church has. What is interesting is that a short time before the Protestant church in Germany took this position represented in the memorandum, the two small Reformed churches we have in West Germany agreed to the position of the Dutch Reformed Church. And I think that a majority of Christians in our church, if you would ask them whether they agreed to the sentence, "It is not possible for Christians to use, possess, and threaten to use nuclear weapons," would say they agree. But the board that wrote this memorandum represents all the powers in our society and not only this growing majority that we have at the grassroots of the local congregations and in other places.

The peace movement of the Western European countries and my country can't be understood apart from the initiative of Christians. Preparing for this new peace movement took place in the local congregations.

Since 1974, each year we have had a three-day meeting around Pentecost of Christian groups who are engaged in the peace question. This meeting was one of the forerunners for the Christians' engagement at the local congregations. In 1980 from this meeting, we started the initiative for a first nationwide peace week. It took place in 300 different towns, neighborhoods, and local congregations. One year later it happened in 4,000 places.

The deciding point for this development of a peace movement in the local congregations was looking at the question of nuclear weapons from the hope of our faith. As Christians, we should be ambassadors of reconciliation. There is no more possibility of compromise. It's no longer tolerable to speak about justice and to remain in the position of the rich people, ignoring or forgetting what other people have to suffer.

In the Dutch Reformed Church memorandum is a small sentence, "We can live in God." That sentence is basic for all criticism which Christians can speak out against the arms race. There is a growing number of people who feel that it is more tolerable to listen to the sentence, somewhere in the Hebrew Bible, where God says to his people, "My people, I am your security" than to go on and look for security in threatening others with nuclear weapons.

It's not only the question of theology. I think it is something like the rediscovering of the Bible. I know a lot of theologians from my generation being politicized by the student movement, and others with very sophisticated theologies who, in confrontation with today's situation, are developing a new understanding of what they read in the Bible.

Sojourners: Could you tell us about your own pilgrimage?

Deile: My father was a physicist. He was very troubled after the war about what the Nazis had done with his knowledge. He took me to the huge rallies we had at the end of the '50s in our country: "Strangle the Nuclear Movement" or "Fight the Nuclear Death Movement." There were rallies with 250,000 to 300,000 people, and on these occasions I heard people like Martin Niemoeller, and I became then a Christian and a conscientious objector. If you are studying theology you can postpone military service in our country, and if you are ordained you are free from it.

I didn't want to take this privilege of the theologians, and I had to pass two hearings until I was recognized as a CO. I was involved in the movement in the beginning of the '60s. And then the student movement came, and since 1975 I have worked with the Action Reconciliation Service for Peace.

I belong to those Christians who say, "I am prepared to live without weapons." But we have to take part in a process of disarmament in which other people can participate too. Today our task is to work together with people who are just starting to develop their own consciousness in relationship to the nuclear weapons. I would be very glad if it would become a majority in our society who would say no to the use, possession, and threatened use of nuclear weapons.

Danny Collum was associate editor of Sojourners when this article appeared. Jim Wallis was editor-in-chief of Sojourners when this article appeared.