Dietfried Gewalt:
97 Years of Pastoral Care of the Hard of Hearing in Germany
1. Unknown Hard of Hearing People?
97 years of pastoral care of the hard of hearing in Germany do not oblige the speaker
to give a ceremonial address, even though Berlin would give a cause. What happened in an
apartment on Pentecost 1901 had far reaching consequences, for the history of the hard of
hearing as well as for the pastoral care. But this event was not only a good beginning. At
the same time it revealed a problem that was by far older and did not only exist in
Germany.
If we ask naively where pastoral care for the hard of hearing really began, we do
embarrass ourselves. Hearing difficulties have always been a problem for older people and
have been reason for lively complaints, for thousands of years. Therefore, it seems to be
logical that Christianity comes across pastoral care of the hard of hearing. The oldest
report I know goes back to third century Northern Africa. After a devastating plague many
people were mutilated or deaf of blind. Bishop Cyprian of Carthage admonished them to
prove their faith by standing upright despite the destruction of mankind instead of
grieving like the rest of men who have no hope (de mortalitate).
But let us focus on Germany, especially on the field of Protestantism. Martin Luther is
well-known for his important remarks about the deaf and the dumb. One comment in "Die
Vermahnung zum Sakrament des Leibes und Blutes Christi", dated 1530, is obviously
addressed to hearing impaired people being able to speak: "Shouldn’t your heart
say to you? (...) although I’m not able to hear, I want to be among people being able
to hear and I want to be present where God is present, with my deeds - my body and my
limbs - I want to be where God is praised and honoured" (WA 30 II, 604). Belonging
to, without being able to hear – this idea is also represented by Andreas Hyperius
(1511-1564) one generation later. In his report he asked if deaf people should be admitted
for eucharist. 1) To answer this question he sorts out those people who became deaf or
dumb for illness reasons. We have to find a possibility to communicate with them.
Communication could happen through clear signs. That sounds very modern, but Hyperius
moved along a traditional track.At the same time he touched the sorest point:
communication.
A help for the hard of hearing, even if it was not meant to be, was that the reverend
Johan Melchior Goeze (1717-1786) of Hamburg offered summaries of his sermon before service
started. The hard of hearing members of the parish finally made the future martyr Traugott
Hahn (1875-1919) work out his sermons in writing.
The problems of the hard of hearing in protestant German Christianity were known, or
could have been. So what was new when a hard of hearing woman from Berlin decided to
arrange church service for hard of hearing?
2. Breakdown and New Start
In 1901, time was ready for new developments for hard of hearing and adventitiously
deaf people. At the end of the 19th century the ear specialists Victor
Urbantschitsch and Friedrich Bezold proved, independently of each other, that some deaf
children possessed residual hearing which could be used for language lessons. In 1894 Karl
Brauckmann from Jena founded the first private school for hard of hearing and
adventitiously deaf children. The first hard of hearing class in a public school was
founded in Berlin in 1902 and in 1907 the first school for the hard of hearing appeared.
The new school system and its teachers should become very important for the pastoral care
of the hard of hearing. The first impulse, however, came from an other side.
At this point Margarethe von Witzleben comes onto stage. When she was thirteen years
old, a progressing deafness was diagnosed. This discovery was followed by a long ordeal in
several surgeries. Finally her mother asked the reverend Johann Christoph Blumhardt who
was known for healing sick persons, for prayer healing. Blumhardt knew his limits and
advised the 18-year-old Margarethe to do something for her fellow sufferers. The following
thirty years she spent on different activities, mostly at the Inner Mission. Time and
again activities came to an end, owing to her impaired hearing. In the early eighties she
wrote her autobiographically touched booklet "Hephata" which was not published
before 1899. In spring 1901 – in the meantime she lived in Berlin– it came to
that memorable attendance at church service which should become the birth of the pastoral
care for hard of hearing. Reinhold Trinkner her biographer wrote: "It was in spring
1901, when Margarethe von Witzleben participated a sermon of P. Samuel Keller in the City
Mission Church in Berlin. As a hard of hearing she had to look for a place under the
pulpit. There she met another lady sitting there and also armed with an ear trumpet. The
problems of the people suffering from impaired hearing which are blamelessly ostracized
from the word of God, but starving and thirsting for it, has often been a strain on her.
Suddenly the need of her fellow sufferers hit her right in the face. Immediately she wrote
down some words on a slip of paper and passed it over to her fellow sufferer. The piece of
paper comprised an invitation for the participation in a special church service for hard
of hearing people. Other hard of hearing were also invited and on Pentecost 1901 they met
for the first time in Ms. von Witzleben’s apartment at 9 o’clock in the
morning."
To be ostracized from the word of God, was the concern of the hard of hearing
frequenting church. To overcome this exclusion they dissociated from church service in the
parish and assembled for church service for hard of hearing, called "Hephata Ephatha
church service", according to Marks 7,34. The new congregation was the answer to the
failure of former efforts to enable church service for the hard of hearing. The group
stuck to the protestant church but avoided to look for a permanent preacher. Instead of
that they obliged changing pastors for their service. The idea that service for hard of
hearing could be one group among others of an ambitious minister, was unbearable for
Margarethe von Witzleben. She was not only founder, but also undisputed head of the
parish. While the piety of the members became sort of sectarian, they were confronted with
social problems. Many hard of hearing or deafened people were unemployed – a problem
that became even more critical on the eve of World war I. Margarethe von Witzleben had
worked in the Inner Mission long enough to see a job for herself and her circle. She
succeeded in gaining Friedrich von Bodelschwingh as helper. At that time he lived in
Berlin and was a member of the Prussian state parliament. The fight against unemployment
could not be won. The problem kept her busy right to her death.
The confrontation with social problems among the hard of hearing had organizational
consequences. On one hand there was the desire for founding Hephata congregation in other
cities, as well, and to extend charity. On the other hand this finally led to the
transformation of the congregation in a society and later on to the unification of the
Hephata congregation to an association. The regulations of the Berlin society comprised
what had been done since 1901:
a) Introduction of separate evangelical church service for the hard of hearing in
Berlin and in other big cities, connected to the evangelical church law with permission of
the church authorities.
b) Support of citizens without means and giving advice and information to personal and
written requests.
c) Establishment of employment agencies for job seeking hard of hearing.
d) Support of hard of hearing students at elementary schools and schools with higher
educational standards.
e) The endeavor to make vocational training easier for adolescents capable of working.
f) Organization of lessons in lip-reading in Berlin and in other big cities, to offer a
chance of practicing this art.
g) Cultivation and spiritual encouragement for the young and the old, appropriate to
the needs and the educational standards of the hard of hearing.
h) Summer resort for people in need of a rest.
i) Publication of a monthly called "Hephata"
This was the proud result. But the text also contains seeds for future conflicts, which
could be suppressed from the outside in 1933, only. The society was a protestant one.
Collaboration with Catholics was not desired. According to the founders’
understanding protestant also means: being part of the conservative movement. When the
reverend Doering of Danzig appeared with his own pastoral care for the hard of hearing,
Ms. von Witzleben did not only see him as a competitor, but also was she suspicious of him
as a member of an other church political direction. However, the society was an
ecclesiastical one. That meant a separation from the secular hard of hearing movement
which seemed to her politically liberal and therefore possibly Jewish marked. Social
democrats were totally unacceptable for her. Nowadays we might get a fright. But with that
outlook Margarethe von Witzleben was a typical representative of conservative
Protestantism at the end of the 19th century. The most known representative was the court
chaplain Adolf Stöcker of Berlin.
Before we start talking about the conflicts in the Hephata movement, we have to bring
on stage further protagonists who played a role in the pastoral care of the hard of
hearing. One thing unites all of them: They offered church services and supported their
setting up. Apart from that, conception and main topics are different.
The most important competition for Hephata were the activities of teachers of the hard
of hearing. To understand this, we have to remember that teachers were under church
supervision till the end of the "German Empire" in 1918. Teachers were
responsible for religious education. They also held confirmation classes and church
service in schools for the. Moreover did teachers of the deaf work for welfare after
school. This condition still existed when part of these teachers taught at the new-founded
schools for the hard of hearing and when they requested church service for their adult
pupils from the churches. In the "Weimar Republic", after 1918, this led to the
demand that appropriately educated ministers should be entrusted with religious education
at the schools for the hard of hearing. That arises from Hamburg documents, well known to
me, but is also evident for Württemberg. This branch of the movement of the hard of
hearing, got together in a North and South German branch (Protective Association of the
Hard of Hearing). The competition between Hephata and the Protective Association, existing
in some cities, led necessarily to the question, whether service should still be arranged
by self help groups and be held by invited ministers, or if an integration in the parish
church service, by the help of the arising group hearing aids, should be taken into
consideration. In Hanover, which was spared the competition, church service with group
hearing aids was offered for the members of the Association of Hard of Hearing, in an
appropriate church with a competent reverend.
In Berlin, Hamburg and Saxony, however, group hearing aids could become the watch word
for the right church service in the associations. Competition and collaboration with
teachers were handled differently from town to town. In Berlin well knows educators
collaborated with Hephata, too. During the last years of the "Weimar Republic"
coexistence and antagonism of Hephata and the seculars – which finally united in the
"German Federation for the Hard of Hearing" - should have a negative effect.
The next protagonist, which I already mentioned, is reverend Doering of Danzig. The
contents of his work seems to be a copy of Hephata. In 1916 a close collaboration between
them is evident. They applied for support and membership at the central committee for the
Inner Mission. Doering made advertising trips in order to found new societies. These trips
obviously led him as far as Westphalia. The conflict arose with the question, whether the
union of Hephata Associations of Hard of Hearing should remain strictly denominational, or
whether denominationally mixed groups should also be permitted. Hephata spoke out for a
denominational opening, whereas Doering insisted on denominated unanimity. There was
another conflict that hit the Hephata movement hard. Although Doering had a high opinion
of Hephata’s work, he mainly aimed to make the Prussian public church and the Inner
Mission act. In his eyes, Hephata privately engaged ministers for church service. He,
however, wanted pastors to be employed by the church, like in Königsberg and Danzig,
where this had already been put into practise.
This quarrel and the end of the war with the resulting inflation delayed the initial
concerted effort to join the Central Committee for the Inner Mission. With the Inner
Mission they could have had a strong partner for the extension of societies and pastoral
care of the hard of hearing. In 1925 only, Hephata successfully got in touch with the
Central Committee again. But before we go on with this thread, it is time to bring on
stage another protagonist.
The reverend Arthur Schuknecht of Dresden was the son of a teacher of the deaf.
That’s why he understood very well, that pastoral care for the deaf and the hard of
hearing had to be divided in different scopes of work. In 1911 he held the first church
service for the hard of hearing. Only two years later he pleaded for special pastors for
the deaf and for the hard of hearing in Margarethe von Witzleben’s monthly. Thus he
followed Doerings’s way. He believed that effective pastoral care of hard of hearing
could only be done in a hard of hearing congregation, separated from the hearing people.
In 1913 Schuknecht the son of a teacher put special emphasis on introducing confirmation
classes for hard of hearing, from which a youth welfare for hard of hearing arose. He
gathered his confirmands from all of Dresden. On the other hand confirmation classes at
the school for the hard of hearing in Dresden (founded in 1911) were evidently given by a
teacher until 1930.
3. In the Shadow of Political Catastrophes
We can now take stock previously. In the middle of the 20ies - regional differences
included - the structures for pastoral care of the hard of hearing were the same as those
that determine our work today. We can find self-help and church initiatives. We can find
special church service and integration in the parish. We can find confirmation classes and
are faced with the particular problems of the adventitiously deaf. And on the map we can
also find unconsidered parts. These structural factors, however, resulted from the
different routs competing with each other, and should have considerable after-effects.
During the second half of the 20ies the consequences of World War I and the inflation
had been conquered to the extent, that associations of the hard of hearing could again
pick up older plans for unification and more effective representation of common interests.
During this process the Protective Association, the Saxon Association, the South German
Association and the Lower Saxony united and represented some 75 % of the organised hard of
hearing. Hephata was divided on this. A list of 1929 figures 15 evangelical, 3 mainly
evangelical and 5 denominationally mixed societies. In 1925 the association allied with
the Central Committee for the Inner Mission. There they found support by the director
Johannes Steinweg in financial and journalistic respect. Steinweg openly supported the
forces, that wanted to preserve Hephata as a purely evangelical association. He argued
among other things that Margarethe von Witzleben could agree to a denominationally mixed
association during the Christian Empire. In the secular "Weimar Republic"
denominational neutrality actually meant an anti-religious approach. Steinweg’s
arguments were maintained by the behaviour of the secular associations. These associations
demanded church service, but did not know Christian attitude and pastoral care for their
members. This point of discussion was reached in 1929, the year of the New York Stock
Crash.
Two years later the world wide economic crisis also controlled the "Weimar
Republic" which had entered its final stage. On 29th f June 1991 the
Protective Association of the Hard of Hearing of Berlin, Hephata’s strongest
competitor, asked for admission into the Central Committee for the Inner Mission, and at
the same time they asked for complaisance with respect to the subscription fee. Money had
run short. The application was refused on 12th August.
I seems as if Hephata; with the Innere Mission as a partner, approached a triumph. But
then the misfortune approached from an other side. The Central Committee had founded a
company to improve housing shortage in the "Weimar Republic". This company
should supply cheap living space. The board of the Central Committee lost control over
this company, its subsidiaries and its wheeling and dealings. It ended in a deceitful
bankruptcy, which could only be caught with the help of the German Government. The board
of the Central Committee, including Johannes Steinweg, had to resign. By this Hephata lost
an important backing.
The next documents go back to the first months of National Socialist Reign. The
associations that had not yet united to a general association through own negotiations,
were enforced by the new government to ally to a unified association and were put together
with the National Socialist Welfare of the Nation (NSV). On 12th August 1933
Hephata decided its resignation from the Central Committee for the Inner Mission.
For the hard of hearing officials, who had hold the partly agonising unification
negotiations, this meant a big relief. The loyalty they showed towards the National
Socialist State was certainly true. As a consequence of these events an anti-Hephata
approach developed and after World War II this attitude led to a distrust in the FRG
against all religious activities for the hard of hearing. In the 70ies I was sometimes
confronted with this mood. The direct consequences for the pastoral care of the hard of
hearing are difficult to determine. Owing to the lack of necessary knowledge about local
developments we are not able to get a conclusive judgement. I do not have the impression
that the fact that Hephata was no longer the umbrella organisation for a big part of the
pastoral care of the hard of hearing, did result in a disastrous collapse. Pastoral care
of the hard of hearing can even be proven throughout the worst years of World War II. I
will give 3 examples.
In Berlin the Hephata tradition stuck to the association of the hard of hearing.
Church service went on until 1944, when aerial war and the end of the war made it
impossible. But it was resumed in 1946. After the war there were even attempts to found a
new Hephata society for the hard of hearing. Later on the Hephata tradition was continued
in both parts of Berlin and nowadays it lives on in the church service for the hard of
hearing in Berlin-Kreuzberg.
Saxony: In Saxony in 1927/28 there was a unification of all associations of the
hard of hearing under chairmanship of Arthur Schuknecht. This unification broke up and
Schuknecht unified about one dozen parishes of hard of hearing to the Evangelical Welfare
Committee for the Hard of Hearing and Deafened, consciously on a protestant church basis.
His hard of hearing parish in Dresden survived the time of National Socialism including
Dresden’s devastation, later on its founder’s death and even celebrated its
seventieth anniversary. It is, despite several variations, still existing in the City
Mission of Dresden.
In Hamburg work was continued, too. With the help of transportable hearing
systems, even new church service was organised. In 1937 the church refused, for financial
reasons, the procurement of further systems. Church service and bible study were
permanently continued up to the post war years. The conditions at the confirmation classes
in connection with the hard of hearing school were less clear. Immediately after World War
I confirmation classes were evident for the first time and it seems that they were also
continued after 1933, but we do not have continuous sources.
If we compare this difficult time for the pastoral care of the hard of hearing in
Hamburg with its history from 1912 to 1969, we see a picture on a small scale that in
general, also applies to other churches. Owing to the competition between the of Hephata
movement in the beginning and the Protective Association - co-operating with the regional
church, founded and managed by an teacher- the responsibility for the hard of hearing fell
to the regional church. The regional church set up general conditions, which enabled
pastors to organise confirmation classes and church service for the hard of hearing.
Church service, however, gradually fell to the parishes, too. As a result the limits of
the pastoral care - initially only concentrating on the society of the hard of hearing -
were overstepped. So future announces its arrival.
4. Continuity and New Beginning after 1945
The year 1945 meant one of the most serious cuts in German history, but was not the
"year zero" - no year of a totally new beginning. Owing to the end of the
Evangelical Association of the Hard of Hearing, the year 1933 was by far more important
for the pastoral care of the hard of hearing. Could Hephata be restored, after 1945? In
local areas there were groups that saw themselves as heirs to Hephata. But there was not
much chance to continue the Hephata tradition. One look on the map gives ample proof.
In 1929 the Hephata association had 23 societies with 1658 members. In 1930 the society
of Braunschweig with its 51 members joined the association. Out of these 24 societies, 4
were situated East of the Oder and the Neiße and therefore were no longer part of
Germany. 11 were situated in the Soviet zone, the later GDR. Under these political
conditions a religious association would not have been approved. Only 9 of the former
Hephata societies were situated in the occupied zones in the West, the later FRG and
West-Berlin. In some parts of Germany association life quickly went on as usual. When the
first edition of the magazine "Hard of Hearing and Late Deafened" was published
in 1948, it reported on church services in West-Berlin, Oldenburg and in 1949 also in
Wiesbaden and Mülheim-Ruhr. The year 1949 brought another important cut. Two German
states developed and owing to their governments’ mutual hostility they distanced from
each other. That resulted in different general conditions for work in East and West.
In the FRG the Association for the Hard of Hearing, which was dissolved during the war,
got re-established under the name "German Association of the hard of Hearing" in
1949. The regulation said: "The association is politically, denominationally and
racially neutral". The organisation of church service for the hard of hearing of all
confessions belonged to the tasks. Churches were partners for the hard of hearing. Once in
a while religious reflections were published in the association magazine. Walter Staats,
pastor and member of the church council worked for the management as a consultant for
social questions. Religious education in schools was given by public or church teachers.
Many hard of hearing schools also offered to hold confirmation classes in school rooms.
Development in GDR took an other course. Strict separation of state and church firstly
allowed church teachers to give religious education in school rooms. But over the years
these possibilities were made more difficult and finally impossible. Self-organised
association life, like in the time before 1933, or in the FRG did not exist in the GDR.
Associations were controlled by the state. In 1957 the "General German Association
for the Deaf" was founded and in 1961 it was joined by the hard of hearing. In 1973
it renamed in "Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing in the GDR". A
co-operation with the churches was not planned.
In West Germany in 1957, Walter Staats resigned from his function as social consultant
of the "German Association of the Hard of Hearing". In the same year he founded
the "Working Group of Evangelical Pastors for Hard of Hearing and Late Deafened"
(AFESS). This working group should concentrate on pastoral tasks, whereas the social and
the social political tasks belonged to the "German Association of the hard of
Hearing" and the "Deacony Works". The working group co-operated with both
of them. By that, pastoral care of the hard of hearing was finally developed from the
pastoral care in associations to church tasks. Mr. Staats and his collaborator, the hard
of hearing and partially sighted theologian Annemarie Marx, kept up - from the beginning
on - close connections to churches in the GDR. With help of the "Deacony Works"
of Berlin they transferred batteries and hearing systems. In Berlin Mr. Staats himself,
got very involved and therefore remained unforgotten. His work led to a strong confidence
between the pastors in East and West. From this confidence I could go on and it
facilitated the reunion after the wall came tumbling down in 1989.
Let us remain in the West for a while. I already mentioned that all working fields of
the pastoral care of the hard of hearing already existed in the twenties. Organisation in
regional churches was different and changed frequently. Not very rarely, it depended on
the personal effort of individual ministers, that anything did happen. Cities with hard of
hearing societies, schools for the hard of hearing and for vocational training centres
offered favourable connection points. By the time two main working areas developed:
firstly, the work with hard of hearing people in societies, schools and self help groups
and secondly consultance of parishes and education of geriatric nurses and nurses, who
should reach the non-organised hard of hearing in church and deacony. This also reflects
in the publications of the AFESS and the topic of conferences for further education.
The self-help idea, once basic idea of the pastoral care of the hard of hearing, did
only return in recent years. Since the eighties, together with the rehabilitation steps of
the "Deacony Work" of Rendsburg, groups of deafened and profoundly deaf people
have formed. The groups had also claims against the church pastoral care and therefore
stimulated the work of pastoral care of the hard of hearing.
In the GDR they had to focus on other points. There, the political conditions set
limits as well. At the beginning responsibility was up to the regional churches and the
EKD, but later on, after the foundation of the "Alliance of Evangelical Churches in
the GDR", it fell to the social welfare work of the churches. The representatives of
the public church had built a convention, which held specialised conferences and brought
out remarkable publications for inner church use. That means: These publications could not
be purchased in book shops, but were passed on as copies to collaborators. Publications in
church and deacon magazines and of manuals occurred as well. Even in the GDR, hearing
systems were installed in church service rooms, within the realms of possibilities. Main
topic of this work were the circles of hard of hearing older people. Owing to their
dislike for the official GSV (General Association of the Hard of Hearing) of the GDR and
its political and secular character the older people met in a church groups. The groups
met regularly at special places for devotions, church service, bible work and the exchange
of ideas. They also met in church homes for several days or weeks for cursillos with
varied and partly demanding programs. A late and at the same time pioneering group of
people in working age built the self-help group ECHO with its yearly summer conferences in
Weimar.
5. Ecumenicalism and IVSS (International Federation for the Pastoral Care of the Hard
of Hearing)
My speech comes to the end and I do not want to go beyond the breaching of the wall in
1989. This time is present for us in Germany. And we know one thing about it: it
challenges us and we do not know where we will stand in 10 years. We, the IVSS
(International Federation for the Pastoral Care of the Hard of Hearing), should not forget
one thing. The pastors of the hard of hearing in East and in West have opened our eyes for
overstepping borders. The necessity to work smoothly beyond the Iron Curtain resulted in
the foundation of the IVSS and enabled the connections between the pastoral care in West
Europe and East Middle-Europe. Let us hope that we do not lose this farsightedness.
Remarks:
The author gratefully acknowledges valuable information provided by:
Frau/Ms. F. Barbknecht, Berlin
Herrn/Mr. Karl-Heinrich Koch, Hamburg
Frau/Ms. Waltraud Rieprecht, Braunschweig
Pastor Eduard Schuster, Berlin
Prof. Dr. Reinhart Staats, Kiel