We are the ones to be converted, not Hitler. ~ Bonhoeffer

I recently finished the book Bonhoeffer The Assassin?: Challenging the Myth and Reclaiming His Call to Peacemaking. This book challenges the widely held assumption that Bonhoeffer, a prominent German theologian in the 1930s-1940s, gave up his deep pacifist convictions in order to join a plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler.

The authors of this book seek to demonstrate that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that, and in fact, all biographical evidence and theological evidence gleaned from his works points to the contrary: that Bonhoeffer never compromised his pacifist/nonviolent leanings in an attempt to kill Hitler.

This is a bold move in Bonhoeffer studies, because apparently few mainstream Bonhoeffer scholars proffer this notion, and rather, are adamantly opposed. Ironically, though, this is primarily due to assumption, as can be discovered by reading through their works.

Of course, this has been a nuanced conversation for decades – while the general consensus is Bonhoeffer contradicted Life Together, The Cost of Discipleship, and his innumerable lectures and fanatical teachings on conscientious objection, pacifism, and Sermon on the Mount ethics when he wrote Ethics and supposedly planned to kill Hitler, there has almost always been dissent on the matter.

Famed theologian Stanley Hauerwas writes the forward to the book, writing of the two classic pacifist challenges: 1) What would you do if your wife was being attacked? and 2) What about Bonhoeffer? I can confirm in my experience these two questions are the two most frequent I interact with. Hauerwas jumps behind this book, because he believes both its biographical and theological (can they really be separated?) treatment of Bonhoeffer are not only accurate, but show a consistent image of the man we pacifists have felt ambivalent about.

The first part of the book, the first three chapters, deal with Bonhoeffer’s life. The goal is to portray a basic working knowledge of the biography of Bonhoeffer before jumping into his works, because there are certain key elements in his life that provide insight into why Ethics should be read as a sort of “sequel” or continuation of Discipleship, rather than a whole new system of ethical thought to justify killing Hitler. To read it as such, as the authors argue, is a total misunderstanding of everything Bonhoeffer was leading up to with all of his work after his dissertation of Act & Being. But we’re putting the cart before the horse.

The second and final part of the book is chapters four through seven. It is in these chapters that the authors work through Bonhoeffer’s most well known books, aside from Life Together. They start with a look at his doctoral dissertation: Sanctorum Communia (1929) and transition into Act & Being (1932), which flips Bonhoeffer’s entire ethical framework on its head. In fact, although he is seeking to criticize some minute points of Karl Barth in Act & Being, he is, simultaneously, due to the immense amount of influence Barth’s work had on Sanctorum Communia, Bonhoeffer is also engaging in self-criticism.

From Act & Being, the discussion moves on to Discipleship, and from Discipleship to Ethics. There is mention of a lecture or essay here and there, because these are useful tools in following Bonhoeffer’s thought between these major publications (although, as is commonly known, Ethics was published posthumously and never finished in entirety). Following the train of thought of Bonhoeffer’s essays illuminates a straight line of logical continuity. And if you know anything about Discipleship, you know it advocates complete renunciation of killing.

A summary of the driving argument is as follows:

In 1929, Bonhoeffer gave a lecture that was so morally relative, and so Lutheran (ie: the two worlds of church and state), that he believed nationalism should trump discipleship. This lecture represented nothing similar to what one finds in his writings, lectures, letters, and speeches post 1932. In fact, it represents an entirely different ethical structure. Bonhoeffer himself admitted that he had a “conversion” experience to “true Christianity,” -after- giving that lecture. The lecture that, in opposition to all of his other writings, is the only piece that would agree with an assassination-reading of Bonhoeffer’s biography and later theological works. So what caused this change in Bonhoeffer’s life?

Bonhoeffer spent a year in New York City at Union Theological Seminary. It was here that very important life events happened to him: He became good friends with French Christian Pacifist Jean Lasserre, who introduced Bonhoeffer to a well structured argument for non-violence. Bonhoeffer and Lasserre remained good friends until Bonhoeffer’s death. He met with Karl Barth many a time, who had a deeply intrinsic affect on Bonhoeffer’s theological hermeneutic. Barth and Bonhoeffer remained good friends. The liberal social gospel at Union Theological Seminary left a bad taste in Bonhoeffer’s mouth. He believed it ignored too much theological dogma. However, the drive and concern for oppressed/suffering people forever stuck with Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer spent all of his extracurricular time (ie: free time) studying the oppressive white cultures affects on Negro culture in Harlem. Harlem fascinated Bonhoeffer. In fact, he would regularly attend a Negro-only church in Harlem on Sundays, and was trusted enough to teach Sunday school. The abstract became the concrete for him at Harlem. These connections all happened thanks to Frank Fisher, an African American. Bonhoeffer met Erwin Sutz, a Swiss national and a serious student of Barth, who helped instill some of Bonhoeffer’s Barthian qualities. Paul Lehman, another student at Union, became deep friends with Bonhoeffer. He was an American, but fluent in German. He helped keep Bonhoeffer rooted in his home country and culture. All of these experiences brought Bonhoeffer to select the good from the majority view of his time/environment (ie: social gospel) and reject the rest (ie: all his criticisms of the social gospel). He became acquainted with minority opinions and worldviews both academically/abstractly and practically/concretely. This experience is not only what he considered his conversion to true Christianity (by his own admission), but also, arguably, helped prepare him to be one of the handful of German theologians who were outspoken pacifists for theological reasons in the 1930s-1940s (one can literally count the number on one hand), as well as convict him to see the suffering of the Jews in a similar way to the suffering of Negroes in America, and thus make it his mission to combat mistreatment of the Jews from day one (he was one of the first, and most enduring critics of the Aryan paragraph).

After this time in New York, Bonhoeffer immediately began preaching pacifism. This is not because Bonhoeffer believes pacifism is an ideal to be pursued in and of itself, but because of the shift in Christological perspective that happens in Bonhoeffer’s thought, which leads him to read the Sermon on the Mount as something that -has- to be obeyed literally (or as he calls it, “simple obedience.”) This thread of thought continues into Ethics, as the authors argue.

One of the driving arguments that Bonhoeffer was involved in the plot to assassinate Hitler is as follows:Bonhoeffer was a part of the Abwehr, the German intelligence agency, and a part of the resistance that came out of it. His brother-in-law was, in fact, a part of the plot to kill Hitler. Therefore, Bonhoeffer, when he joined the resistance, joined the plot to kill Hitler.

This is an unfair argument for quite a few reasons: While Bonhoeffer was in fact a part of the Abwehr, he wasn’t a part of a military organization in order to aid in service of the military – he actually utilized it as a means to avoid killing. During his entire time as a part of the organization, he actually simply preached, traveled, and helped organize the remainder of the “faithful” Confessing Church. He did no true intelligence work, even though the German government believed he did. He continually struggled every year to maintain his legal license to work in the Abwehr precisely so he didn’t have to kill anyone, especially in the name of Germany (notice the key difference here: he refused to kill in the name of Germany, which is why those involved in the plot to kill Hitler wanted to assassinate the Fuhrer – they believed Germany would benefit. The ethical reasoning was not one committed to Christ, it was a pragmatic/nationalist ethical logic. Bonhoeffer despises nationalism for the rest of his life, and for him, attempting to kill Hitler probably meant a compromise to his own ethics laid out in Discipleship.) As the authors write:

These things, positively stated, make Bonhoeffer virtually unique within the context of Nazi Germany. Negatively stated, it is precisely what he said to his grandmother in a letter in August 1933, as he worked on the Bethel Confession of Faith: ‘Our choice is Germanism or Christianity.’ Bonhoeffer saw that theologically (and thus for him also ethically) so many within the Protestant church, including most within what was becoming the Confessing Church, were willing to redefine the Christian faith from the center out according to ‘Germanism,’ what it meant to be German, at least as understood by most Germans during the reign of Hitler…Bonhoeffer was quite conscious of all this when he wrote Discipleship. Within that context, this was truly a revolutionary book (p.229-230). It assumes that all members of the resistance were members who wanted to kill. In truth, very few resistance members did – even those without the same ethic as Bonhoeffer. They didn’t want to kill Hitler, because they believed it wouldn’t solve anything – the problem was a systematic flaw with Germany, and to put the blame on one man was completely ignorant and stupid logic to them. The resistance primarily met to discuss A) How to rebuild Germany once the war was over and B) How to overthrow him without killing him. Some of them even wanted him kept alive to be used as a historical example once the Nazi regime fell. Basically, despite a resistance movement of only 50-60 people, it was far from unified, and most of them were against the assassination of Hitler without well thought out plan on what to do afterward – which they never constructed before the end of the war. Bonhoeffer explicitly disagreed with his family on a mass amount of theological issues. In fact, his decision to pursue theological education was looked down upon by his family. While they supported him and cared for him, they very rarely agreed with his actions. The point is: Bonhoeffer was extremely used to being marginalized for his beliefs – it almost appears (especially keeping in mind his experience in New York) that this marginalization only strengthened his resolve. Not only did his own family disagree with him, but he was one of the few confessing pacifists in Germany long before Hitler gained power, and especially afterward. Given the witness of Bonhoeffer’s life leading up to his arrest, there is no reason to assume he would do something just because his brother-in-law is associated with it. In fact, Bonhoeffer would gladly disagree.

Bonhoeffer helped lead a “new monastic” community at Finkenwalde which specifically focused on developing a person’s personality/perspective such that he/she does not have to retaliate, but rather, stays centered on Christ at all moments and in all situations. It is hard to believe that this man would resort to killing.

Bonhoeffer’s theological development simply doesn’t allow us to assume (based on no evidence) that he would resort to association with an assassination attempt(s) on Hitler. For example, in his second dissertation, Act & Being Bonhoeffer criticizes minute (yet very important) points of Barth’s that he disagrees with. In so doing, he is also performing intense self criticism of his first dissertation – the very dissertation that advocates German nationalism over and against Christ’s call to non-violence. Not only that, but he lays the groundwork in Act & Being for an entirely new ethical grounding. It should be noted that his first was written before Union/New York, and his second was written after. It really does appear that Bonhoeffer experienced some sort of conversion. The ethical groundwork crafted in Act & Being can be directly traced through Life Together and Discipleship. It should be noted at this point that Bonhoeffer himself admits in a letter to a friend that after Act & Being, his life and thought follow a straight line. This letter was written just months before his execution. At this point in his life he had been in prison for about a year. If his imprisonment truly had been for his involvement in a plot to assassinate Hitler, it is doubtful he would say such a thing, as such an action contradicts Discipleship.

While there are as yet many unnamed biographical and theological arguments explicated by the authors, I will leave them to the reader to discover. There are too many important contextual details to write a summary which gives the book justice.

Bonhoeffer has posed a large problem for me as a deeply convicted proponent of non-violence. However, thanks to the work of Mark Thiessen Nation, Anthony G. Siegrsit, and Daniel P. Umbel, I no longer have to awkwardly point out I think Bonhoeffer is a sellout. I’ve also gleaned some important insights from Bonhoeffer, Barth, and even Immanuel Kant via reading this book. I would like to engage more fully with Bonhoeffer now that I have a biographical introduction to work with. The flower of desire to know Barth, the advocate of William Stringfellow, has been watered by this book.

If you have any interest in Bonhoeffer, The World War, pacifism, discipleship to Christ, or non-violence, I heartily recommend this piece of work. Again, I could not do justice in this small summary to the intensely detailed argumentation and redemption of the Bonhoeffer narrative that these authors craft. Whether you agree with what I’ve presented, or not, I encourage you to read the full work yourself, so that you may adequately judge the authors’ position.

I will end with the final paragraph in the book’s conclusion:

In September of 1934 Bonhoeffer mentioned that he had heart that some in the Oxford movement were trying to convert Hitler. Bonhoeffer referred to this as ‘ridiculous failure to recognize what is going on. We are the ones to be converted, not Hitler.’ Perhaps to be preoccupied with Bonhoeffer’s supposed affirmation of killing Hitler is also a ‘ridiculous failure to recognize what is going on.’ Still living in a world racked by violence and gross injustice, we continue to need Bonhoeffer’s provocative challenge. Perhaps we – like Bonhoeffer in 1929 – are still in need of conversion. Amid the rubble of the world, we need to discover The Cost of Discipleship ‘among the bricks and mortar’ so it will help us see that, to paraphrase Bonhoeffer, ‘we are the ones who need to die, not Hitler.’ For as he reminds us, ‘Whenever Christ calls us, his call leads us to death.’ Only when we have undergone such death and risen with Christ to new life in him will we be able to say, with Bonhoeffer, that ‘discipleship is joy.’ Only then will we, like him, come to see concrete forms of love of enemy, to see practical pacifism, as ‘self-evident’ (p. 232-233).

Share this: Twitter

Facebook

Like this: Like Loading...