The marriage of thought and action : a study of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Transcription

1 Honors Theses Religion Spring 2015 The marriage of thought and action : a study of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Madeline Jeanne Levy Penrose Library, Whitman College Permanent URL: This thesis has been deposited to Whitman College by the author(s) as part of their degree program. All rights are retained by the author(s) and they are responsible for the content.

2 The Marriage of Thought and Action: A Study of Dietrich Bonhoeffer by Madeline Jeanne Levy A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in Religion. Whitman College 2015

3 Certificate of Approval This is to certify that the accompanying thesis by Madeline Jeanne Levy has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in Religion. Dr. Walter E. Wyman, Jr. Whitman College May 13, 2015 ii

4 Table of Contents Chapter I: Introduction... 1 Chapter II: Biography: The Historical Path of a Theologian Chapter III: Political Thought and Identity: The Early Years Chapter IV: The Foundation: Creation and Fall Chapter V: Adding Responsibility and Reality: Ethics Chapter VI: Theology Becomes Action: Letters and Papers from Prison Chapter VII: Political Thought and Identity: The Later Years Chapter VIII: Conclusion Bibliography iii

5 Chapter I: Introduction One of the most influential Christian thinkers to emerge from Germany in the early 1900 s, Dietrich Bonhoeffer has captured the attention of many both for his thought and his actions. Bonhoeffer, a twentieth century German Protestant theologian and pastor, was an active preacher throughout Europe, a leader in the ecumenical movement, and eventually a conspirator in a resistance movement which made several attempts to assassinate Hitler. Although he produced compelling works and enduring theology, it is arguable whether or not Bonhoeffer would be so famous and so beloved if he had not been killed for his active resistance against the Third Reich. Indeed, it is this biographical detail that leads me to my study. I ask: How does a theologian like Dietrich Bonhoeffer become active in political resistance even to the point of tyrannicide? Is such a political decision a departure from his early theology? I argue that his choice to become active in resistance is not a departure from his early theology, rather that his early theology obligates his political involvement. The majority of Bonhoeffer scholarship revolves around either his later life only or the continuity, or lack thereof, between his early and late thought, in particular whether the concept of religionless Christianity has any grounding in his earlier theology. Although his decision to take part in the plot to assassinate Hitler always elicits a degree of fascination, few thinkers seriously treat the topic of whether it is supported in his early theology. Those that do categorize it as a shift from peaceoriented thought to violent action. Two of the most recent, prominent people

6 ruminating on this subject are David M. Gides 1 and Clifford J. Green, 2 with Larry L. Rasmussen 3 contributing greatly to the discussion, albeit removed from the peace angle. 4 For all three thinkers, the first question that inevitably emerges is whether one can identify Bonhoeffer as a pacifist. There is no question that he valued peace at varying levels and points in his life. As Gides and Green point out, however, pacifism connotes a total commitment to peace and non-violence regardless of circumstance. Both argue that it is therefore unfair to categorize Bonhoeffer as a pacifist. Gides goes into depth, explaining that attempting to use the Definition of Pacifism Approach 5 results in incorrect assumptions about the course of Bonhoeffer s thought and in inappropriate uses of the word pacifism. It is in his rejection of this approach that Gides formulates his solution to the problem through his method, to be discussed later. In essence, Gides skirts these issues with the term pacifism by using different categories of measurement while still including pacifism in a triad with just war and tyrannicide. Green, on the other hand, rejects the term pacifism altogether, arguing 1 David M. Gides, Pacifism, Just War, and Tyrannicide: Bonhoeffer s Church-World Theology and his Changing Forms of Political Thinking and Involvement, (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011). 2 Clifford J. Green, Pacifism and Tyrannicide: Bonhoeffer s Christian Peace Ethic, Studies in Christian Ethics 18, no. 3 (December 2005): 31-47, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, accessed November 20, Of Green s work, I cite only the article above in this work, however, he discusses similar ideas in his book Bonhoeffer: A Theology of Sociality, pages Larry L. Rasmussen, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Reality and Resistance, (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005). 4 Rasmussen discusses in depth Bonhoeffer s decision to attempt tyrannicide and its consistency with his earlier thought. He does not identify this with regards to any earlier commitment to peace, thus differing from Gides and Green. Rather, he frames the journey in terms of an ethic of resistance. I choose to include him in this discussion because his method, his conclusions, and the essence of his question inform and engage with the other two thinkers. In fact, it is for these reasons that I focus on all three thinkers (Gides, Green, and Rasmussen) over the many other scholars of Bonhoeffer. 5 Gides, 16. 2

7 for an understanding of Bonhoeffer s theological peace ethic. 6 A large part of Green s distinction lies in the fact that he sees Bonhoeffer as rejecting a system of principles that pacifism necessarily implies. 7 Rasmussen completely discards the term pacifism, instead framing the journey in terms of an ethic of resistance, while focusing on similar issues as Gides and Green. The next issue that arises in all three works is how to categorize the predominant mode of thought that motivated Bonhoeffer to become politically involved. The predominant approach is through Christology and ethics, as evidenced primarily by Rasmussen. He states that, Bonhoeffer s resistance was the existential playing out of christological themes.... The priority must be given to Christology as the point of departure. 8 Here, he clearly states that, in his approach, it is Christology that guides his understanding of Bonhoeffer s theological base for action. For Rasmussen, crucial to Bonhoeffer s resistance was a centrality of Christ to reality and thought as well as the notion of Christ as a Man for Others. 9 In this way, Rasmussen connects Christ to ethics of resistance. Similarly, Green places a great deal of importance on Christology, but he also links it to ecclesiology, or as he puts it, [Bonhoeffer s peace ethic] is inseparable from his way of reading the New Testament... his Christology and his understanding of discipleship, and for him it belongs to the essence of the gospel and the church. 10 Here, we see that Green links several pieces of Bonhoeffer s thought together, perhaps leaning toward a more varied approach to his influences. Gides picks up on the notion of church as crucial to this discussion and 6 Green, Ibid Rasmussen, Ibid. 10 Green, 33. 3

8 focuses his work there. A key part of Gides argument is framed in opposing a purely Christological and/or ethical understanding of Bonhoeffer s shift(s). He argues that there is an appropriate category by which to view Bonhoeffer s life but that those are not it. This is what Gides calls the weakness of the Theological Categories in Context Approach. 11 One has to discern what category is significant. He claims that while Christology and ethics are important for understanding Bonhoeffer, they are not the best categories in which to understand the shift to tyrannicide. For Gides, Christology and ethics do not directly connect to political action. It is for this reason that he takes up the Church-world relationship as the theme and indicator of Bonhoeffer s thought throughout his life. Gides splits Bonhoeffer s thought into four phases, each with its own specific understanding of the correct role and intersection of Church and world, or ecclesiology. Through this theme, Gides identifies four distinct understandings of peace and violent resistance. 12 Gides formulates these phases in terms of political involvement, not just violent action. From each of these three thinkers, it is clear that there are several different yet related approaches available here. All three more or less agree that Bonhoeffer s thought cannot be explained as an unchanging entity. Instead, it is a fluid body of work. I use the descriptor fluid to intentionally evoke the idea of a moving, living entity that is able to respond to historical and biographical circumstances. Although it is changing, it is important for Gides, Green, Rasmussen, and me that one also recognizes the continuity of Bonhoeffer s thought in certain ways. He is the same person with some of the same fundamental ideals, although everything is subject to subtle change throughout time. 11 Gides, Ibid

9 Rasmussen shows this in his indication that there were changes and shifts in the character of his Christology [that] were at the same time changes and shifts in the character of his resistance. 13 In this way, we see that Rasmussen understands Bonhoeffer s notions of Christology and resistance as fluid, while they maintain a relationship to each other throughout. Similarly, Gides shows a fluidity of Bonhoeffer s understanding of the Church-world association and a constant correlation between this and Bonhoeffer s political involvement. This is evident as he divides Bonhoeffer s thought into four distinct phases with a common theme. Green supports this notion of fluidity in a more subtle way. This manifests itself in Green s notion of Bonhoeffer s distaste for principles. For Green, principles indicate a universal, eternal demand for obedience, which he sees as contrary to Bonhoeffer s project. He perceives an aversion to such unchanging ideas in Bonhoeffer s work. 14 For all three, having this understanding of Bonhoeffer s thought allows them to argue against seeing a break in Bonhoeffer s theology. Throughout their works, Gides, Green, and Rasmussen use a few primary sources often while others are virtually ignored. All three thinkers examine Letters and Papers from Prison and Ethics. The Cost of Discipleship appears in various forms. Sanctorum Communio emerges in all, especially in Green s work on sociality. Although Gides, in his chronological approach, does touch on most everything Bonhoeffer wrote, even he speeds over Creation and Fall. Rasmussen does not cite it at all in his book. This work seems to receive little to no attention in these discussions, 13 Rasmussen, Green, 44. 5

10 although it develops ideas of freedom and living for others that Green, for one, explicitly mentions as key concepts for Bonhoeffer s actions. 15 Another important, but categorically different, secondary source in recent Bonhoeffer scholarship is Bonhoeffer the Assassin? Challenging the Myth, Recovering His Call to Peacemaking. 16 In it, co-authors Mark Thiessen Nation, Anthony G. Siegrist, and Daniel P. Umbel claim that Bonhoeffer did not actually participate in the attempted tyrannicide. Nation in particular argues from a Mennonite or Anabaptist point of view, providing him with a strongly pacifist agenda. He clearly wants to claim Bonhoeffer as a pacifist, although even for him, the definition of pacifism is unclear. The authors of Bonhoeffer the Assassin? argue their point by examining Bonhoeffer s biography as well as his ethical theology, based on lectures from Barcelona, Ethics, and The Cost of Discipleship. According to them, Bonhoeffer had an ethic throughout his life that supported peace, and, for that reason, he could not have been involved in assassination attempts. Although I join the existing Bonhoeffer scholarship by investigating the continuity of Bonhoeffer s theology and its influence on his political actions, with my work, I contribute something new to this discussion in several ways. The first of these is in the categorization of Bonhoeffer s predominant motivating mode of thought. I approach the consistency of Bonhoeffer s theology and actions primarily from the angle of Bonhoeffer s theology of creation. Although Christology plays a crucial role in his thought, I argue that the key reasons Christology is important stem from his 15 Ibid Mark Thiessen Nation, Anthony G. Siegrist, and Daniel P. Umbel, Bonhoeffer the Assassin? Challenging the Myth, Recovering His Call to Peacemaking, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013). 6

11 exegesis of creation. Bonhoeffer s Christology does influence his decision, but the aspects of it that are influential are taken from creation. Likewise, I do not believe that ecclesiology is the predominant mode of thought inspiring Bonhoeffer to resist. Instead, I see the part of his ecclesiology that relates to political theory as remaining constant, while his understanding of his own place within that changes. For this reason, I see Bonhoeffer s political thought as at first precluding his political involvement and then allowing it but never causing it. In this way, I propose a new way of looking at Bonhoeffer s motivation: theology of creation. 17 I also contribute something new to Bonhoeffer scholarship by doing a close study of Bonhoeffer s exegesis of Genesis chapters one through three: Creation and Fall. I think that this adds to existing Bonhoeffer literature, as no work has seriously undertaken it or based their primary argument on it. I, however, find crucial theological concepts rooted in Creation and Fall that continue to Bonhoeffer s later works. For this reason, I think it is appropriate to fill this noticeable gap in the scholarship. I will discuss my justification for using this work more in depth later. Finally, I differ from and add to the existing discussion by examining Bonhoeffer s political actions separate from his concept of peace. Instead, I formulate my argument in terms of theological cause and political effect. By focusing on the category of political action instead of peace versus violence, I can track a theological consistency and a personal shift without falling into the pit of defining pacifism. Based 17 To an extent, my tactic is comparable with what Gides calls the Theological Categories in Context Approach, which he uses in his study. He explains that, The Theological Categories in Context Approach involves connecting a theological category in Bonhoeffer s thinking with his activity and then gauging overall continuity or discontinuity, in addition to examining his overall situation in the world. In this sense, I too am using this approach. I choose, however, a different category to trace: freedom instead of Church-world relationship. See Gides,

12 on the theological foundation found in Creation and Fall, Bonhoeffer takes part in resistance. The secondary material makes it clear that Bonhoeffer s relationship with peace is complicated and his understanding of principles is even more so. Based on that, I defend the position that Bonhoeffer s attitude toward peace is not of central importance when deciding to be a political resistor. What is most important is his theology of creation, specifically the notion of freedom. I argue that although the focus of Bonhoeffer s theology shifts from theoretical to realistic, the underlying foundation of freedom remains the same, which is significant because it is this concept that supports and even obligates his political involvement in resistance. Despite having a consistent theology, Bonhoeffer does not become immediately involved in the 1930 s because of his self-identification within the church, which changes by the 1940 s. Thus, as a result of changing selfidentification, shifting theological focus, and consistent theological foundation, Bonhoeffer becomes involved in attempted tyrannicide. My methodology for this study is historical theology, in the sense that my main approach is analyzing Bonhoeffer s theological works. I do hermeneutical work on Bonhoeffer s theology, simultaneously examining his biographical and historical situation. This allows me to look primarily at his theology, while contextualizing it within his life. I believe that this is the most appropriate method, because it combines his biography and theology. Bonhoeffer had his roots in theology and, I argue, maintained that identity his entire life. Thought and reflection were always important to him, as evidenced by his continued theological works and his comments in his letters 8

13 from prison. In this respect, understanding his theology is essential to understanding Bonhoeffer. 18 The main works that I discuss are Bonhoeffer s The Church and the Jewish Question, Creation and Fall, Ethics, and Letters and Papers from Prison. I will provide a more detailed biography of Bonhoeffer s whole life in the next chapter, but here I will introduce the works I will use. Bonhoeffer finished his essay, The Church and the Jewish Question on April 15, He wrote it as a response to Hitler s issuing of the Aryan Paragraph, one in a series of laws persecuting Jews and other minorities. The Aryan Paragraph, which took effect in its initial form on April 7, 1933, mandated that only those of the Aryan race could hold certain professions and be part of certain organizations. Among those jobs were clergy members and leaders of the church, and among those organizations was the church. This raised the question of the membership and leadership of baptized Jews, as well as general qualms about the state dictating the church s membership. Although Bonhoeffer opposed Hitler s previous attempts to control German life, the Aryan Paragraph necessitated an immediate response, as it affected Bonhoeffer s own institution: the church. Bonhoeffer had colleagues who were both pastors and Jewish converts to Christianity. According to the Aryan Paragraph, they could neither hold their jobs nor be laymen in the church. This struck a nerve with Bonhoeffer, as he believed that only their faith in Christ should determine their participation in the church. Not only did Bonhoeffer have a social stake in the matter, he also objected on principle to the state s intervention in the church s 18 I am not alone in this assessment. In his conclusion, Gides writes, For Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the consistency between his actions and his thought lends validity to both and thus defines him as an exemplary thinker and person. As Gides shows, it is not uncommon to seek and find a connection between Bonhoeffer s thought and action. In fact, it is precisely this connection that makes Bonhoeffer noteworthy. See Gides,

14 business. It is the latter objection that he raises in The Church and the Jewish Question. I use this essay to examine Bonhoeffer s understanding of political action early in his life: who can act when and how. Creation and Fall: A Theological Exposition of Genesis 1-3 began as a series of lectures in the winter of 1932 to 1933, given at the University of Berlin. After pressure from his students, Bonhoeffer had the lectures published by the end of the year. In Creation and Fall, Bonhoeffer interprets each verse of Genesis chapters one through three as he sees it being relevant to his contemporaries. It is essential to note that he reads Genesis as it applies to the present. Bonhoeffer rejects the notion of a single meaning, defined by the biblical author, rather he sees a meaning that changes generation to generation, a text that provides a meaning based on the situation. As such, when he explores the obvious topics of evil, sin, human nature, and nothingness and uses them to show his own focuses on freedom, creatureliness, and living for others, he does so with the contemporary world in mind. With Creation and Fall, Bonhoeffer writes a constructive theological interpretation of Genesis. By virtue of its methodology, the theological conclusions Bonhoeffer draws become applicable to and useful for approaching his life and works. Although Creation and Fall receives little attention from Bonhoeffer scholars, it is a thorough, thoughtful exegesis of Creation that reflects on those fundamentals in light of the present. As I discussed earlier, I think it is relevant to study because of Bonhoeffer s identity as a theologian. Moreover, I think that it is relevant precisely because of Bonhoeffer s methodology, his understanding of the text speaking to contemporary audiences. He takes a biblical text and shows what is important for the present world. 10

15 Bonhoeffer s exegesis is not a superfluous, disconnected analysis of Genesis; it is an interpretation for the times. This approach to biblical text perhaps stems from Karl Barth s influence, whose relationship with Bonhoeffer I will discuss later. Barth writes The Epistle to the Romans using a similar methodology. In his preface to the first edition, he states, If we rightly understand ourselves, our problems are the problems of Paul; and if we be enlightened by the brightness of his answers, those answers must be ours. 19 For Barth, the biblical text, when interpreted correctly, is directly relevant for one s life in the present. It is this sentiment with which Bonhoeffer agrees, as evidenced by his writing Creation and Fall following that methodology. 20 For that reason, Creation and Fall is applicable in an analysis of Bonhoeffer s theological foundation. Additionally, as an analysis of the religious understanding of the beginning of the world, Creation and Fall presents Bonhoeffer s perspective on some fundamental questions regarding the nature of humanity, God, and the divine-human relationship. 21 The next work I examine is Ethics. Ethics is, as the title would suggest, an ethic. Unfinished at the time of his death, Bonhoeffer worked on it in pieces during his time in Tegel prison between 1943 and He wrote to Bethge about his ideas and sent him sections, and it is in this way that the book came to be. Although Bonhoeffer never completed Ethics, it stands as a significant work of his, as it deals with serious 19 Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, trans. Edwyn C. Hoskyns, (Oxford University Press: London, 1968), Gides supports this comparison, writing that Creation and Fall the work marks Bonhoeffer s developing sense of commitment to the Bible as the source of God s authoritative Word. In the general spirit of Barth s Epistle to the Romans, Bonhoeffer was not much concerned with theories about the derivation of scriptural texts. Rather, he was interested in what the texts say to the church in its situation today. See Gides, Gides also adds that Creation and Fall is worth noting for Bonhoeffer s explicit choice of an Old Testament text for exegesis, implying that the Word of God spoke equally in both testaments, stood in direct opposition to the anti-judaic trends in his church at the time. See Gides,

16 issues that he had explored throughout his life. I pull passages from Ethics that specifically speak to freedom and responsibility and that, thus, show theological continuity between it and Creation and Fall. I find that my use of Ethics is justified, because, as a work he undertook at the end of his life, it explores ideas that are important and pressing to him while in prison. It remains a central piece of his works. Ethics is significant as his last serious theological work. At heart, an ethical theology, it essentially attempts to suggest what living in the future after Nazism should look like. Ethics is also important, as Bonhoeffer wrote its fragments after he had become involved in active resistance to the Hitler regime, and, for that reason, it gives us a glimpse into his mind after his decision to partake in political actions. Lastly, I explore his, arguably, most famous work: Letters and Papers from Prison. Letters and Papers from Prison is a compilation of various documents written by Bonhoeffer in prison and sent to Bethge and family members. The first letter is dated April 11, 1943, and the last February 28, Because of its gripping circumstances and evocative ideas, Letters and Papers from Prison has reached and fascinated people in a variety of situations and places. It is problematic due to the fact that the ideas are not necessarily completely fleshed out or defined. This work has several purposes in my project. First, it acts as the culminating piece in my argument that the theological foundation of freedom continues throughout Bonhoeffer s life, influencing his actions based on his concepts of being for others and responsibility. As such, it shows a connection between Bonhoeffer s early theology and his later thoughts and actions. Second, the work, along with Ethics, serves to bookend the political theory found in The Church and the Jewish Question. The justification for using Letters and 12

17 Papers from Prison is simple: it addresses Bonhoeffer s theology while simultaneously giving the reader a glimpse into what occupied his mind during his time in prison. As with Ethics, this work is written after he has decided to participate in resistance, and, as such, it allows us to see what concepts are most immediately on Bonhoeffer s mind after the failed attempt on Hitler s life. In this study, I connect ideas that run through these works and investigating how they effect Bonhoeffer s decision to become politically active in a resistance movement involved in attempted tyrannicide. I begin in Chapter two by giving a short biography of Bonhoeffer s life, essentially attempting to answer the question: how does a theologian like Bonhoeffer end up in active political resistance? Then, in Chapter three, I move to my analysis of The Church and the Jewish Question, in order to show that Bonhoeffer defends the necessity of the separation of church and state and his self-identification as a member of the institution of the church. Next, with Chapter four, I begin the heart of my argument: the theological foundation that obligates Bonhoeffer s involvement. In Creation and Fall, I identify the notion of freedom as key, and subsequently the ideas of being for others and responsibility. I show that these ideas continue to be present and significant in Ethics and Letters and Papers from Prison, in Chapters five and six respectively, while each work adds something of its own. In Ethics case this is the value of reality, and in Letters and Papers from Prison the importance of action in reality. This concludes my main discussion of the theological continuities of freedom, and I next move to Chapter seven to bookend the political discussion from Chapter three. There, I use both of the later works mentioned to show that his notion of separation of church and state remains, while his self-identification shifts to that of an 13

18 individual actor. Following that argument, I conclude my argument in Chapter eight, arguing for my interpretation of Bonhoeffer s life and works based on my previous analyses. 14

19 Chapter II: Biography: The Historical Path of a Theologian Accounts of Dietrich Bonhoeffer s life are inevitably shaped by how it ended. His involvement in Nazi resistance and his subsequent martyrdom cause scholars and laity alike to look back on his early years as either indicative or contrary to his later decisions. What often emerges is the question: how does a theologian become involved in active political resistance? I agree that his biography asks this question, because it constantly reaffirms his identity as a theologian, while undeniably, I argue, showing his political activity in resistance. I will show that Bonhoeffer s biography begs this question and that the content of his theology, which I will discuss in the following chapters, answers this question. On February 4, 1906, Karl and Paula welcomed Dietrich and his twin sister, Sabine, to the Bonhoeffer family. Born in Breslau, Germany, Dietrich was to be the sixth of eight children. His father, a psychologist, worked as both a university professor and a practicing doctor. His mother ran the home, assisted Karl in his practice, and homeschooled her children in their formative years. 22 Between Karl and Paula, Dietrich and his siblings grew up in a highly intellectual and thoughtful household. The Bonhoeffer s valued academics and encouraged their children in whatever scholarly field they pursued. For Dietrich, the discipline of choice was theology, even when he was a teenager. The Bonhoeffer household was decidedly Christian, albeit in a more private, family- and home-centric way than might be expected. The family did not 22 Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography, Revised and Edited by Victoria J. Barnett (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000),

20 attend church regularly, instead they prayed and taught religion at home in a less institutionalized way than the Church would have provided. Although definitely an identifying Christian, it seems that Karl Bonhoeffer valued intellectualism over what he saw as pure religiosity. 23 Young Dietrich sought to combine the two, and, for that, had the support of his parents. Thus, already, at a young age, Bonhoeffer identified as a theologian. Bonhoeffer began studying at the University of Tübingen at the age of seventeen. He spent one year there before taking a semester to study in Rome. 24 Rome fascinated the young Bonhoeffer, and it would continue to hold a special place in his heart. After Tübingen, Bonhoeffer transferred to Berlin University in 1924, where he stayed until There, he finished his dissertation, Sanctorum Communio, in 1927, a work that focused on the communal nature of the Church in Christ. 25 His time at University of Berlin brought him into contact with many important contemporary thinkers. Bethge names Adolf von Harnack, Karl Holl, and Reinhold Seeberg as the professors with whom Bonhoeffer was especially close. 26 The most enduring and often examined professorial relationship for Bonhoeffer, however, was between him and Karl Barth. First becoming acquainted with Barth s Epistle to the Romans, as mentioned previously, Bonhoeffer proceeded to read much of Barth s other work, including his arguments with Harnack. Bonhoeffer did not whole-heartedly agree with either person, which allowed him to begin formulating his own theological stance in 23 Ibid , Ibid , Ibid Ibid

21 contrast to that of his role models. 27 In 1931, through Erwin Sutz, a friend of Bonhoeffer s, the two finally met and began their correspondence. 28 Although their life paths diverged at the onset of World War II, Bonhoeffer remained in touch with Barth, who acted both as an advisor and as an intellectual companion. Equally as influential as his time actually at university were Bonhoeffer s extensive travels early in his career. He spent time in Barcelona, Berlin, and the United States before leaving the collegiate period of his life. Each place had a unique impact on him. In Barcelona in 1928, Bonhoeffer acted as an assistant pastor, spending a year ministering to a community of ex-patriot, middle-class Germans. 29 It is from this period that his lectures from Barcelona originate, which play such a key role in Nation et al. s work, Bonhoeffer the Assassin? Barcelona was his second step towards being a pastor rather than a strictly academic theologian. The first step came when he taught Sunday School in Grunewald in 1925, as part of his university requirements. During that time, Bonhoeffer found that pastoral work excited him and gave him a second role for his Christianity. 30 Barcelona continued this journey of putting scholarly ideas into practice. Despite this shift of focus, Bonhoeffer continued to identify as a theologian and to speak theologically. In 1929, he returned to Berlin to complete his Habilitation and to work as an assistant lecturer. Returning from Spain, Bonhoeffer was particularly aware of the growing repercussions of nationalist sentiments, which pushed him toward a more concrete ethic of peace. Also during this period, Bonhoeffer became friends with the Jewish theologian Franz Hildebrandt, one of his first close 27 Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid

22 relationships. 31 By the end of the year, Bonhoeffer completed his Habilitation, Act and Being, which built on his dissertation topic. 32 Next, Bonhoeffer traveled to the United States to study at Union Theological Seminary in New York City for a year in His stay there prompted three important developments in his life. The first was his involvement in the African American Methodist community through his colleague Albert F. Fisher. Bonhoeffer found that the African American worship spoke to him in a special way, in addition to reaffirming and redefining for him the necessity of social justice. Second, he came into contact with Reinhold Niebuhr, American Christian ethicist and realist. Niebuhr s influence on Bonhoeffer has been widely debated, due to its implications for Bonhoeffer s attitude toward pacifism. The third moment, a particularly contested one in Bonhoeffer scholarship, was his acquaintance with Frenchman Jean Lasserre. Lasserre is often cited as forcing Bonhoeffer to examine seriously the concept of pacifism in the Bible. 33 Although Bonhoeffer s parents promoted nationalism in their children s youth, they were careful to temper it with the notion that war was not a universal good. Previously, during his time at Tübingen, Bonhoeffer joined the Hedgehogs, a highly patriotic fraternity with which his family had a legacy, and, as such, participated in a brief military-like training. 34 The military, however, had always been a sensitive topic in his family, as his brother Walter died in combat in the year 1918, and it seemed that Bonhoeffer was not particularly enthusiastic about the military activities of the Hedgehogs. In fact, never again did Bonhoeffer participate in any 31 Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid

23 martial activities, at least none that have been documented. Neither, however, did Bonhoeffer proclaim himself to be a pacifist. Regardless, Lasserre had a lasting effect on Bonhoeffer. Bethge recounts that, Lasserre confronted [Bonhoeffer] with an acceptance of Jesus peace commandment that he had never encountered before. Not that Bonhoeffer immediately became a convinced pacifist in fact he never did so. 35 Although Lasserre may have influenced Bonhoeffer s thought, Bonhoeffer did not, as a result, identify as a pacifist, according to Bethge. This is, of course, much contested, most notably by Nation et al. Bonhoeffer returned to Germany in the summer of The country to which he came home was on the cusp of Hitler s seizure of total control. Upon his arrival, Bonhoeffer found that the majority of theology students tended toward Hitler s party. 36 In 1931, Hitler was the leader of the Nazi party but not yet directly in a position of power within the government. His party, however, was gaining more and more popularity and this was being expressed in increasingly public ways, at prominent weddings for instance. In the November 1932 voting for church council seats in Berlin, the German Christians, a group associated with the Nazi party, won 2,282, a sum almost equal to their rival groups. 37 Previous to that, in March of 1932, Hitler had lost a presidential election to Hindenburg, lagging, however, a mere 19 percent behind the president. 38 Regardless, because of political pressure put on Hindenburg, on January 30, 1933, Hitler was appointed Reich Chancellor of Germany. In March, Hitler began enacting various decrees that allowed him to take more power later, most notably the 35 Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid

24 Enabling Act. The Enabling Act gave Hitler the ability to ignore certain aspects of the German constitution and of legal proceedings or rulings, laying the foundation for his dictatorship. The rise of the German Christian issue culminated in April, when Hitler introduced Ludwig Müller onto the scene. Müller would soon become the Reich Bishop, making the German Christians the officially endorsed church of Germany. April also saw the publication of the Aryan Paragraph, and subsequently more and more anti-semitic legislation appeared. 39 With Hindenburg s death in early August, Hitler appointed himself Führer on August 19, 1934, now holding the most powerful political position in Germany. 40 Thus, within three years of Bonhoeffer s homecoming from America, Hitler was issuing laws and statements in his power as Führer that made it clear that serious change was in store. Bonhoeffer first spoke out against the impending religious monopoly of the German Christians. The German Christians, as explained above, were the religious group aligned with Hitler, which, essentially, answered to his needs as a politician. As part of his leadership, Hitler worked to make a unified Reich church. 41 In doing so, he raised the hackles of Christians like Bonhoeffer, who objected first to the imposition of a state religion and second to the German Christian message. Bonhoeffer believed that the German Christians were radically distorting the meaning and message of Christianity for political aims, and, as a reaction to this perceived blasphemous religiopolitical trend, he and likeminded preachers eventually founded the Confessing Church. Later in 1933, when Hitler published the Aryan Clause, Bonhoeffer showed 39 Ibid Ibid Ibid

25 his issues with the Third Reich again, openly writing about his ecclesiastical and moral qualms in his essay The Church and the Jewish Question. In the midst of all this, Bonhoeffer continued to shift his focus from academics to preaching. Bethge categorizes this moment as Bonhoeffer s shift from theologian to Christian. At that point, Bonhoeffer made the choice to be a pastor first and an academic second. He preached in Berlin and became involved in the youth leadership of the ecumenical movement. In the fall of 1933, Bonhoeffer went to London, which also proved to be significant for his future. There, he worked with children, preparing them for confirmation. It was in London that he truly encountered first hand the poverty and wealth gap in Europe. His time in England was also notable because it allowed him to establish international contacts that he used later for ecumenical work. Chief among them was Bishop George Bell of Chichester, president of the Ecumenical Council. The two men saw eye-to-eye on the issues that Germany faced, and they would continue to work together to the extent possible until Bonhoeffer s imprisonment. 42 After leaving London in 1935, Bonhoeffer helped to establish several seminaries in Germany, the most famous being Finkenwalde. Seminaries as a form of education and as a space for preaching were important to Bonhoeffer because of the independence it gave in matters of substance. As I mentioned before, Bonhoeffer rejected the idea of the German Christians representing the official church of Germany. Many like-minded thinkers gathered on May 29, 1934 in Barmen for the first Confessing synod. During that and subsequent meetings, they drafted the Barmen Declaration, a document that identified the German Christian beliefs as heretical. 42 Ibid. 192, 325,

26 Specifically, it rejected the notion that the state would have power over the church or that any worldly desire or need would dictate the decisions of the church. In essence, it rebuked the German Christians, and Hitler, for attempting to subordinate the gospel to political matters, calling their doctrines false. 43 Because of the Barmen Declaration, Bethge explains, the opposition was no longer an opposition that still acknowledged the authority of the Reich church, but understood itself as the one Confessing church in Germany. 44 Although Bonhoeffer did not help draft the Declaration, he, for the most part, agreed with what it espoused, especially the idea that the church was teaching incorrect doctrines. As time went on, the Confessing Church grew as an alternative to the German Christians, although the government always regarded it as a threat and later took steps to dissolve it. Because the Reich church had a monopoly on religious education, members of the Confessing Church, including Bonhoeffer, were forced to rely on seminary education to teach and cultivate what they saw as correct belief. It was in this spirit that Bonhoeffer founded Finkenwalde. The Finkenwalde seminary held a special place in Bonhoeffer s heart, and it was there that he grew close to many church colleagues and students, including Bethge. Under Bonhoeffer s direction, Finkenwalde became a place of serious reflection and prayer, almost its own brand of monasticism. Several of Bonhoeffer s works came out of his time at Finkenwalde, most notably The Cost of Discipleship. Hitler s government eventually closed Finkenwalde, because it operated independent of the control of the government, outside the scope of prescribed religious expression. The closing of Finkenwalde signaled, to an extent, the beginning of a personal struggle between Bonhoeffer and 43 Ibid Ibid

27 Hitler. This personal battle accelerated as Bonhoeffer continued to speak out against the Third Reich, mainly now at ecumenical conferences. It resulted in the restriction on Bonhoeffer s public speaking and printing. In an effort to continue living in Germany, in 1940, Bonhoeffer got work at the Abwehr, a German military counter-intelligence office and secretly a thriving source of resistance. Hans von Dohnanyi, Bonhoeffer s sister Christel s husband, helped him get a position in which he ostensibly was to use his ecumenical contacts to gain information for Hitler s war effort. In this way, Bonhoeffer avoided military conscription while remaining in the country. As an undocumented conscientious objector, Bonhoeffer could have been sentenced to death were he to resist being drafted, but his job at the Abwehr satisfied the government that he was doing his duty to his nation. During his time with the Abwehr, Bonhoeffer worked with Dohnanyi, Hans Oster, and Wilhelm Canaris, among others, on resistance activities. It is through this that Bonhoeffer s name is tied to plots to assassinate Hitler, specifically the March 13 and 21 attempts of Although we do not know exactly what Bonhoeffer s role was in these assassination attempts, we do know that he really was gathering intelligence abroad for the resistance movement. He did use his ecumenical contacts to feel out the possibilities for support and alliances abroad. One of his duties centered on making sure that Germany would have a sovereign, acceptable future in the event of a coup. Over all, Bonhoeffer did not play a large role in the resistance movement as a whole. The size of his role is, while worth noting in order to present a factual biography, irrelevant for this study. The fact that he was involved in the resistance 23

28 movement at all raises the questions broached above. In addition, he was a member of the inner circle, at least socially, regardless of the magnitude of his role. Bonhoeffer was imprisoned on April 5, 1943, officially because of his connection to the Abwehr s illegal Operation Bonhoeffer spent the majority of his incarcerated time in Tegel prison, in Berlin. During this period, Bonhoeffer wrote letters to his family, his new fiancé Maria von Wedemeyer, and his friends, notably Bethge. Bethge later brought together the majority of these documents into the famous Letters and Papers from Prison. They give us a unique insight into Bonhoeffer s thoughts in prison. It is here that he breaches the subject of religionless Christianity, which became such a buzzword in the late 20 th century. On October 8, 1944, Bonhoeffer was moved from Tegel to Prinz-Albrecht-Strasse, from imprisonment for interrogation to imprisonment for imprisonment s sake. From there, he and a group of other prisoners were transported to Buchenwald and then to Flossenbürg, in a chaotic attempt to keep them away from the front line. On April 9, 1945, he was hanged at Flossenbürg, thus giving him the status of a martyr in many people s eyes. What I have presented above are the commonly accepted details of Bonhoeffer s life. It is important, however, to address Nation, Siegrist, and Umbel s recent publication: Bonhoeffer the Assassin? Challenging the Myth, Recovering His Call to Peacemaking. The authors claim that it is a misunderstanding to say that Bonhoeffer condoned tyrannicide at any point in his life, especially during his time at the Abwehr. The authors wish to counter the interpretation that Bonhoeffer somehow 45 Operation 7 involved the moving of fourteen Jews out of Germany. Bonhoeffer and his co-workers at the Abwehr obtained false identities, monetary support, and means of travel for those fleeing. Initially undetected by the government, due to financial irregularities in Abwehr paperwork, the operation came to light. It was this that spurred the official investigations against Dohnanyi, Oster, Canaris, and Bonhoeffer. 24

29 changed his theology or ethic when he went to work for the resistance. On the contrary, Nation et al. argue that Bonhoeffer held fast to his pacifist notions throughout his life. Their argument rests on two points. The first is biographical and historical, and the second is theological and ethical. As to the first, the authors claim that, Bonhoeffer s life as an agent of the Abwehr was truly a cover: a way to avoid military induction while continuing his theological reflection and ministry. 46 Nation et al. place the primary motivation for Bonhoeffer s involvement in the Abwehr as a means of sidestepping fighting in the war, not as a result of any desire to be involved in resistance. They also argue that he was not involved in any way with the attempted tyrannicides. The main argument for that is one of uncertainty. We cannot know what Bonhoeffer heard or said in conversations, and the only records we have of his time at the Abwehr do not cover the assassination attempts. The reasons listed for Bonhoeffer s arrest and execution were avoidance of draft, his involvement in the financial irregularity occasioned by Operation 7, and his assistance of other draft dodgers. From this point of ambiguity, the authors move to their second argument: that Bonhoeffer s theological ethic did not support assassination or war. In arguing this, they show a progression from his lectures in Barcelona in 1928 to Discipleship to Ethics. They state that despite slight changes between Barcelona and Discipleship, the transition between Discipleship and Ethics is incredibly smooth. The authors claim that by, following the trajectory of Bonhoeffer s ethical thinking over a significant period of his life, we are in a better position to determine what themes are the most enduring and what may simply be the coincidental assertions of one discreet context. 47 What 46 Nation, Siegrist, and Umbel, Ibid

30 they intend to do with that determination is to show that pacifism is one of those enduring themes in Bonhoeffer s life. They write that, when Bonhoeffer s pacifism is isolated from the broader theological developments of which it is a part, it is easily treated as an extraneous idea as easily espoused as it is transcended and overcome. In other words, treating pacifism as its own cause rather than the effect of a much larger shift in Bonhoeffer s thought structure is an interpretive act that already presupposes that Bonhoeffer s commitment to peace is short-lived because it was never truly his own. 48 This comes to the heart of Nation et al. s work. They desperately wish to combat the notion that Bonhoeffer became a Christian realist, stemming from his association with Reinhold Niebuhr, and abandoned his earlier, naïve pacifism. By showing a decided commitment to peace in his Barcelona lectures and a continuation of those theological and ethical foundations into his later works, the authors argue that Bonhoeffer could not have been involved in or even condoned any form of assassination. Despite the veracity of our inability to know all of what Bonhoeffer said and did during his tenure at the Abwehr, I disagree with the argument put forth by Nation et al. for several reasons. First, I interpret Bonhoeffer s later works Ethics and Letters and Papers from Prison as indicating a high degree of Christian realism and a sense of thoughtful obligation to political action such as tyrannicide, as I will argue in the body of this study. Second, it seems highly unlikely that Bonhoeffer would not have even known about the assassination attempts prior to their occurrence, and, as his biography shows, when he saw injustice and wrongs occurring, he spoke up. I find it extremely doubtful that Bonhoeffer would have sat by silently if he did not condone the assassinations. Finally, I find a fundamental flaw in Nation et al. s argument centered on their understanding of his degree of moral relativity. Scholars, including Green, 48 Ibid

31 Nation, and his fellow co-authors, agree that Bonhoeffer denied that there was a system of eternally true ethical principles. 49 In fact, Bonhoeffer himself says in a 1932 lecture to an ecumenical Youth Peace Conference, The church therefore can proclaim not principles that are always true but rather only commandments that are true today. For that which is always true is precisely not true today : God is for us always God precisely today. 50 This indicates that God is the only constant but that God is free to change, and, as such, even God is temporal in human s experience of the divine. Indeed, in his Barcelona lectures in 1929, Bonhoeffer blatantly states, There are no acts that are bad in and of themselves, even murder can be sanctified. 51 This clearly implies that it is impossible to say that Bonhoeffer held pacifism as an eternally true value. For these reasons, I maintain that Bonhoeffer did knowingly participate in resistance associated with tyrannicide and that the biography presented above is accurate. I agree that Bonhoeffer s biography seems to ask: how can a theologian become involved in political resistance? I argue, in opposition to Nation et al., however, that Bonhoeffer resisted the Hitler regime precisely because of his identity as a theologian and because of his theology founded in Creation and Fall. 49 Green, Nation, Siegrist, and Umbel, Ibid