WWBD (What Would Bonhoeffer Do?)

The German pastor/theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer was arrested by the Nazi Gestapo nearly 79 years ago, on April 5, 1943. He was implicated in the plot to overthrow the German government under Hitler and sentenced to die—and, indeed, he was hanged on April 9, 1945. 

(Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 1933)

What Did Bonhoeffer Do in Germany?

On the 110^th anniversary of his birth on February 4, 1906, I posted a blog article titled “Honoring the Memory of Bonhoeffer.” Thus, this post focuses on Bonhoeffer’s activity as a part of the resistance to Hitler from 1933 until his arrest by the Nazis ten years later.

Bonhoeffer was one of the first prominent German Christians to speak out in opposition to Hitler. Two days after Hitler was installed as the German chancellor in January 1933, Bonhoeffer delivered a radio address in which he criticized Hitler.

In April of that year, he raised the first voice for church resistance to Hitler's persecution of Jews, and in the following year, he joined with Martin Niemöller, Karl Barth, and others to form what came to be known as the Confessing Church.

These anti-Nazi Christians in Germany drafted the Barmen Declaration in 1934. They sought to make it clear that Jesus Christ was the Führer, their leader and the head of the Church, not Hitler.

In 1940, Bonhoeffer became even more active in the German resistance and finally, he was arrested because of that activity. At that time, he was charged with avoiding military service, advising his students to do the same, and also for helping some Jews escape Germany.

Despite what is often said/believed about Bonhoeffer, he was not arrested for participating in any assassination attempts. The main attempt to kill Hitler came on July 20, 1944, and after that plot failed, some 7,000 people were arrested and nearly 5,000, including Bonhoeffer, were executed.

Bonhoeffer was, indeed, a part of the resistance and until his arrest worked closely with those who devised the July 20 assassination attempt, especially with his brother-in-law Hans von Dohnanyi, who was accused of being the "spiritual leader" of the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler.

It is obvious, though, that Bonhoeffer was not directly involved in the 7/20/44 assassination attempt itself, for he was imprisoned fifteen months before it occurred.*

What Would Bonhoeffer Do Now in Ukraine/Russia?

It is difficult to know what Bonhoeffer would do in Ukraine if he were living there now, for he lived, wrote, and was martyred in a country that was waging war, not one suffering from the horrors of unprovoked invasion.

Being a Christian in Ukraine now is far different from being a Christian in Germany in the 1930s. We know what Bonhoeffer did there then; we don’t know what he would do in Ukraine now.

However, I think we do know what Bonhoeffer would do if he were a Christian living in Russia today. He would undoubtedly become a part of—and likely the leader of—a resistance movement that would agree with Pres. Biden’s moral outrage: “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”

It is not evident, though, that all Christians should do the same—or that we who safely live in this country should “tell” Christians in Russia what they should do. (This issue is dealt with at some length in the March 11 posting in Christianity Today: Do Russian Christians Need More Bonhoeffers?)

What Would Bonhoeffer Do Now in the U.S.?

With some certainty, we can assume that were Bonhoeffer alive in the U.S. today he would speak out strongly against those American Christians who advocate Christian Nationalism—as, thankfully, some American Christians are. (See Christians Against Christian Nationalism.)

More specifically, he would doubtlessly oppose efforts to “make America great again” and the growth of White Christian nationalism since 2015.**

Bonhoeffer’s most widely read book is Nachfolge (1937; Eng. trans., The Cost of Discipleship, 1949, and Discipleship, 2003), the theme of which is faithfully following Jesus and living by his teachings, especially as found in the Sermon on the Mount.

That, surely, is what Bonhoeffer would do here now—and what he challenges us to do also.

_____

* Bonhoeffer’s persistent pacifism is a central theme of a new book by Mennonite scholar Mark Thiessen Nation, Discipleship in a World Full of Nazis: Recovering the True Legacy of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (2022).

** White Christian Nationalism and the Threat to American Democracy (April 2022) by Philip S. Gorski and Samuel L. Perry promises to be a helpful analysis of the latter; see this interview with Gorski in the March 15 post of YaleNews.

The Bible and the Newspaper

Karl Barth is widely regarded as the greatest (Protestant) Christian theologian of the twentieth century. Among a myriad of other things, Barth (1886~1968) is often credited with saying that people should hold the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the other. 

Barth’s Important Words

It is questionable that Barth ever spoke the words he is often quoted as saying. But in “Barth in Retirement,” a May 1963 Time magazine article, Barth stated that 40 years ago he advised young theologians to “take your Bible and take your newspaper, and read both.”

That article also quotes Barth as saying, “I always pray for the sick, the poor, journalists, authorities of the state and church—in that order. Journalists form public opinion. They hold terribly important positions.”

Now, unlike in 1963 or 40 years before that, the news and the work of the journalists is disseminated by digital means as well as by print. So “newspaper” needs to be interpreted as all the ways the news is reported.

And the journalists for whom Barth regularly prayed includes all of those who seek to communicate and interpret the news by all the various forms of public media, even when—or especially when—they are castigated as being the “enemy of the people” by you-know-who.

The Eternal Word

Barth’s theology is often depicted as the theology of the Word of God. The Word of God comes to human beings in three “forms”: the humanity of Christ, the words of the prophets and the apostles (i.e. the canonical Scriptures), and the words of preachers. 

Barth, thus, emphasized the Word of God in this threefold sense:

** The Incarnate Word of God

          Despite the way much conservative evangelicalism has emphasized the Bible as the Word of God, Barth first emphasizes that primarily Jesus Christ is the Word of God. Certainly, that emphasis is in harmony with John 1:1~18 in the New Testament. (Click here to review that seminal passage.)

** The Written Word of God

The Bible is the record of God’s revelation through the Jewish people and then especially through Jesus Christ, the Word of God par excellence.

** The Proclaimed Word of God

The preachers, or theologians, that Barth referred to are those who speak not just to share their personal ideas or insights but to interpret the written Word of God in order to know the message of and about Jesus, the incarnate Word of God. No “job” is more demanding/challenging than that of being called to proclaim that Word.

The Everchanging Word

Barth was born in Switzerland and always had Swiss citizenship. Most of his higher education, however, was in Germany, and after serving for ten years as a pastor in Switzerland, in 1921 he began teaching in Germany.

Even though he was a pastor and in 1918 the author of a commentary on the biblical book of Romans, he evidently regularly read the everchanging word in the newspapers. Although he was not a German, in the 1930s he became a leader of the Christian opposition to Hitler and the Nazis.

Barth was a leader of the Confessing Church in Germany and the chief author of the Barmen Declaration of 1934. (I wrote about this briefly in a 7/20/19 blog post.) Barth’s reading of and preaching the eternal Word of God was balanced by his reading, and acting upon, what he found in the everchanging words of the newspapers.

As so it should be for us Christians today. During Holy Week this month, Pastor Laura Mayo penned an important op/ed piece titled "For all who seek to follow Rabbi Jesus, now is exactly the time to be political." She doesn’t say so, but it is evident that just as Barth advocated, Pastor Laura had been reading both the Bible and the "newspaper."

For many years after I started my preaching ministry (at the age of 16!), I focused mainly on the Word of God. But gradually I came to understand the importance of Barth’s emphasis on reading both the Bible and the newspaper.

Now I wonder if I spend too much time reading the "newspaper“ (online news articles and opinion pieces) and not enough time reflecting on how all the "news“ should be interpreted by the Word of God.

What about you?

Is the Fear of Fascism Ill-Founded?

Being an alarmist has never appealed to me, and I have usually taken a rather negative view toward those who seemed to be alarmists. There are highly reputable people, though, who now assert that we in the U.S. should be alarmed about the nation’s drift toward fascism. Is such fear of fascism ill-founded?

Warnings about Fascism

Two important books published last year stressed the looming danger of fascism in the U.S. In September 2018, Random House published Yale professor Jason Stanley’s small book How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them.

In his book Stanley (b. 1969) identifies three essential features of fascism: invoking a mythic past, sowing division, and attacking truth. Guess who he sees as blatantly doing that in the U.S. now? 

Stanley’s main points are summarized in a video you can see here. It is titled “If You’re Not Scared About Fascism in the U.S., You Should Be.” It's well worth five minutes of your time.

Earlier last year, Madeleine Albright’s book Fascism: A Warning was published. She, too, is highly critical of DJT. In the last chapter of her book she writes,

Trump is the first anti-democratic president in modern U.S. history. On too many days, beginning in the early hours, he flaunts his disdain for democratic institutions, the ideals of equality and social justice, civil discourse, civic virtues, and America itself (p. 246).

And things have only gotten worse in the year and more since Albright wrote her powerful book—just consider DJT’s deplorable tweets about “the Squad” last week and what he said in North Carolina on Wednesday evening. 

Barmen 1934

Are there significant similarities between the U.S. as it is now and Germany as it was in 1934? Both Stanley and Albright seem to think so, although they realize there are many differences also.

In opposition to the rise of fascism in Germany under Hitler and the Nazis—and most German Christians who supported them—a group of perceptive Christians formed what was known as the Confessing Church.

Led by Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in May 1934 they and their colleagues produced what was titled (in English) The Theological Declaration of Barmen. (Barmen is the name of a city in Germany.) 

This Barmen Declaration was drawn up in opposition to the political situation in Germany under Hitler and the Nazi Party. But it was primarily a statement of opposition to the state church, which affirmed the actions and leadership of Nazi Germany in order to ensure its privileged place in society.

Certainly, one of the major failings of 20th century Christianity was the failure of most German Christians to stand against Hitler and the Nazis—and to stand up for the Jewish people who were so hideously mistreated and killed.

Barmen Today

Just about a year ago, Richard Rohr as well as faculty and students of the Living School at the Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque, New Mexico, created a petition on Change.org. The petition’s title is “Barmen Today: A Contemporary Contemplative Declaration.” As of this morning, more than 19,200 people, including me, have signed it.  

After giving a brief introduction to the Barmen Declaration of 1934, the Barmen Today petition states,

In contemporary America, we face parallel threats and affirmations as prominent and privileged leaders of America’s Christian churches choose to closely and publicly support the policies and actions of our nation’s leadership – policies and actions irreconcilable with the pursuit of peace and justice. Many of these policies and actions demean people of color, support hate-filled speech from white supremacists, ostracize gender minorities, demonize refugees and immigrants, and ignore climate change realities.

One alarming similarity between the U.S. now and Germany in 1934 is the overwhelming support of the current President and his Administration by so many conservative evangelical Christians.

Will You Sign, Sign On?

Here is the link to where you can sign Barmen Today. I hope many of you will do that. Unfortunately, the fear of fascism in the U.S. certainly does not seem to be ill-founded.

Fascism--Then and Now

Eighty years ago was a very significant time for the faithful Christians of Germany. At this very time, on May 29-31, 1934, members of the Confessing Church were meeting in Barmen, a part of the city of Wuppertal, Germany. There they approved The Theological Declaration of Barmen.

Theologian Karl Barth was the principal author of the Barmen Declaration. In addition to Barth, the best known signers include Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemöller.

The Barmen Declaration was primarily drafted in opposition to the fascism of Hitler, who came to power in 1933 and who was supported by the Nazis (those who belonged to the National Socialist German Workers Party).

Hitler became the totalitarian leader (Führer) of all segments of German society—including the Church as he co-opted the support of the “German Christians.” But Pastor Niemöller declared, “Not you, Herr Hitler, but God is my Führer.”

That was the sentiment of all who signed the Barmen Declaration.

Our situation in the United States today is much different than that of Germany in the 1930s. There are those who, ludicrously, try to link the policies of the President with Hitler.

However, in this country now the movement toward fascism is not political but primarily economic.

Interestingly, in an April 29, 1938, message to Congress, President Roosevelt warned that the growth of private power could lead to fascism. He declared that

the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

It seems evident today in the U.S. that large corporations raise and spend huge amounts of money on the political campaigns of the Presidents and congresspeople. They also spend huge amounts of money hiring former government officials to lobby Congress to pass laws that mainly benefit their interests.

These corporations are not an organized group plotting to control the country. Nevertheless, even though acting independently, the wealthiest corporations seem to have considerable control over what takes place in the halls of Congress and even the White House.

The power of the corporations has been abetted by the “Citizens United” Supreme Court ruling in 2010 saying that corporations are people, having the right to funnel unlimited amounts of cash into political elections anonymously.

Back in December 2010, outgoing Congressman John Hall (D-N.Y.) warned that the massive changes to campaign finance law prompted by the “Citizens United” decision could lead to fascism. (Check it out here.)

Others are suggesting that the country is becoming a “fascist corporate state.” One such person is Ray Pensador, who until earlier this year regularly wrote for Daily Kos. On April 18 of last year he wrote,

The fascist corporate state, like the one rapidly ascending in the United States today, focuses on extracting the maximum amount of profit from the citizenry, and from the environment (natural resources) for the benefit of a tiny ruling elite.

In June of last year Ralph Nader was interviewed on Democracy Now! He is quoted as saying,

It is not too extreme to call our system of government now “American fascism.” It’s the control of government by big business, which Franklin Delano Roosevelt defined in 1938 as fascism.

Faithful Christians, and others, today need to declare much more definitely their staunch opposition to this kind of fascism: government unduly influenced by a “tiny ruling elite.”