Bonhoeffer, the Nazi?

This seems to be the claim of Reggie L. Williams in his book Bonhoeffer’s Black Jesus. his article seeks to do two things: first, lay out Williams’ argument from one key section of his book; and second, show why that argument fails.[1]

Williams’ Argument

Williams contends that the “pre–Sloane Fellowship Bonhoeffer” (the Bonhoeffer of the 1920s) “remained sympathetic toward the German nationalism that was popular within the general mind-set of post–World War I Germany.”[2] While the title of this article might appear sensational, it fairly captures the core of Williams’ thesis: that Bonhoeffer’s early theology helped lay the intellectual foundations for the rise of Nazism.

In the “malaise” of German though after World War I, Williams argues,

Bonhoeffer’s system was no exception to the norm; in his early years, his creative theology was seduced by the predominant expression of Christianity in Germany. The concept of orders became theological support for the Nazi language of blood and soil, of racial superiority, and of a pure Volk.[3]

And if it were not clear, Williams clarified that the use of “orders” language here is “protonationalist,” speaking of loyalty to Volk in a way that “presaged” National Socialist usage.[4]

To be as charitable as possible to Williams, he acknowledges that Bonhoeffer opposed actual Nazism from the beginning:

Bonhoeffer saw Nazis as malevolent from the beginning, and he strongly and publicly articulated his disagreement in accordance with his clear description of Christian faithfulness.[5]

This does not set aside the brunt force of his argument that Bonhoeffer’s pre-1930 theology was marked by ideological elements that would later fuel Nazism.

Williams focuses especially on three lectures Bonhoeffer delivered in Barcelona from November 1928 to February 1929. These lectures, he says, reveal “a discordant connection” between Bonhoeffer’s ecumenical, Christ-centered faithfulness and “a common loyalty to German Volk.”[6] Williams highlights one central passage as evidence that Bonhoeffer “made use of the gospel for nationalism by avoiding the Bible.”[7] Here is the quotation as Williams presents it:

It would be an utter perversion of one’s ethical sensibilities to believe that my first duty is to love my enemy and precisely in so doing to surrender my neighbor to destruction, in the most concrete sense. It is simply not possible to love or, as the case may be, to protect both my enemy and my people [Volk]…. God gave me my mother, my people [Volk]. For what I have, I thank my people [Volk]; what I am, I am through my people [Volk], and so what I have should also belong to my people [Volk]; that is the divine order [orders of creation] of things, for God created the peoples [Völker].[8]

According to Williams, the context of this quotation is that Bonhoeffer is asking the question whether Christians should love their enemies as Christ commanded in the Sermon on the Mount. And Williams concludes that Bonhoeffer’s answer in this quotation betrays “the synchronization of his early theology and popular German nationalism.”[9] Williams interprets Bonhoeffer’s position to be that “love of enemy over love of Volk is evil.”[10]

A Christian participation in war, when one’s own Volk are in danger, permitted a suspension in the commandment to love a non-German neighbor. The empathic, socially vicarious language of Stellvertretung is modified, and German-centric nationalism, rather than Christ-centered ecumenism, becomes the guide to Bonhoeffer’s Christianity. That was the case with Bonhoeffer’s pre–New York theology, and it evidenced the presence of still-raw wounds from the war.[11]

Williams doubles down heavily on this reading, stating strongly that Bonhoeffer’s

German postwar interpretation of Christ existing as the church-community turned Jesus into God’s endorsement of the retooled narrative of the Volk, a point that he demonstrated with unabashed clarity at the end of his second Barcelona lecture when he proclaimed, “German people, that is your God!”[12]

Williams’ Failure

When the full quotation is examined in context, Williams’ interpretation does not hold.This is the full quotation from Bonhoeffer, in context. It is taken from 335-337 of Barcelona, Berlin, New York: 1928–1931, the third of three lectures delivered in Spain. I have boldened the portion that Williams utilizes, and underlined important sections.

…the problem of war. During the war and after the war, we heard, and we are still hearing, that the entire weakness and wretchedness of Christianity, its churches and followers, was revealed in the inability to prevent the war; even more, it is said that if Christians really wanted to be true Christians, they would resolutely have refused to serve in the war. Just as various Christian sects indeed paid for their Christian position by going to prison, so also would it be the duty of those who seriously call themselves Christians to accept the most horrible punishments rather than go to war. For it is clearly written: You shall not kill; you shall not requite evil with evil; rather it anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, You shall not murder; and whoever murders shall be liable to judgment. But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother, you will be liable to judgment. You have heard that it was said that you should love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven. For what will it profit them if they gain the whole world but forfeit their souls? Thus do we find it clearly and unequivocally stated in the New Testament, and no amount of quibbling will help: You shall not resist against evil; you shall not kill.

Here, however, we are overlooking the decisive dilemma that precisely when my own people (Volk) are attacked, the commandment of love does extend at least as far as defending them as it does to the commandment not to kill one’s enemy. It would be an utter perversion of one’s ethical sensibility to believe that my first duty is to love my enemy and precisely in so doing to surrender my neighbor to destruction, in the most concrete sense. It is simply not possible to love or, as the case may be, to protect both my enemy and my people. I am confronted by the concrete situation of surrendering to destruction either my brother or my enemy. I am put in this dilemma at the very moment when war is declared against me, that is, when I either go to war or do not go to war. If out of conviction I do not go, then am leaving my people in the lurch in their hour of distress, and am doing so by citing Christ, who said to me love your neighbor as yourself, which doubtless means love your neighbor more than vour tearful conscience, love your neighbor first and foremost; what then follows is a secondary question.

And now one dares to justify war somehow from the Christian perspective? Now millions of Christian men go to war, and not just because they are compelled, but presenting it as God’s will? They hold services of worship in the field and dare drag God and the holy name of Jesus Christ into this horrific murder? War is nothing but murder. War is a crime. No Christian can go to war. This case for this seems entirely clear and convincing, yet it suffers at the central issue: it is not concrete and as a result does not look into the depths of Christian decision. It invokes the commandment not to kill and believes that commandment to be the solution.

Indeed, is not my enemy just as much my neighbor as is my biological brother? Is not the great deed of Christianity precisely that it leveled these distinctions, through the powerful notion of universal brotherhood? Although this is doubtless the case, these questions derive from a consideration of principles rather than from the concrete situation. If ever I find myself in the distressing situation of having to decide whether to expose my biological brother, my biological mother, to the hand of the attacker, or to raise my own hand against the enemy, then the moment itself will doubtless tell me which of these two is and must be my neighbor, including before the eyes of God. God gave me my mother, my people (Volk). For what I have, I thank my people; what I am, I am through my people, and so what I have should also belong to my people; that is in the divine order [Ordnung] of things, for God created the peoples. If for a single dangerous moment I do not act, then I am doing nothing other than surrendering my neighbors.

And now one more thing. Christians who go to war will not hate their enemy, since they cannot hate in any case. In battle they will still pray for their enemies and for their souls when they deliver their bodies to death and will still bless those enemies when they themselves, the Christians, are mortally wounded by them. For those enemies are in the same distress as are the Christians themselves: the enemies, too, are defending their mothers, their children, their people.[13]

There are four key problems when compring Williams’ presentation of Bonhoeffer with what Bonhoeffer actually stated here.

First, Williams portrays that Bonhoeffer’s answer as “the synchronization of his early theology and popular German nationalism.” However, Bonhoeffer grounds his argument in a specific context so that he cannot be understood in this way. He directly Contradicts this interpretation when he acknowledges that an enemy is just as much a neighbour as a biological brother:

Indeed, is not my enemy just as much my neighbor as is my biological brother? Is not the great deed of Christianity precisely that it leveled these distinctions, through the powerful notion of universal brotherhood? Although this is doubtless the case, these questions derive from a consideration of principles rather than from the concrete situation.

Second, Williams claims that Bonhoeffer is saying that “love of enemy over love of Volk is evil.” Bonhoeffer never said this. He strongly insists that Christians CANNOT hate IN ANY CASE. He insists, furthermore, that Christians ought to pray for their enemies even if they have to fight against them.

Christians who go to war will not hate their enemy, since they cannot hate in any case. In battle they will still pray for their enemies and for their souls when they deliver their bodies to death and will still bless those enemies when they themselves, the Christians, are mortally wounded by them. For those enemies are in the same distress as are the Christians themselves: the enemies, too, are defending their mothers, their children, their people.

Bonhoeffer is not saying that love of enemy is evil at all. He is saying that in a situation where a love for one’s enemy would lead to the destruction of those that enemy is attacking, THAT is evil as it abandons them to destruction – especially when God has providentially placed those being attacked under one’s protection and/or care.

If ever I find myself in the distressing situation of having to decide whether to expose my biological brother, my biological mother, to the hand of the attacker, or to raise my own hand against the enemy, then the moment itself will doubtless tell me which of these two is and must be my neighbor, including before the eyes of God. God gave me my mother, my people (Volk). For what I have, I thank my people; what I am, I am through my people, and so what I have should also belong to my people; that is in the divine order [Ordnung] of things, for God created the peoples. If for a single dangerous moment I do not act, then I am doing nothing other than surrendering my neighbors.

Such a philosophy actually serves to explain why Bonhoeffer later felt justified in seeking to assassinate Hitler.

Third, Williams says that Bonhoeffer argued that there can be a suspension of the command to love one’s neighbours toward non-Germans: “A Christian participation in war, when one’s own Volk are in danger, permitted a suspension in the commandment to love a non-German neighbor.” In no way, shape, or form is this what Bonhoeffer claimed. First, as stated already, he calls the non-German just as much a neighbour as his biological brother. Second, the entire reason Bonhoeffer is talking about this in such concrete terms is because there cannot be a suspension of the commandment, as Bonhoeffer said at the close of the first paragraph cited:

Thus do we find it clearly and unequivocally stated in the New Testament, and no amount of quibbling will help: You shall not resist against evil; you shall not kill.

Fourth, Williams says that this is all evidence of nationalist idolatry on Bonhoeffer’s part, and that Bonhoeffer’s

German postwar interpretation of Christ existing as the church-community turned Jesus into God’s endorsement of the retooled narrative of the Volk, a point that he demonstrated with unabashed clarity at the end of his second Barcelona lecture when he proclaimed, “German people, that is your God!”

Simply stated, in its full context, Bonhoeffer is applying the theology of Christ cross to the specific circumstances facing post war Germany. Here is the argument for this.

Bonhoeffer is seeking to apply the cross to his own day, to the people he was speaking to, in light of their recent history, guilt, and shame as a nation. This application extends to others outside of Germany, though it is directed to his immediate audience.

now we must address… What does the cross say to us, today? … Here we shift from scholarly concerns to personal concerns. … Do not all of us who have a world war behind us, who live in an age of horrific economic competition, an age in which all values and ideals are in decline—do not all of us bear an enormous guilt whose weight threatens to burden us down to the ground? And does the cross have nothing to say to us in this situation, the cross that speaks about compassionate, revivifying love of God toward those who die and those burdened by guilt? Does not looking at the cross of Jesus Christ not open up our gaze far beyond our own age to a time when God will make everything new again?

…

Spiritual battles of unusual proportions are taking place among our people [Volk]… if we but entrust ourselves to God alone, God will cause grace and compassion to radiate over the dark guilt of our century and the human race…

Far from this being a National Socialist, or German Nationalist, or Ethnocentric gospel, Bonhoeffer sought to apply the true Gospel to his people in their context. Two paragraphs before Williams’ citations – a citation Williams says proves that Bonhoeffer’s theology was rooted in German-nationalism – Bonhoeffer wrote the following:

You, human being, no matter who you are, you are God’s child, you are included in God’s love, out of the pure, incompressible grace of God; accept this word, believe in it, trust in his rule rather than in yourself or in your own party, rather than in your own work or your own religion. God does as he wills. Turn your misery into God’s blessed presence, and from within your guilt and distress hear the voice of the eternal, living God.

Bonhoeffer is calling his audience to trust God, not in their nation, party, or works, so that their guilt and distress as a nation might be relieved by God. If only they had listened to him.

Close

In conclusion, Williams’ claim in Bonhoeffer’s Black Jesus that Bonhoeffer was a German-nationalist, pre-cursor to the Nazis, does not hold up under examination. Williams’ has constructed a narrative that is directly contradicted by the immediate context of his citations. The level of self-delusion required to do this – to read into Bonhoeffer’s clear words a meaning contrary to that which he intended – is astonishing. Seeing the distortions of the past made by the deluded of today will hopefully help us to not only see the past clearly and objectively, but also see our present world with clear, undistorted vision.

---

[1] All stations from Williams are from the Perlego edition: Reggie L. Williams, Bonhoeffer’s Black Jesus: Harlem Renaissance Theology and an Ethic of Resistance, Revised Edition (2021), (Baylor University Press, 2014), Perlego.

[2] Chapter One: To Harlem and Back: Seeing Jesus with New Eyes.

[3] Chapter One: To Harlem and Back: Seeing Jesus with New Eyes.

[4] Notes, Chapter One, 15.

[5] Chapter One: To Harlem and Back: Seeing Jesus with New Eyes.

[6] Chapter One: To Harlem and Back: Seeing Jesus with New Eyes.

[7] Chapter One: To Harlem and Back: Seeing Jesus with New Eyes.

[8] Bonhoeffer as quoted in Chapter One: To Harlem and Back: Seeing Jesus with New Eyes.

[9] Chapter One: To Harlem and Back: Seeing Jesus with New Eyes.

[10] Chapter One: To Harlem and Back: Seeing Jesus with New Eyes.

[11] Chapter One: To Harlem and Back: Seeing Jesus with New Eyes.

[12] Chapter One: To Harlem and Back: Seeing Jesus with New Eyes.

[13] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Barcelona, Berlin, New York: 1928–1931, English ed., Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 335-337.