Peace Ethic or “Pacifism”

This book is devoted to the proposition that Bonhoeffer was a consistent pacifist from 1932 onwards, committed to nonviolence and consistently opposed to war and killing.1 It argues that he was not personally involved in attempts to kill Hitler, and that his writings do not support such attempts by the resistance movement.2 In light of this argument, Stanley Hauerwas claims in his Foreword that the book is “revolutionary” because it proves Bonhoeffer's “commitment to nonviolence.”3 The lead author is Mark Thiessen Nation, professor of theology at Eastern Mennonite Seminary in Virginia, who has been writing on this topic more than twenty years. He argues the thesis of the book in the Introduction, Chapter 3, and the Conclusion. In Chapters 1 and 2 Nation also presents a detailed narrative of Bonhoeffer's life with a special emphasis on his peace witness, for example, in his addresses at ecumenical conferences and his teaching and sermons. It is a generally reliable overview in concise compass which well serves those unfamiliar with this material. In the second half of the book, two of his former students analyze Bonhoeffer's texts with a view to supporting the main thesis, Daniel Umbel focusing on an early ethics address and especially the book Discipleship (chapters 4–5), and Anthony Siegrist concentrating on the Ethics (chapters 6–7).4 These expositions are the strongest parts of the book. But the problem is that they presuppose the book's conceptual frame, and are designed to reinforce it. Hauerwas, furthermore, believes that the book will “force a reinterpretation of Bonhoeffer's life and work.”5 That would only be true for misinformed believers in the “myth”—internet surfers or readers of Hollywood type biographies. In fact the book is deeply problematic. But one aspect of the argument can be quickly dispatched: no scholars or careful readers of Bonhoeffer believe that he was an “assassin,” i.e. personally involved in attempts to kill Hitler—that is a straw man.6 Our attention must therefore shift, and focus on two other aspects of the argument: the historical question of whether Bonhoeffer supported the killing of Hitler as part of the resistance movement's effort to overthrow the Nazi regime, create a new government, and sue for peace; and the ethical question of whether Bonhoeffer was a “pacifist” with an unswerving commitment to nonviolence. First, one needs to consider the historical aspect of the argument. Nation does not trust Eberhard Bethge's interpretation of Bonhoeffer's role in the conspiracy against Hitler's government. In fact, in a lengthy blog defending the book, Nation even argues that Bethge, Bonhoeffer's friend from 1935 onwards, his literary executor, and his biographer, “is at the root of the myth that Bonhoeffer was both personally involved [in attempts on Hitler's life] and changed his theological ethic from what was named in Discipleship, if not to justify his ‘involvement’ at least to make it intelligible.”7 To this I wish first to make a personal response: during thirty years of regular correspondence and conversation with Bethge I never once heard him say or imply that Bonhoeffer was personally involved in attempts on Hitler's life, or wished to be such an “assassin.” To conclude this from Bethge's biography is simply a misreading. I must also add: never in the course of those thirty years did I ever hear Bethge question Bonhoeffer's support for killing Hitler, or contradict those who understood this to be true. Additional evidence from Eberhard Bethge himself (not discussed in the book, incidentally) comes from an exchange at the American Academy of Religion in 1977 that should be better known. A paper on “Bonhoeffer and Pacifism” had been presented by the pacifist Dale W. Brown. He had argued that Bonhoeffer moved from “a more definite pacifist period in the mid-thirties” (Discipleship) to “agonized participation in the resistance movement which was accompanied by more traditional just war reasoning in the Ethics.”8 Bethge was one of the respondents, and his remarks were committed to writing in the Bonhoeffer Society Newsletter. Referring to Larry Rasmussen, whom Brown had quoted (namely, that the author of Discipleship cannot be made into “a volunteer for assassinating even Adolf Hitler”9 ), Bethge responded with indignation: “... this kind of thinking—the man of Discipleship may be pacifist and he becomes a volunteer for assassinating Adolf Hitler—for me this is the wrong way of speaking about the whole problem, as if Dietrich had moved from a conviction of non-violence to a conviction of using violence; for me this does not at all express what was going on. Another mistaken way of putting it is to make it appear as though he had rejected Discipleship when he became a member of the conspiracy. That's not at all the case. To a great extent it's the same theology in Discipleship which made this possible (i.e. joining the resistance). Dietrich did not come from pacifism to become a murderer of Adolf Hitler. He encountered the problem that the murderer had to be stopped; the murderer was murdering second-class citizens, the Jews ... and that had to be stopped. (I'm speaking about the very end; it was not all the time that the resistance wanted to kill Hitler.)”10 Thus, Bethge held that there was no fundamental change between Discipleship and Ethics.11 But he also reported Bonhoeffer's conviction that “the murderer had to be stopped” and links this to the stage when the resistance movement “wanted to kill Hitler.” Nation accuses Bethge of recording old and fuzzy memories in his biography published in 1967.12 Rather than credit this, we should consult independent evidence that was written down by an eyewitness and entered into the public record in 1942. Missing from Bonhoeffer the Assassin? is a crucial piece of historical evidence indicating Bonhoeffer's support for killing Hitler as part of the plan to replace the Nazi regime with a government anxious to make peace with the Allies; it is probably the earliest contemporary evidence that we have. During his 1933–35 London pastorate, Bonhoeffer formed an unusually close friendship with George Bell, the Anglican Bishop of Chichester. During the war Bell made a visit to Sweden in May, 1942. Learning of this, Bonhoeffer met Bell in Sigtuna during a 48-hour visit to Sweden, acting in his capacity as a courier for the resistance movement, arguably his most important activity in support of the planned coup. At great personal risk he gave Bell a list of leading members of the opposition.13 Bell then wrote a memorandum summarizing the views of Bonhoeffer which he delivered to Anthony Eden, the British Foreign Secretary.14 The memorandum, based on Bonhoeffer's information,15 conveyed the hope of the German resistance that the British government would encourage those planning the coup d'état, and would “announce now publicly to the world in the clearest terms that once Hitler and the whole regime were overthrown, they were prepared to negotiate with a new German government ... with a view to a peace settlement. ...”16 Bell's language describing such an “overthrow” is consistent. He speaks of the “destruction of the whole Hitler regime (including Himmler, Göring, Goebbels, and the central leaders of the Gestapo, the S.S, and the S.A.),”17 the will of the opposition “to destroy Hitler and his regime”18 and their plan for “the complete elimination of Hitler and Himmler and the whole regime. ...”19 That this language refers to killing Hitler and the top Nazi leadership is plain as day when Bell publishes an article immediately after the war, which begins by saying that his purpose is to “report from personal knowledge an early stage of the plot of July 20th to destroy Hitler.”20 While Bell states that there are people in the opposition “filled with deep penitence for the crimes committed in Germany's name,” certainly a reference to Bonhoeffer, never once does he say or imply that his informants oppose the killing of Hitler. The language of destroy, overthrow, and eliminate is not the language of polite negotiation or diplomacy.21 Anyone who thinks Bell's language means anything other than killing Hitler must have indulged in a heavy dose of wishful thinking. No appeals to allegedly fuzzy twenty-year old memories of Bethge can explain away Bell's eyewitness reports. What, then, of the ethical question, whether Bonhoeffer had a “commitment to nonviolence,” as Hauerwas summarizes the argument? In my writings about Bonhoeffer on peace and his role in the resistance movement, I have argued that we should speak of Bonhoeffer's peace ethic, and not “pacifism,” simply because most people understand a “pacifist” to be person opposed to violence and killing in principle, especially in war.22 Instead, Bonhoeffer rejected an ethic of principles, and built his peace ethic on core doctrines of his theology. However, the argument of Bonhoeffer the Assassin? precisely aims to prove Bonhoeffer's “commitment to nonviolence.” The heart of the book is about not-killing, i.e. nonviolence, i.e. pacifism as so defined. For the authors, Bonhoeffer must be totally insulated from the killing of Hitler, not only in actual fact, but even from agreeing with it as part of the resistance movement's coup strategy. Bonhoeffer's own writings do not support this interpretation of his “pacifism.” For example, in his 1937 Finkenwalde lectures on homiletics, he advises his students on “the War Sermon,” which they would be expected to preach on occasions like Memorial Day. Since war contradicts God's commandment, Bonhoeffer asks, what should a Christian do? (This of course was an existential issue for his students, who were at or near call-up age.) “A final answer to the question of whether a Christian should or should not participate must be rejected. Both answers are possible.” The one who answers the call and joins up is “threatened by militarism.” On the other hand, Bonhoeffer says, one who refuses, because the government is demanding sin, is risking “doctrinaire pacifism.”23 Another example is found in Bonhoeffer's 1937 lectures on catechetical instruction, the section on the Sixth Commandment. Bonhoeffer poses the question: “How are Christians to act in war?” His answer: “There is no revealed commandment of God here. The church can never give its blessing to war and weapons. The Christian can never participate in unjust wars. If the Christian takes up arms, he must daily ask God for forgiveness for this sin and pray for peace.”24 Nation actually quotes this passage, but tries to explain it away: perhaps Bonhoeffer is speaking here “formally on behalf of the Lutheran Church and thus not in his own voice.” Or maybe he is trying to get the students learning the catechism “to at least take the just war tradition seriously as ... a major step forward.”25 As war nears in 1939, Bonhoeffer writes to Bishop Bell for advice on his own personal dilemma. For him it is “conscientiously impossible to join in a war under the present circumstances.”26 This is the Bonhoeffer who defends conscientious objection in his Ethics, written in the midst of the war.27 “Under the present circumstances” is not a casual or careless phrase; the qualification is repeated in the letter, with variations like “under the present conditions,” and “under different circumstances.” Such phrases leave open the possibility that, under different circumstances, his decision could be different. These statements simply cannot be accurately summarized or fairly represented as Bonhoeffer's “commitment to nonviolence.” Just as Bonhoeffer consistently distinguished his Christian peace ethic from secular pacifism, so he also rejected “doctrinaire pacifism” among Christians. Also relevant to Bonhoeffer's ethical attitudes is his lecture on Article XVI of the Augsburg Confession at the Finkenwalde seminary in July 1935. The Confession's reference to “just wars” led Bonhoeffer to a discussion of tyrannicide, citing the views of Aquinas, Scottish Calvinists, and others.28 The students’ notes record Bonhoeffer's first point: “Tyrannicide: Thomas: no right to revolution, but if the tyrant starts a revolution, we must depose him.”29 Bonhoeffer certainly regarded Hitler as a tyrant, calling him in all but name “the tyrannical despiser of humanity” in his Ethics.30 He also regarded the Hitler regime as The Revolution of Nihilism, so described in Hermann Rauschning's famous 1938 book, a volume that Bonhoeffer promoted. The failure of Bonhoeffer the Assassin? to consider this lecture and such related facts as evidence of Bonhoeffer's ethical thinking is conspicuous. It is also noteworthy that these opinions in lectures from 1935 to 1937 coincide exactly with the time Bonhoeffer was lecturing on and preparing for publication his book Discipleship. Finally we should consider a passage about resisting evil by force. It was written while Bonhoeffer was working for the resistance in the Abwehr, just a few months after his meeting with Bishop Bell. In his Christmas 1942 essay “After Ten Years,” written for his resistance friends and colleagues, Bonhoeffer contrasted the insidiousness of stupidity with real evil. He wrote that, in opposing stupidity, force is as impotent as are facts and reason. Evil, by contrast, can be opposed by force. “Stupidity [Dummheit] is a more dangerous enemy of the good than evil [Bosheit]. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force [Gewalt]. ... Yet, at this very point,31 it becomes quite clear that only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity. Here we must come to terms with the fact that, in most cases, a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it.”32 This passage has special relevance for Bonhoeffer the Assassin? because Mark Nation devotes six pages at the very beginning of the book to a sketch of Helmuth James von Moltke, a leader of the Kreisau Circle. While his career in resistance was similar to Bonhoeffer's in several respects, he very strongly opposed attempts like Stauffenberg's to kill Hitler. He believed that another stab-in-the-back legend was likely to arise from a coup attempt and killing Hitler, and that this could only be avoided by a clear military defeat.33 In contrast, Bonhoeffer saw the removal of Hitler, i.e., tyrannicide and coup d'état, as necessitating force. Whereas Nation employs Moltke as a model of nonviolent resistance, which he intends to prove true also for Bonhoeffer, this very passage about resisting evil by force is precisely the one quoted by Moltke's translator to explain Bonhoeffer's difference from Moltke.34 This is not to say that Bonhoeffer adopted violence as a principle, but rather, that in the case of Hitler, Nazism, and the Holocaust, he accepted the use of force in opposing evil in its extremity. The heart of Bonhoeffer the Assassin? reveals a deep irony. The authors have the commendable goal of presenting Bonhoeffer as an apostle of peace, not an exemplar of violence. But by its single-minded preoccupation with defending Bonhoeffer from any connection whatsoever to attempts to kill Hitler, the book actually obscures the true nature of Bonhoeffer's peace ethic. For that ethic does not rest on a foundational commitment to nonviolence, but on several interrelated doctrines and convictions in his theology. Understanding that is where “recovering his call to peacemaking” must begin.35 Bonhoeffer the Assassin? opens with a dedication “in memory of Franz Hildebrandt (1909–85), Bonhoeffer's ‘best-informed and most like-minded friend’ (Eberhard Bethge).” Hildebrandt, a lifelong pacifist, was indeed Bonhoeffer's closest friend during the decade before he met Eberhard Bethge. And, Nation writes, “Hildebrandt was perhaps Bonhoeffer's only friend who agreed with him on all major issues.”36 So the book ends with a quotation from Hildebrandt's Foreword to Yoder's pamphlet “Peace without Eschatology?”37 It is only fitting, then, to conclude with a quotation from Hildebrandt when he was interviewed about Bonhoeffer's peace ethic: “It was never a pacifism unqualified and held-to in principle.”38

Epistemology · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Christian Theology and Mission · Philosophy · Violence, Religion, and Philosophy

• Bonhoeffer's Non‐Commitment to Nonviolence

  Open Access•Michael P Dejonge•Journal of Religious Ethics•2016

  Add to list