Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Nonviolent Terrorist

Introduction- What is Christo-dramatic re-traditionalization?

Today is the 65th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camp in Auschwitz, Germany.  One nonviolent terrorist during that era who threatened the reign of the Third Reich was Dietrich Bonhoeffer; he represents a continuation of indigenous German Protestant Christianity through his sermons, works, and political activity.  This particular concept of continuation is inspired by what Ogbu Kalu described as the Japanese process of “traditionalization,” or the patterning of the habits of Japan’s industrial life from the traditional Japanese mores.[1] Christo-dramatic re-traditionalization means, in this presentation, the German Church’s need to dramatize the story of Christ throughout the centuries and within differing contexts.  To Christo-dramatically re-traditionalize the Christian faith is to simultaneously recognize the differences between Christianity and other religions as well as the changing nature of Christian tradition from generation to generation as well as from culture to culture.  I will argue that Dietrich Bonhoeffer christo-dramatically re-traditionalized the German scholarly-activism of Martin Luther to confront the evils of Third Reich Germany, as well as the German mainline Protestantism that undergirded the national socialist movement.

Reformations: Protestant and Radical

“45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.”[2] In 1517, an Augustinian monk from Eisleben, Germany named Martin Luther posted his 95 theses on the wooden doors of the Castle Church in Wittenburg.  At issue was the authority of Pope Leo X’s order for indulgences to be taken for the funding of construction of the Basilica of Saint Peter.   What is important for my purpose here to is to point out that Martin Luther was a member of the German academy of the 16th century.  He would be considered what we call today a “scholar-activist,” using his scholarship (initially) to address the concerns of the downtrodden.  Yet, one cannot say that Germany was united, for the country was nonexistent in the 16th century.  While Luther’s actions were on the one hand challenging emperor Charles I of Spain, who had found favor with the papacy, on the other hand, his arguments and doctrine attracted the ears of German peasants, as well as humanists and German nationalists.[3] Luther, as Walter Brueggeman puts it, was re-telling and re-enacting the story of Israel from a position of dislocation, in the shadow of an empire.[4]

Resistance was viewed as a violation of divine ordinance in Luther’s day, and if it were not for the protection of political allies such as Frederick the Wise of Saxony, Martin Luther’s rebellion would have came to a deadly end.  The doctrine of interest for our purposes is Luther’s concept of the Two Kingdoms.  The Two Kingdom theory posits that God had created two orders, one that is under the law (politics and society) and one under the edicts of the Gospel (the church).  The community of believers belongs to the second kingdom.  Civil authorities have no reign in the kingdom of the Gospel.  Christians owe no allegiance to the state, but because Christians are at the same time both made righteous and remain yet still sinners, we have to obey the law.[5]

Another group of Protestants in Germany argued along the lines of the Two-Kingdoms logic as well, but they noted that Christians did not have to submit to authority, and that resistance was necessary.  The Revolutionary Anabaptists, led by Thomas Müntzer who was from Zwickau, Germany.  They were mostly a group of peasants who had religious and economic demands.  Germany had had a history of peasant rebellions during Luther’s lifetime: 1476, 1491, 1498, 1503, and 1514.[6] The Catholics in Germany rightfully blamed Luther and his doctrine for the peasants’ mob-like behavior.  These Revolutionary Anabaptists established a New Jerusalem in Münster, Germany while expelling Catholics and moderate Protestants.[7] According to James Duke, some reports from the New Jerusalem included robbery as well as the stealing and swapping of wives.  Luther’s famous response, “Against the Robbing and Murderous Hordes of Peasants,” made it the duty of the princes of Germany to destroy the New Jerusalem because the Anabaptists were a group of people who showed no allegiance to the state and would not bind themselves to the authorities.[8] Although initially sympathetic with the plight of the peasant class, Martin Luther had to argue a case for their destruction; perhaps as an act of mercy toward the women being treated as property.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer- Nonviolent Terrorist and Heir of the Reformation

One of the implications of the Two-kingdoms theory proposed by Martin Luther is that cooperation and submission to civil authorities somehow guarantees law and order.  However, the nonviolent terrorism advocated by Stanley Hauerwas, is based on two presuppositions: one, that violence is never necessary because the story of Christ liberates us to choose to act in favor of God’s kingdom, which is peace, and number two, peace can never be insured outside anything of than the story of Christ; therefore any human action taken in the name of peacemaking should be looked upon with suspicion.[9]

The nonviolent Christian terrorism of Dietrich Bonhoeffer is a case in point. The German church in the 1930s went through a tragic transformation; it devolved from, to use Bonhoeffer’s own terminology, a Church of the Word/the Church of Moses, to the Church of the World/the church of Aaron.[10] The church of the world, like Aaron in the Exodus story, is willing to give the people whatever they want; it is a priestly religion that thrives on impatience and makes sacrifices so that it can make its own god.  Now keep in mind that Bonhoeffer is a partaken in the historic German Evangelical tradition, and his mentor and friend Karl Barth started the Neo-Orthodoxy theology movement, but in many circles that theology was referred to as the Neo-Reformation.  It was a theological movement which was guided by the principles of the prophetic work and life of Martin Luther.  Stanley Hauerwas points out that Dietrich Bonhoeffer had to reject the Two-Kingdoms theory by Luther because of Bonhoeffer’s understanding of Luther’s doctrine of grace, which meant that the church should live in the world, rather than vanish to the realm of the invisible.[11] The church and the world should not be friends, since the community of Christ suffers, bearing the cross of Jesus in the world.

Thus, Bonhoeffer, is a nonviolent terrorist because of his own theology of the cross.  Everyone loves to quote his Letters and Papers from Prison, when he says that “only a suffering God can help.”  Yet, what exactly does that means for persons suffering oppression? Should they just passive and wait for God to directly intervene?  We must recognize first that Bonhoeffer did not believe that submission to the state’s authority guaranteed peace; nor does our participation in peacemaking activities.  Rather, it is our faithfulness to the Gospel, and making Christ our center who first calls us as a worshipping community to listen in silence and patience.[12] Bonhoeffer changed German indigenous Christianity as well as its tradition of scholarly-activism because he went back, he rejected the anti-Semitic texts and readings of Martin Luther’s work, and Christo-dramatically re-traditionalized Lutheranism into a prophetic force for Christian nonviolence.  Bonhoeffer should be considered a nonviolent terrorist not because he failed in his desperate attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler but because he believed violence was never necessary because of the freedom Christ gives us.

Questions to consider:

  1. Is violence sometimes necessary?
  2. Are all Christians called to be pacifists as Stanley Hauerwas claims (Hauerwas, 90).
  3. What is the difference between Christian nonviolence and pacifism? Is there a distinction between Christian pacifism and other forms of pacifism?

Sources:

A Testament to Freedom: The Essential Writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Letters and Papers from Prison by Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Christ the Center by Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Performing the Faith: Bonhoeffer and the Practice of Nonviolence by Stanley Hauerwas

The Story of Christianity: Volume II by Justo Gonzalez


[1] Ogbu Kalu. “Changing Tides.” Page 9.

[2] Martin Luther, 95 Theses. http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html

[3] Ibid, 27.

[4] Walter Brueggeman. “Always in the Shadow of the Empire.” Page 55.

[5] Gonzalez, 36-37.

[6] Ibid, 41.

[7] Gonzalez, page 58.

[8] Martin Luther. “Against the Robbing and Murderous Hordes of Peasants” http://www.cas.sc.edu/hist/faculty/edwardsk/hist310/reader/lutheragainst.pdf

[9] Stanley Hauerwas. “The Nonviolent Terrorist: In Defense of Christian Fanaticism.” Page 99.

[10] Dietrich Bonhoeffer., A Testament to Freedom: The Essential Writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Page 209.

[11] Stanley Hauerwas. Performing the Faith: Bonhoeffer and the Practice of Nonviolence. Page 43

[12] Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Christ the Center. Page 27.

RodtRDH

Rod the Rogue Demon Hunter, Preacher of Hope | Black Scholar of Patristics | Writer for Nonviolent Politics. Destroyer of Trolls. It must be that angry puppy.

More Posts - Website - Twitter

Christo-dramatic re-traditionalization explained

Rodney Clapp, in his “Practicing the Politics of Jesus,” discusses the narrative logic of Christian political practices. Christian mission begins with the memory of a story; like Jesus, who knows his mission by knowing the story of Israel and Israel’s God, YHWH (Clapp, 26). Jesus of Nazareth embodies the story of Israel, with climaxes with his resurrection, which means the reconstitution of the nation of Israel and its temple (27). Thus, the church, must remember the story of Jesus, which is firmly grounded in the narrative of Israel, which in turns aids us in creating rules of grammar and practices (doctrine and sacraments) for remembering Christ’s story (29). Some of the problems with the narrative turn in theology was exposed in Kevin Van Hoozer’s The Drama of Doctrine: A canonical linguistic approach to Christian theology. One of these problems include the way in which the narrative functions within the Christian community; the story, as true with Clapp’s essay, becomes more important than the performances (actions) taken by the community. Doctrine, therefore is given primacy, as it has traditionally had, over and against praxis. This should not be the case; doctrine and praxis go hand in hand. The doctrine of the Trinity and its development has very concrete implications for how Christians are to live in community with one another as well as within the world.
The narrative turn in biblical studies is represented by Walter Brueggeman, and for my purposes, in particularly his essay, “Always in the Shadow of the Empire.” Over and over again, Brueggeman emphasizes that the history of Israel, and therefore the recorded history in the Hebrew Bible, was constituted by a struggle for the Israelites to maintain their particularly theologically constructed national identities against the imperial religions and oppressive forces of the Egyptians, the Assyrians, and Persians. Brueggeman, like Clapp, prioritizes the story over practices; for example, he excuses Nehemiah’s and Ezra’s stances against interracial marriage as an example of their dedication to the YHWH-ist formed identity of the Jews (54). The other problem with narrative theology is that persons are very selective in which part of the story they will tell. Moses was married to someone of another ethnicity; it seems unreasonable for Brueggeman to remain silent on that issue when he claims that the Exodus story remains the formative story for Israel.

Proponents of Christian particularity find notions such as syncretism and intercultural exchange to be problematic. This is founded upon the fear that the religious assembly will fall into unfaithfulness and disobedience. It is a valid fear, no doubt, but one cannot say that practicioners of world Judaisms and Christianities have been left in isolated boxes, down to this day, without being influenced by other cultures, religions, and philosophies. Christian beliefs and practices have been shown to have cross-cultural and cross-generational connections; things such as the care for the widows, the orphans, and destitute can be found across religious lines. According to Ogbu U. Kalu, during an era where Japan was trying to modernize its industry, there was something called “traditionalization,” or patterning Japanese industrial practices consistently with traditional Japanese mores (Kalu, 9). In agreement with Stanley Hauerwas (in his “The Nonviolent Terrorist: In Defense of Christian Fanaticism”) and thus Alasdair MacIntyre, I believe that traditions are contextually formed and informed by local truths and praxis (Hauerwas, 96). Traditions within world Christianity do not remain the same. The story may not change, but the story-tellers do, as well as the situations in which they must enact and perform the story of Christ.

Dramas on Broadway as well as the silver screen require the actors to perform a story, to act out a particular narrative to both general and specific audiences. The story is just as important as the performance; there is no division between the actor, the actions s/he takes within the narrative, and the story that may or may not be original. The great thing about movies is that they can have sequels, prequels, or even remakes. Therefore, the term I have come up with to express the Universal Church’s need to dramatize the story of Christ throughout the centuries and within differing contexts is Christo-dramatic re-traditionalization. To Christo-dramatically re-traditionalize the Christian faith is to simultaneously recognize the differences between Christianity and other religions as well as the changing nature of Christian tradition from generation to generation as well as from culture to culture. For example, Nathaniel Turner’s Christian rebellion against his enslavers would probably not fit into Stanley Hauerwas’s model of nonviolent terrorists, but one could perhaps analyze Turner’s revolt in light of Christian violent activity such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s failed assassination attempt against Adolph Hitler. Christo-dramatic re-traditionalization, therefore, rejects the notion that every Christian ought to be converted into the image of Stanley Hauerwas who wants everyone to be a pacifist, but rather that every Christian actor performs the drama that Christ has called her/him to act out in their particular stage of the world and in history (Hauerwas, 90).

RodtRDH

Rod the Rogue Demon Hunter, Preacher of Hope | Black Scholar of Patristics | Writer for Nonviolent Politics. Destroyer of Trolls. It must be that angry puppy.

More Posts - Website - Twitter

Did you watch the State of the Union?

Because I did not. I was watching South Park, learning about the doctrine of purgatory.

South Park should be re-categorized as educational television.

RodtRDH

Rod the Rogue Demon Hunter, Preacher of Hope | Black Scholar of Patristics | Writer for Nonviolent Politics. Destroyer of Trolls. It must be that angry puppy.

More Posts - Website - Twitter