What do you think?
Rate this book
Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy
This groundbreaking biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer - one of the greatest heroes of the twentieth century - is a definitive, deeply moving narrative, a story of moral courage in the face of the monstrous evil that was Nazism. Bonhoeffer presents a profoundly orthodox Christian theologian whose faith led him to boldly confront this great evil and uncovers never-before-revealed facts, including the story of his passionate romance. After discovering the fire of true faith in a Harlem church, Bonhoeffer returned to Germany and became one of the first to speak out against Hitler. As a double agent, he joined the plot to assassinate the Fhrer and was hanged in a concentration camp at age thirty-nine. Since his death, Bonhoeffer has grown to be one of the most fascinating, complex figures of the twentieth century.
24 pages, Audiobook
First published April 18, 2010
8,469 people are currently reading
145k people want to read
About the author
Eric Metaxas
120Ìýbooks2,168ÌýfollowersIn a decidedly eclectic career, Eric Metaxas has written for VeggieTales, Chuck Colson, Rabbit Ears Productions and the New York Times, four things not ordinarily in the same sentence. He is a best-selling author whose biographies, children’s books, and works of popular apologetics have been translated into more than 25 languages.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 4,933 reviews
January 13, 2019
I will be honest it scares me to see the many positive reviews of this book, as it contains numerous historical errors, not to mention it grossly oversimplifies Bonhoeffer's theology. The historical errors include locating Bonn in Switzerland and asserting that Germany was not yet an authoritarian state in 1934 -- one year after Hitler seized power. But of greater concern than these factual errors and the misspelling of German concentration camps (both Buchenwald and Dachau are spelled incorrectly) is Metaxas's misrepresentation of Bonhoeffer's theology as akin to the beliefs of contemporary American evangelicals. While I am no expert on Bonhoeffer's theology, I do know that he was deeply influenced by the philosophical writings of Kierkegaard and the theological writings of Karl Barth -- both of whose approach to religion would be totally foreign to an American fundamentalist.
Remaking Bonhoeffer as a Christian conservative requires cherry picking from his writings, not to mention rewriting German history. Contrary to Metaxas's portrayal, the failure of the Evangelical Church of Germany (EKD) to stand up to Nazism was not the product of Church leaders' failure to develop a personal relationship with Christ. Although this explanation may appeal to an American evangelical audience, such an explanation ignores the complex ways in which German culture and nationalism had become entangled with Church practices and doctrine. Similarly Metaxas's depiction of the ecumenical movement in which Bonhoeffer was intensely involved ignores several defining features. For example, he ignores the fact that many of Bonhoeffer's ecumenical allies were committed pacifists. They also most often were the very liberal theologians whom Metaxas seems intent on portraying in a negative light. While it is true that Bonhoeffer expressed criticism of historical biblical criticism during his stay in the United States, he also warned students at Finkenwalde about the dangers of developing an individualistic personal relationship to Christ and praised Rudolf Bultmann's call for de-mythologizing the New Testament. Moreover, in his letters from prison, he spoke of a "religionless Christianity" and called upon people to "live as if there were no God." The truth is that Bonhoeffer does not fit neatly in any narrow theological box -- liberal or conservative.
In short, this is no biography, but rather a polemic seemingly aimed at co-opting Bonhoeffer for the current political agenda of the religious right. This agenda becomes more evident if you look more closely at the author's background. A conservative evangelical radio host Metaxas served on President Trump's Evangelical Council and has described secularism as a threat to freedom.
Remaking Bonhoeffer as a Christian conservative requires cherry picking from his writings, not to mention rewriting German history. Contrary to Metaxas's portrayal, the failure of the Evangelical Church of Germany (EKD) to stand up to Nazism was not the product of Church leaders' failure to develop a personal relationship with Christ. Although this explanation may appeal to an American evangelical audience, such an explanation ignores the complex ways in which German culture and nationalism had become entangled with Church practices and doctrine. Similarly Metaxas's depiction of the ecumenical movement in which Bonhoeffer was intensely involved ignores several defining features. For example, he ignores the fact that many of Bonhoeffer's ecumenical allies were committed pacifists. They also most often were the very liberal theologians whom Metaxas seems intent on portraying in a negative light. While it is true that Bonhoeffer expressed criticism of historical biblical criticism during his stay in the United States, he also warned students at Finkenwalde about the dangers of developing an individualistic personal relationship to Christ and praised Rudolf Bultmann's call for de-mythologizing the New Testament. Moreover, in his letters from prison, he spoke of a "religionless Christianity" and called upon people to "live as if there were no God." The truth is that Bonhoeffer does not fit neatly in any narrow theological box -- liberal or conservative.
In short, this is no biography, but rather a polemic seemingly aimed at co-opting Bonhoeffer for the current political agenda of the religious right. This agenda becomes more evident if you look more closely at the author's background. A conservative evangelical radio host Metaxas served on President Trump's Evangelical Council and has described secularism as a threat to freedom.
April 2, 2011
Let me say first that this is a wonderful book. Congratulations Mr. Metaxas.
From an account of Bonhoeffer's life to the overlay of history I was drawn in and followed it. There is (of course) for me a sort of bittersweet sense to the book as Bonhoeffer died just before the end of WWII. He was murdered about 3 weeks before Hitler took his own life more than likely having been murdered on the orders of the mad man himself.
Some will not be as interested in the theological insights that can be found here but it was a major part of what I love(ed) about the book. Bonhoeffer has a lot to say and whether a Christian holds with all his insights or not they are still worth reading.
Of course a major part of the book (and why it was selected here) has to do with Bonhoeffer's disgust with the way the Jews were treated in Nazi Germany. Having visited America and expressing his concern over the racial situation here (pre-WWII America) he was relieved that no corollary existed in his own Germany. Having thought this the situation that met him when he returned home from his short visit to America was doubly troubling for him.
I was not aware before I read this book of Bonhoeffer's involvement with the long running conspiracy to kill Hitler. I had been aware of the earlier abortive attempts. These do always seem creepy to me as Hitler always seemed to escape from situations where he shouldn't have. The books account of Bonhoeffer's thoughts and concerns the struggle he has before he moves in that direction. The man moved from being almost a pacifist to participating in a conspiracy. Rather amazing.
I can't possibly give an insight into all you'll find here. Bonhoeffer was an amazing person, a devout and humble Christian and a resource for us still today through his writings. While I can not escape the feeling of loss, outrage and sadness at the death of Bonhoeffer at such a young age, he himself was ready for his death and met it with calmness and faith. A special individual and a good book.
Highly recommended.
From an account of Bonhoeffer's life to the overlay of history I was drawn in and followed it. There is (of course) for me a sort of bittersweet sense to the book as Bonhoeffer died just before the end of WWII. He was murdered about 3 weeks before Hitler took his own life more than likely having been murdered on the orders of the mad man himself.
Some will not be as interested in the theological insights that can be found here but it was a major part of what I love(ed) about the book. Bonhoeffer has a lot to say and whether a Christian holds with all his insights or not they are still worth reading.
Of course a major part of the book (and why it was selected here) has to do with Bonhoeffer's disgust with the way the Jews were treated in Nazi Germany. Having visited America and expressing his concern over the racial situation here (pre-WWII America) he was relieved that no corollary existed in his own Germany. Having thought this the situation that met him when he returned home from his short visit to America was doubly troubling for him.
I was not aware before I read this book of Bonhoeffer's involvement with the long running conspiracy to kill Hitler. I had been aware of the earlier abortive attempts. These do always seem creepy to me as Hitler always seemed to escape from situations where he shouldn't have. The books account of Bonhoeffer's thoughts and concerns the struggle he has before he moves in that direction. The man moved from being almost a pacifist to participating in a conspiracy. Rather amazing.
I can't possibly give an insight into all you'll find here. Bonhoeffer was an amazing person, a devout and humble Christian and a resource for us still today through his writings. While I can not escape the feeling of loss, outrage and sadness at the death of Bonhoeffer at such a young age, he himself was ready for his death and met it with calmness and faith. A special individual and a good book.
Highly recommended.
April 9, 2015
We all know history is written and it’s no use wishing for some other outcome when reading a biography or history book. Yet reading this book I felt a terrible suspense. I knew Bonhoeffer was a goner - still I bit my nails, I dreaded, I cried, I hoped, and for a while I even engaged in magical thinking, imagining if I boycotted the last 20 pages Bonhoeffer would not die!
The sense of tragedy is heightened because the end of the war almost let Bonhoeffer escape his stupid fate, death coming just two weeks before the Third Reich was brought to its knees. I had to force myself through the last pages. Ugh, what a waste.
(Buchenwald)
Just to note: I’m an atheist. And I’m no student of church history but I really enjoyed the theological insights of this book. For as much as Bonhoeffer sometimes seemed an arrogant fussbudget, at least when he was younger, I’m glad he existed, with his confidence in the Christian god, and his dedication to following his sense of what is right (doing what he felt was God’s will, for example, despite its being a ‘sin�). The world needs more like him.
How can you not admire someone who in 1935 said, “Only he who cries out for the Jews may sing Gregorian chants.�
Bonhoeffer really wins you over. But for all my admiration and respect, I couldn’t help but be frustrated with him and all of noble, high-bred and fine-feeling aristocratic Germany, which couldn’t get off its collective Arsch and assassinate Hitler, despite their outrage and chagrin. Being on the side of the right was surely a way to feel good about yourself, but accomplished zilch.
And just like I hoped against all reason and reality that Bonhoeffer wouldn’t die, I hoped to be reassured that there were good Germans out and about in the �40’s. But the conclusion is there were hardly enough, and certainly not enough willing to sacrifice themselves for the country they’d been proud of.
As one conspirator says, “God promised Abraham that He would not destroy Sodom if just ten righteous men could be found in the city, and so I hope that for our sake God will not destroy Germany.�
But history makes it seem you could count the good-when-it-mattered-most men on two hands. And the war not only destroyed Germany’s future but also obliterated its past. That is, it will never be remembered for its poets and thinkers; whoever thinks of Germany now thinks first of the maniac with the little mustache and genocide. And while those who think of Sodom might think about Lot, no one thinks about Bonhoeffer or von Stauffenberg.
Biography is a good way to experience history from a certain perspective, and I found this book illuminating in its picture of an age. Living in Germany, it’s an era I hear about day-in day-out. You can’t live here without reading something about WWII every day, and guaranteed there is a documentary on some channel or other every evening, too. But it’s often big-picture stuff, or some military campaign, or just fleeting reference, and this biography was right there with its details of a particular life in a particular place. It was heartening to read about Germans who protested against the Nazis, who found the Gestapo and the SS reprehensible, even if they failed to bring change.
The sense of tragedy is heightened because the end of the war almost let Bonhoeffer escape his stupid fate, death coming just two weeks before the Third Reich was brought to its knees. I had to force myself through the last pages. Ugh, what a waste.
(Buchenwald)
Just to note: I’m an atheist. And I’m no student of church history but I really enjoyed the theological insights of this book. For as much as Bonhoeffer sometimes seemed an arrogant fussbudget, at least when he was younger, I’m glad he existed, with his confidence in the Christian god, and his dedication to following his sense of what is right (doing what he felt was God’s will, for example, despite its being a ‘sin�). The world needs more like him.
How can you not admire someone who in 1935 said, “Only he who cries out for the Jews may sing Gregorian chants.�
Bonhoeffer really wins you over. But for all my admiration and respect, I couldn’t help but be frustrated with him and all of noble, high-bred and fine-feeling aristocratic Germany, which couldn’t get off its collective Arsch and assassinate Hitler, despite their outrage and chagrin. Being on the side of the right was surely a way to feel good about yourself, but accomplished zilch.
And just like I hoped against all reason and reality that Bonhoeffer wouldn’t die, I hoped to be reassured that there were good Germans out and about in the �40’s. But the conclusion is there were hardly enough, and certainly not enough willing to sacrifice themselves for the country they’d been proud of.
As one conspirator says, “God promised Abraham that He would not destroy Sodom if just ten righteous men could be found in the city, and so I hope that for our sake God will not destroy Germany.�
But history makes it seem you could count the good-when-it-mattered-most men on two hands. And the war not only destroyed Germany’s future but also obliterated its past. That is, it will never be remembered for its poets and thinkers; whoever thinks of Germany now thinks first of the maniac with the little mustache and genocide. And while those who think of Sodom might think about Lot, no one thinks about Bonhoeffer or von Stauffenberg.
Biography is a good way to experience history from a certain perspective, and I found this book illuminating in its picture of an age. Living in Germany, it’s an era I hear about day-in day-out. You can’t live here without reading something about WWII every day, and guaranteed there is a documentary on some channel or other every evening, too. But it’s often big-picture stuff, or some military campaign, or just fleeting reference, and this biography was right there with its details of a particular life in a particular place. It was heartening to read about Germans who protested against the Nazis, who found the Gestapo and the SS reprehensible, even if they failed to bring change.
October 2, 2011
Yikes- this was a real disappointment, or, as Metaxas might say, a hemorrhoidal bummer. I was excited when I read reviews when it came out. Then I was wary when I learned that Metaxas is the 'founder and host' of a philosophy reading group for crazy-rich, conservative New Yorkers. Then when I saw that the blurbs for his book, rather than being by biographers or scholars, were by CEOs, ex-CEOs, former General Partners of Goldman Sachs, Kirkus journalists or people who feel the need to put PhD at the end of their names, I was really put off.
Then I started reading, and I went back to excitement. Metaxas writes very clear, Hemingway-gone-effeminate sentences for the most part. It's very soothing... and then suddenly you realize that he's just lulling you so he can smack you over the head with a patented word-couple like 'hemorrhoidal isometrics' or 'vampiric homonculus.' In one sentence he describes Hitler as having both 'canine sensitivity' and 'lupine ruthlessness.' In *one sentence*. Theologians are accused of building 'diminutive Ziggurats.' It reads like a high-school student trying to impress her teacher.
And then there's the big problem with the book: despite the fact that almost everyone in Germany refused to take a stand as firm as Bonhoeffer's, Metaxas is unwilling to consider that anyone then alive wasn't either a black-hatted varmant or a white-hatted hero. Once Hitler takes the stage, the book becomes a morality-tale rather than a biography. *Real* Christians never supported Hitler, and Bonhoeffer can do no wrong- but even *he* admitted that he rubbed people the wrong way and had a knack for making enemies. True, true, Metaxas admits, Bonhoeffer could get a bit too high-brow in the pulpit. But such a criticism is doubly ironic: first, because Metaxas' primary complaint about 'Bishop' Mueller is that he's an 'uneducated Navy chaplain' of lower-class origins (this is particularly jarring when you realize how privileged Bonhoeffer was, and that Metaxas doesn't seem to care). Second, despite its sneering at the uneducated, this book is determinedly middle-brow. I imagine Bonhoeffer and Barth sharing a smirk about it before they got back to reading something incomprehensible.
I should have been tipped off by the sub-title, of course, that there wouldn't be much attention paid Bonhoeffer's ideas here: it's not called 'Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy, Theologian.' But I still found the lack of intellectual analysis disappointing, especially given that Metaxas has his own theological axes to grind, primarily against those who are attracted to the idea of religion-less Christianity. Who are they? We're never told. What should we put in place of their (as he sees it) flawed interpretation? We're never told.
It's a shame, because this is a great subject for a biography, and he obviously did a great deal of research and excellent synthesis.
Then I started reading, and I went back to excitement. Metaxas writes very clear, Hemingway-gone-effeminate sentences for the most part. It's very soothing... and then suddenly you realize that he's just lulling you so he can smack you over the head with a patented word-couple like 'hemorrhoidal isometrics' or 'vampiric homonculus.' In one sentence he describes Hitler as having both 'canine sensitivity' and 'lupine ruthlessness.' In *one sentence*. Theologians are accused of building 'diminutive Ziggurats.' It reads like a high-school student trying to impress her teacher.
And then there's the big problem with the book: despite the fact that almost everyone in Germany refused to take a stand as firm as Bonhoeffer's, Metaxas is unwilling to consider that anyone then alive wasn't either a black-hatted varmant or a white-hatted hero. Once Hitler takes the stage, the book becomes a morality-tale rather than a biography. *Real* Christians never supported Hitler, and Bonhoeffer can do no wrong- but even *he* admitted that he rubbed people the wrong way and had a knack for making enemies. True, true, Metaxas admits, Bonhoeffer could get a bit too high-brow in the pulpit. But such a criticism is doubly ironic: first, because Metaxas' primary complaint about 'Bishop' Mueller is that he's an 'uneducated Navy chaplain' of lower-class origins (this is particularly jarring when you realize how privileged Bonhoeffer was, and that Metaxas doesn't seem to care). Second, despite its sneering at the uneducated, this book is determinedly middle-brow. I imagine Bonhoeffer and Barth sharing a smirk about it before they got back to reading something incomprehensible.
I should have been tipped off by the sub-title, of course, that there wouldn't be much attention paid Bonhoeffer's ideas here: it's not called 'Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy, Theologian.' But I still found the lack of intellectual analysis disappointing, especially given that Metaxas has his own theological axes to grind, primarily against those who are attracted to the idea of religion-less Christianity. Who are they? We're never told. What should we put in place of their (as he sees it) flawed interpretation? We're never told.
It's a shame, because this is a great subject for a biography, and he obviously did a great deal of research and excellent synthesis.
December 12, 2011
On a rare occasion I get so involved in a book that it becomes real to me. The characters come to life. The story envelops me with its mental imagery and emotion. And when you finish, it's like emerging from another world that existed for only a short while.
And on an even rarer occasion, a book about real people does the same.
Yesterday, I finished reading "Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy" by Eric Metaxas. Yesterday, I lost a friend who I won't meet until eternity.
Bonhoeffer was a pastor in Germany, prior to and during World War II. He was an outspoken critic of the Nazis, and his criticism--and ultimately his actions--were driven by his understanding of Scripture and his convictions about God. He saw great evil in Hitler and his crew, even before Hitler came to power. And as Hitler destroyed the Germany Bonhoeffer loved, Bonhoeffer spoke against Hitler. He spoke and acted in defense of the Jews. He spoke and acted in defense of a biblically-based Church. He spoke and acted against the heretical church of the Third Reich.
And you can't help but ask yourself what would you do in the same situation.
Are you passionate about God's Church, to the point of standing against a tyrannical church-state partnership that wishes to redefine what you believe?
Are you so in love with the Word of God that you will stand against the popular, acceptable claims as to what it means. And are you willing to speak against those who twist God's Word to fulfill their own desires and plans?
And are you so secure in your stand before God, a stand that is based upon faith alone in the sovereign plan of God that existed before time began, that you would calmly face your execution in a way that impacted those who witnessed it for decades to come?
While you may not agree with everything Bonhoeffer stood for, his life is an example to us all. And his life, and death, should force us to go to Scripture to answer these questions and more.
I look forward to meeting Pastor Bonhoeffer when God calls me home. In the meantime, we have to be satisfied with an incredible biography that grips you like a novel and won't let you go until you say goodbye to your new friend.
Thank you Eric Metaxas for writing this book. And thank you Dietrich Bonhoeffer for living it.
And on an even rarer occasion, a book about real people does the same.
Yesterday, I finished reading "Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy" by Eric Metaxas. Yesterday, I lost a friend who I won't meet until eternity.
Bonhoeffer was a pastor in Germany, prior to and during World War II. He was an outspoken critic of the Nazis, and his criticism--and ultimately his actions--were driven by his understanding of Scripture and his convictions about God. He saw great evil in Hitler and his crew, even before Hitler came to power. And as Hitler destroyed the Germany Bonhoeffer loved, Bonhoeffer spoke against Hitler. He spoke and acted in defense of the Jews. He spoke and acted in defense of a biblically-based Church. He spoke and acted against the heretical church of the Third Reich.
And you can't help but ask yourself what would you do in the same situation.
Are you passionate about God's Church, to the point of standing against a tyrannical church-state partnership that wishes to redefine what you believe?
Are you so in love with the Word of God that you will stand against the popular, acceptable claims as to what it means. And are you willing to speak against those who twist God's Word to fulfill their own desires and plans?
And are you so secure in your stand before God, a stand that is based upon faith alone in the sovereign plan of God that existed before time began, that you would calmly face your execution in a way that impacted those who witnessed it for decades to come?
While you may not agree with everything Bonhoeffer stood for, his life is an example to us all. And his life, and death, should force us to go to Scripture to answer these questions and more.
I look forward to meeting Pastor Bonhoeffer when God calls me home. In the meantime, we have to be satisfied with an incredible biography that grips you like a novel and won't let you go until you say goodbye to your new friend.
Thank you Eric Metaxas for writing this book. And thank you Dietrich Bonhoeffer for living it.
December 13, 2018
Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) was a German Lutheran pastor and theologian hanged by the Nazis at the age of 39, shortly before the conclusion of World War II, for his role in the plots for Hitler's assassination. His dramatic death has served to make him a semi-legendary figure in some circles, though his name isn't a household word to the general public; but even in the circles where his name is recognized, it's a fair assumption that many more people know of him vaguely by hearsay than have actually read his own writings or studied his life in much detail. He's often been posthumously co-opted by the Religious Left, on the basis of an out-of-context seizing upon of a single phrase he used in a 1944 letter, "religionless Christianity."
This is the only Bonhoeffer biography I've personally read. The one that's generally recognized as THE definitive one is the 1,084-page 1968 tome by his close friend, pupil and correspondent (who eventually became his nephew by marriage), Eberhard Bethge, which is obviously a primary source for much of the subject's life. One Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ reviewer characterized Metaxas' work as "dependent on Bethge." In fact, to the extent that they're serious about historical investigation, subsequent biographical treatments are all somewhat "dependent on Bethge," and one might question their authors' commitment to serious research if they weren't. Yale graduate and evangelical Christian professional writer and public intellectual Metaxas, however, has used a substantial array of other primary and secondary sources besides Bethge's (the bibliography fills about two and a half pages). What he's also done is to synthesize and condense this material into 542 pages of actual text, which is still pretty detailed, but less daunting and more manageable for the non-specialist reader.
Metaxas starts with Bonhoeffer's family background (he came from a distinguished lineage on both sides; his father was Germany's foremost brain specialist, and one of his brothers, as a physicist, helped split the atom). He then proceeds to cover every stage of his subject's life, from childhood through the July 27, 1945 memorial service at Holy Trinity Church in England (which frames the main narrative at beginning and end). Bonhoeffer's theological thought is treated intelligibly, in the context of the events and experiences of his life in which it took shape. His own writings, letters, and diary are quoted frequently, as are the words of other people who played parts in his life and who knew him. A Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ reviewer complained that too much historical context is provided, but I personally did not have that feeling at all; I found the focus to be quite steadily on Bonhoeffer, with reference to the events around him confined to what's necessary for understanding his own role and reactions. As a history major, I went into the book with a general knowledge of the Nazi regime and the war, and I had some basic prior information about Bonhoeffer's life and thought; but I encountered much significant information here that I didn't previously know. Clearly, the author admires Bonhoeffer greatly, and considers him a hero (as I think any non-Nazi who studied the man's life would). But he's writing biography, not hagiography; he portrays his subject in photographic detail, without trying to air-brush the picture.
This is not academic writing for professional scholars, but for general readers; it does not employ the very dry, objective, precise and colorless mode of writing academics use in writing to each other (and which I wrote in as a college and graduate student, so I'm quite familiar with it). Metaxas' prose, in contrast, can be quite colorful in terms of the comparisons and descriptions used, and he makes no bones about being passionate towards the subject. Examples might include the characterization of the aged Luther, in reference to his anti-Semitic comments dredged up by the Nazis, as "the Don Rickles of Wittenberg" (he insulted pretty much everybody, not just Jews), or the comment, on Neville Chamberlain's declaration of war after two days of dithering, that "at some point someone lent Chamberlain a vertebra." Readers who, for one reason or another, would prefer a more academic tone can fairly point this out. (Unlike some Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ reviewers, however, I don't think Metaxas' prose style deserves ridicule.) The hardcover edition (which was pushed into print too quickly, to coincide with the anniversary of Bonhoeffer's death) also contained some typos and misspellings of German words. These were mostly corrected in the paperback edition (which is the one I read), although the misspelling of Gleichschaltung as Gleischaltung wasn't.
Bethge himself (who was the recipient of the letter in question) was strongly and explicitly critical of theologians who recklessly misinterpreted the "religionless Christianity" phrase as indicating some kind of wholesale rejection of traditional Christian beliefs. Both Bonhoeffer and Karl Barth (another close friend, who was also a major theological influence) had been explicitly critical for years of "religion," understood as a man-made system of rules and shibboleths by which people try to earn favor with God and make themselves feel pious, and contrasted with a Biblical dependence on God's grace. (The same terminology is not uncommon among American evangelicals today.) As Metaxas makes clear, Bonhoeffer was not a separatistic and anti-intellectual Fundamentalist. He was a strong supporter of Barthian Neo-Orthodoxy (and in the context of 1920s and 30s Germany, where it was hotly opposed by Harnack's liberalism). In lifestyle, he was much like Barth and his contemporary C. S. Lewis; he was a cultured appreciator of classical art, music and literature, and an uncompromising exponent of intellectual rigor in theology and Biblical interpretation. He was willing to fellowship with other believers, Catholic and Protestant, across denominational lines, and he respected fellow serious thinkers, such as Harnack, even when he disagreed with them. But he was also strongly committed to classical Christianity, to the authority of Scripture, to the practice of serious prayer and worship, and to a life of total obedience to God, which ultimately led to his willing acceptance of his own martyrdom. Metaxas also makes this irrefutably clear, and primarily by quoting Bonhoeffer's own words.
Though footnotes aren't used here, there are 21 pages of notes documenting the sources for each part of the text, by page and sentence/paragraph beginnings. The 14-page index appears to be serviceable, though I didn't use it much. Finally, there are 15 and 1/2 pages of discussion questions, designed for book clubs or other groups reading the book together. These actually seem to be quite good for their purpose, aiming to elicit individual thought and serious group discussion rather than to cut it off by suggesting canned answers.
As a young man, I read some of Bonhoffer's writing, though I don't list it on my Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ shelves because I don't remember exactly what I read. But at that stage of my intellectual development and Christian walk, I don't think I was genuinely capable of appreciating and engaging with his thought. One effect of reading this book has been to give me a much deeper appreciation of him as a person and as a theologian; another has been to convince me that I need to seriously read or reread some of his writing --and sooner, as in next year, rather than later. My "default" rating for nonfiction books that I like is normally three stars. This one is a rare nonfiction read that earns five; and that's every bit as significant as it sounds!
This is the only Bonhoeffer biography I've personally read. The one that's generally recognized as THE definitive one is the 1,084-page 1968 tome by his close friend, pupil and correspondent (who eventually became his nephew by marriage), Eberhard Bethge, which is obviously a primary source for much of the subject's life. One Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ reviewer characterized Metaxas' work as "dependent on Bethge." In fact, to the extent that they're serious about historical investigation, subsequent biographical treatments are all somewhat "dependent on Bethge," and one might question their authors' commitment to serious research if they weren't. Yale graduate and evangelical Christian professional writer and public intellectual Metaxas, however, has used a substantial array of other primary and secondary sources besides Bethge's (the bibliography fills about two and a half pages). What he's also done is to synthesize and condense this material into 542 pages of actual text, which is still pretty detailed, but less daunting and more manageable for the non-specialist reader.
Metaxas starts with Bonhoeffer's family background (he came from a distinguished lineage on both sides; his father was Germany's foremost brain specialist, and one of his brothers, as a physicist, helped split the atom). He then proceeds to cover every stage of his subject's life, from childhood through the July 27, 1945 memorial service at Holy Trinity Church in England (which frames the main narrative at beginning and end). Bonhoeffer's theological thought is treated intelligibly, in the context of the events and experiences of his life in which it took shape. His own writings, letters, and diary are quoted frequently, as are the words of other people who played parts in his life and who knew him. A Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ reviewer complained that too much historical context is provided, but I personally did not have that feeling at all; I found the focus to be quite steadily on Bonhoeffer, with reference to the events around him confined to what's necessary for understanding his own role and reactions. As a history major, I went into the book with a general knowledge of the Nazi regime and the war, and I had some basic prior information about Bonhoeffer's life and thought; but I encountered much significant information here that I didn't previously know. Clearly, the author admires Bonhoeffer greatly, and considers him a hero (as I think any non-Nazi who studied the man's life would). But he's writing biography, not hagiography; he portrays his subject in photographic detail, without trying to air-brush the picture.
This is not academic writing for professional scholars, but for general readers; it does not employ the very dry, objective, precise and colorless mode of writing academics use in writing to each other (and which I wrote in as a college and graduate student, so I'm quite familiar with it). Metaxas' prose, in contrast, can be quite colorful in terms of the comparisons and descriptions used, and he makes no bones about being passionate towards the subject. Examples might include the characterization of the aged Luther, in reference to his anti-Semitic comments dredged up by the Nazis, as "the Don Rickles of Wittenberg" (he insulted pretty much everybody, not just Jews), or the comment, on Neville Chamberlain's declaration of war after two days of dithering, that "at some point someone lent Chamberlain a vertebra." Readers who, for one reason or another, would prefer a more academic tone can fairly point this out. (Unlike some Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ reviewers, however, I don't think Metaxas' prose style deserves ridicule.) The hardcover edition (which was pushed into print too quickly, to coincide with the anniversary of Bonhoeffer's death) also contained some typos and misspellings of German words. These were mostly corrected in the paperback edition (which is the one I read), although the misspelling of Gleichschaltung as Gleischaltung wasn't.
Bethge himself (who was the recipient of the letter in question) was strongly and explicitly critical of theologians who recklessly misinterpreted the "religionless Christianity" phrase as indicating some kind of wholesale rejection of traditional Christian beliefs. Both Bonhoeffer and Karl Barth (another close friend, who was also a major theological influence) had been explicitly critical for years of "religion," understood as a man-made system of rules and shibboleths by which people try to earn favor with God and make themselves feel pious, and contrasted with a Biblical dependence on God's grace. (The same terminology is not uncommon among American evangelicals today.) As Metaxas makes clear, Bonhoeffer was not a separatistic and anti-intellectual Fundamentalist. He was a strong supporter of Barthian Neo-Orthodoxy (and in the context of 1920s and 30s Germany, where it was hotly opposed by Harnack's liberalism). In lifestyle, he was much like Barth and his contemporary C. S. Lewis; he was a cultured appreciator of classical art, music and literature, and an uncompromising exponent of intellectual rigor in theology and Biblical interpretation. He was willing to fellowship with other believers, Catholic and Protestant, across denominational lines, and he respected fellow serious thinkers, such as Harnack, even when he disagreed with them. But he was also strongly committed to classical Christianity, to the authority of Scripture, to the practice of serious prayer and worship, and to a life of total obedience to God, which ultimately led to his willing acceptance of his own martyrdom. Metaxas also makes this irrefutably clear, and primarily by quoting Bonhoeffer's own words.
Though footnotes aren't used here, there are 21 pages of notes documenting the sources for each part of the text, by page and sentence/paragraph beginnings. The 14-page index appears to be serviceable, though I didn't use it much. Finally, there are 15 and 1/2 pages of discussion questions, designed for book clubs or other groups reading the book together. These actually seem to be quite good for their purpose, aiming to elicit individual thought and serious group discussion rather than to cut it off by suggesting canned answers.
As a young man, I read some of Bonhoffer's writing, though I don't list it on my Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ shelves because I don't remember exactly what I read. But at that stage of my intellectual development and Christian walk, I don't think I was genuinely capable of appreciating and engaging with his thought. One effect of reading this book has been to give me a much deeper appreciation of him as a person and as a theologian; another has been to convince me that I need to seriously read or reread some of his writing --and sooner, as in next year, rather than later. My "default" rating for nonfiction books that I like is normally three stars. This one is a rare nonfiction read that earns five; and that's every bit as significant as it sounds!
October 23, 2023
I read a good deal about and by Bonhoeffer when I was in college. I did not recognize the Bonhoeffer the author presents here. The author tries to turn Bonhoeffer into a tool for his political agenda.
I was born and raised Roman Catholic and went through an evangelical phase in college and a bit after. I know the Bible and church history well. Categorically and without apology, I consider evangelicals intellectually dishonest. Down deep they know their beliefs are indefensible, so they lie and cheat distort. This is what this author has done with this book. And it is not the least bit inconsistent that most of them are Trump supporters, including the author.
One example of dishonesty is how the author tries to attribute Luther’s anti-Semitism to his digestive troubles. Au contraire mon idiot, Luther was through and through a vicious anti-Semite....
/review/show...
============
There are many other serious problems with this book detailed here.....
more on this hack job...
Sound familiar?
"Germany was filled with Christians whose understanding of their faith had so converged with German national culture that it tainted both their politics and their theology."
"What the author fails to grasp is that there were many devout, well-educated, Bible-reading Christians in Germany who read their devotions each morning and fully supported National Socialism."
============
In another obvious sign of poor judgment, the author of this book called the bizarre, mentally imbalanced conspiracy theorist, Sidney Powell, a "hero."
more on Powell....
What hero?
Update: October 2022: Powell turned herself in for the fraud that she is and admitted she lied. She is going to tell all now. The evangelical author of this book is no better.
=============
This is an excellent review of the book and the back and forth in the comments is hilarious.....
/review/show...
I was born and raised Roman Catholic and went through an evangelical phase in college and a bit after. I know the Bible and church history well. Categorically and without apology, I consider evangelicals intellectually dishonest. Down deep they know their beliefs are indefensible, so they lie and cheat distort. This is what this author has done with this book. And it is not the least bit inconsistent that most of them are Trump supporters, including the author.
One example of dishonesty is how the author tries to attribute Luther’s anti-Semitism to his digestive troubles. Au contraire mon idiot, Luther was through and through a vicious anti-Semite....
/review/show...
============
There are many other serious problems with this book detailed here.....
more on this hack job...
Sound familiar?
"Germany was filled with Christians whose understanding of their faith had so converged with German national culture that it tainted both their politics and their theology."
"What the author fails to grasp is that there were many devout, well-educated, Bible-reading Christians in Germany who read their devotions each morning and fully supported National Socialism."
============
In another obvious sign of poor judgment, the author of this book called the bizarre, mentally imbalanced conspiracy theorist, Sidney Powell, a "hero."
more on Powell....
What hero?
Update: October 2022: Powell turned herself in for the fraud that she is and admitted she lied. She is going to tell all now. The evangelical author of this book is no better.
=============
This is an excellent review of the book and the back and forth in the comments is hilarious.....
/review/show...
November 23, 2011
I'm hovering between three and four stars here, because I did enjoy the book. Quite a stirring narrative. But, to put it too bluntly, I don't have a fundamental trust in the theological acumen and judgment of Eric Metaxas. He's certainly a good writer who did his homework (more on that in a moment), but I've read some Bonhoeffer—and he just didn't quite speak the language of evangelical Protestantism like Metaxas seems to assume.
Even within the book there are hints that Bonhoeffer probably shouldn't be claimed as an evangelical patron saint, the guy who did, we're sure, what we evangelicals would have done in the same Hitlerian circumstances. Bonhoeffer's closeness with Barth, his appreciation for Roman Catholicism, his chumminess with Union Theological Seminary—all of these made me uneasy. Yes, he praised a fundamentalist preacher in NYC and made some incisive criticisms of Fosdick and Coffin—but I never felt comfortable with him theologically.
Metaxas defends Bonhoeffer by suggesting several times that he tended to overstate his case in order to shock people into listening. I have no reason to dispute that assessment. But I'm still stuck at three stars, because Bonhoeffer's place on the evangelical-to-liberal spectrum seems all-important for the biography of a theologian.
In addition, Metaxas fails to delve much into the circumstances behind Bonhoeffer's apparent conversion. He writes of one instance in Dietrich's life, "What happened is unclear, but the results were obvious. For one thing, he now became a regular churchgoer for the first time in his life and took Communion as often as possible." Really? He was already a theologian at this point and had done church work. This seems very important to ferret out, but Metaxas leaves it unclear.
Yes, Bonhoeffer said and did some evangelical things, and I surely hope he was regenerated. I simply don't feel I can trust Metaxas to help me decide. I'm afraid he made Bonhoeffer into our evangelical image. Thankfully, I don't have to decide Bonhoeffer's eternal destiny. It's in God's good hands. And no matter where he is now, God's grace (common or special?) was strong in him, and he did courageous and honorable things I'm not sure I could do, even on my best day.
Criticisms over—because Metaxas deserves a great deal of praise for this book. I couldn't help liking the clever little wordplays he used frequently. For example:
Metaxas also has a flair for epithets. Nazi Reinhard Heydrich was alternately a "piscine ghoul," an "albino stoat," and a "waxy lamprey." (He was also "cadaverous.") A little much, perhaps, but it made for good reading.
So did the rest of the story—at least once the conflict between Bonhoeffer and the Nazis began. I had done some study of the man, but I had no idea how early, powerfully, confidently, prominently, and presciently Bonhoeffer opposed the Nazis. He really did seem to see what was coming as few others did. And instead of being an alarmist or conspiracy theorist, Bonhoeffer had access to real evidence of Nazi atrocities.
Metaxas gives sufficient detail, lets characters speak in their own words from actual letters, and yet keeps the story moving. One thing for which I will always be indebted to him is resurrecting the validity of Bonhoeffer's relationship with 18-year-old Maria von Wedemeyer. Getting to read her letters makes the relationship plausible in a way it hadn't been when I just watched the .
Bonhoeffer's story is one that challenged me deeply, and yet I think evangelicals should not be quick to claim him or his brave actions as their own.
Even within the book there are hints that Bonhoeffer probably shouldn't be claimed as an evangelical patron saint, the guy who did, we're sure, what we evangelicals would have done in the same Hitlerian circumstances. Bonhoeffer's closeness with Barth, his appreciation for Roman Catholicism, his chumminess with Union Theological Seminary—all of these made me uneasy. Yes, he praised a fundamentalist preacher in NYC and made some incisive criticisms of Fosdick and Coffin—but I never felt comfortable with him theologically.
Metaxas defends Bonhoeffer by suggesting several times that he tended to overstate his case in order to shock people into listening. I have no reason to dispute that assessment. But I'm still stuck at three stars, because Bonhoeffer's place on the evangelical-to-liberal spectrum seems all-important for the biography of a theologian.
In addition, Metaxas fails to delve much into the circumstances behind Bonhoeffer's apparent conversion. He writes of one instance in Dietrich's life, "What happened is unclear, but the results were obvious. For one thing, he now became a regular churchgoer for the first time in his life and took Communion as often as possible." Really? He was already a theologian at this point and had done church work. This seems very important to ferret out, but Metaxas leaves it unclear.
Yes, Bonhoeffer said and did some evangelical things, and I surely hope he was regenerated. I simply don't feel I can trust Metaxas to help me decide. I'm afraid he made Bonhoeffer into our evangelical image. Thankfully, I don't have to decide Bonhoeffer's eternal destiny. It's in God's good hands. And no matter where he is now, God's grace (common or special?) was strong in him, and he did courageous and honorable things I'm not sure I could do, even on my best day.
Criticisms over—because Metaxas deserves a great deal of praise for this book. I couldn't help liking the clever little wordplays he used frequently. For example:
Norway ... had recently been handed over to Hitler by the Nazi collaborator Vidkun Quisling, whose surname became an improper noun, meaning “traitor.�
Metaxas also has a flair for epithets. Nazi Reinhard Heydrich was alternately a "piscine ghoul," an "albino stoat," and a "waxy lamprey." (He was also "cadaverous.") A little much, perhaps, but it made for good reading.
So did the rest of the story—at least once the conflict between Bonhoeffer and the Nazis began. I had done some study of the man, but I had no idea how early, powerfully, confidently, prominently, and presciently Bonhoeffer opposed the Nazis. He really did seem to see what was coming as few others did. And instead of being an alarmist or conspiracy theorist, Bonhoeffer had access to real evidence of Nazi atrocities.
Metaxas gives sufficient detail, lets characters speak in their own words from actual letters, and yet keeps the story moving. One thing for which I will always be indebted to him is resurrecting the validity of Bonhoeffer's relationship with 18-year-old Maria von Wedemeyer. Getting to read her letters makes the relationship plausible in a way it hadn't been when I just watched the .
Bonhoeffer's story is one that challenged me deeply, and yet I think evangelicals should not be quick to claim him or his brave actions as their own.
February 25, 2021
Without a doubt, I really loved this non-fiction account of a great man. This huge volume of work is truly the definitive Bonhoeffer biography for our time.
It is clearly a book providing a entirely new dimension to World War II. The emphasis is on the internal struggles of the German Church in the face of Nazi control. It shows how people’s faith is truly tested In the face of evil.
However, running parallel to the faith portion is an in-depth treatment of the horrendous action of the Third Reich.
It is a book of great depth that is surprising fast paced. The author’s work is a bit difficult at times because of the depth of research and his need to provide minutiae info via actual letters.
I highly recommended this book in spite of its size.
It is clearly a book providing a entirely new dimension to World War II. The emphasis is on the internal struggles of the German Church in the face of Nazi control. It shows how people’s faith is truly tested In the face of evil.
However, running parallel to the faith portion is an in-depth treatment of the horrendous action of the Third Reich.
It is a book of great depth that is surprising fast paced. The author’s work is a bit difficult at times because of the depth of research and his need to provide minutiae info via actual letters.
I highly recommended this book in spite of its size.
July 4, 2024
Deitrich Bonhoeffer may be a name unknown to a lot of people. He has certainly made a mark on history through his life and death. His ministry was established many years before the outbreak of WW2 however, his notoriety in Christian circles comes from the mark that he made during the war when he opposed Hitler and the Nazi regime. He has become an inspiring figure who fearlessly and unashamedly preached the gospel during a time of darkness in his country.
He decided early on that theology would be his life and profession. In one of his early lectures in 1928, a young man only a few years out of high school, Bonhoeffer certainly provoked his listeners with a notion that Christ had been expelled from the lives of most Christians. He was wholeheartedly interested in pointing Christians to the cross.
“Of course,� he said, “we build him a temple, but we live in our own houses.� Religion had been exiled to Sunday morning, to a place “into which one gladly withdraws for a couple of hours, but only to get back to one’s place of work immediately afterward.� He said that one cannot give him only a “small compartment in our spiritual life� but must give him everything or nothing. “The religion of Christ,� he said, “is not a tidbit after one’s bread; on the contrary, it is the bread or it is nothing. People should at least understand and concede this if they call themselves Christians.�
There are so many excellent things to say about this man who feared God and loved the gospel. He lived honorably and worthily and was committed to the cost of being a disciple for Christ. He was devoted to teaching younger pastors. He spent his life meditating and praying and was committed to studying the Bible and sharing the gospel with others. He was a firm believer in Christian community. His heart for others was evident through his determination to preach and teach right up until his last days. He did everything he could to keep the Church from compromising itself. Bonhoeffer was among a group of Christians who did not align themselves with Hitler rejecting a “German Christianity� that accepted the radical changes brought on by the Nazis.
There is a lot to take in and digest in this biography. I have spent over a month reading about this brave man. Metaxas� writing skills enabled him to take events of one man’s life and turn them into a narrative that kept me wanting to read more. However, I would like to read some of Bonhoeffer’s books so that I can have a clear picture of his beliefs firsthand. This is my first reading about the man and is my only reference for his Christian stance. I enjoyed the book enough to rate it 5 stars however, I think it might be interesting to read some of the original biographies written in which Metaxas takes a large portion of his quotes and material. I am glad to know about Bonhoeffer and would recommend this for anyone interested in learning more about his life and his involvement in plotting to assassinate Hitler.
He decided early on that theology would be his life and profession. In one of his early lectures in 1928, a young man only a few years out of high school, Bonhoeffer certainly provoked his listeners with a notion that Christ had been expelled from the lives of most Christians. He was wholeheartedly interested in pointing Christians to the cross.
“Of course,� he said, “we build him a temple, but we live in our own houses.� Religion had been exiled to Sunday morning, to a place “into which one gladly withdraws for a couple of hours, but only to get back to one’s place of work immediately afterward.� He said that one cannot give him only a “small compartment in our spiritual life� but must give him everything or nothing. “The religion of Christ,� he said, “is not a tidbit after one’s bread; on the contrary, it is the bread or it is nothing. People should at least understand and concede this if they call themselves Christians.�
There are so many excellent things to say about this man who feared God and loved the gospel. He lived honorably and worthily and was committed to the cost of being a disciple for Christ. He was devoted to teaching younger pastors. He spent his life meditating and praying and was committed to studying the Bible and sharing the gospel with others. He was a firm believer in Christian community. His heart for others was evident through his determination to preach and teach right up until his last days. He did everything he could to keep the Church from compromising itself. Bonhoeffer was among a group of Christians who did not align themselves with Hitler rejecting a “German Christianity� that accepted the radical changes brought on by the Nazis.
There is a lot to take in and digest in this biography. I have spent over a month reading about this brave man. Metaxas� writing skills enabled him to take events of one man’s life and turn them into a narrative that kept me wanting to read more. However, I would like to read some of Bonhoeffer’s books so that I can have a clear picture of his beliefs firsthand. This is my first reading about the man and is my only reference for his Christian stance. I enjoyed the book enough to rate it 5 stars however, I think it might be interesting to read some of the original biographies written in which Metaxas takes a large portion of his quotes and material. I am glad to know about Bonhoeffer and would recommend this for anyone interested in learning more about his life and his involvement in plotting to assassinate Hitler.
July 14, 2017
Note in re. reviewerly shortcomings:
Let me preface this by saying that I am about as ill-qualified as one can be when it comes to ecumenical history. The full extent of my knowledge on the Protestant Reformation is that Martin Luther posted 95 theses on the door of a church on October 31, 1517 (and I only remember that because I remember thinking that it was weird that he did that on Halloween, and that the digits of 95 and 1517 both add up to 14...random, I know, but, hey, I was a sophomore in high school). As a result, I won't be commenting on any bits of biblical exegesis and/or theology because, really, I would just be making things up.
Die Familie von Bonhoeffer:
Growing up in the Bonhoeffer household (aka "the Wagenheimstrasse") was intense. Dietrich was sixth out of eight children (including his twin sister, Sabine) born to neurologist/psychologist Karl Bonhoeffer and his wife, Paula, granddaughter of a famous Protestant theologian, Karl von Hase. Karl, the pater familias, was effectively an atheist (or agnostic- basically, he wasn't terribly into religion), but the children were brought up with their mother's religion (I don't know what they're looking at in the picture below, but it could be a bible).
However, every subject or endeavor, whether it be science, religion or music, was approached with fervid rigor under Karl Bonhoeffer's roof. The rule of thumb was, in essence, if you're not going to say something devastatingly brilliant, then don't say anything at all. I don't mean that to imply that the children didn't love their father- they adored him, and their house was a veritable hive of activity (click graphic below for it to be almost legibly large).
The big takeaway here was that, though Dietrich was nervous to tell his father he planned to be a theologian, it turned out his dad was a-ok with it, as long as Dietrich studied the bible with the same discipline with which Karl approached his work as a scientist. After all, Dietrich's older brother, Karl-Friedrich, was off working in Physical Chemistry with Albert Einstein and Max Planck. Also, it sets the scene for how Bonhoeffer would be perceived in the world. His future student, Eberhard Bethge, was quoted:
Dietrich Takes Berlin (and also the US, and other places):
Eric Metaxas (author of this book) uses the Bethge quotation (above) by way of introduction to his chapter on Bonhoeffer as a student in Berlin. Bonhoeffer's commitment to his own intellectual integrity would not allow him to just align his thoughts with those of one professor or another (which, at times, could make things uncomfortable). Despite his burdensome schedule as a student, Bonhoeffer was deeply involved with the students in his Sunday school class (all theological candidates had to complete "parish work" in addition to their studies).
Bonhoeffer was never one to shy away from hard questions. He began holding the "Thursday Group," where they would address questions like, "Is there such thing as a necessary lie?" Also, we begin to see the development of Bonhoeffer's ideas of costly grace and (its counterpart) cheap grace. Here is where my theological ignorance will have to be excused, so I'll just borrow from Timothy J. Keller's Foreword in which he describes Bonhoeffer's cheap grace:
I'm skipping over quite a bit here, and will sum up Bonhoeffer's take on Christianity in the U.S. (circa 1930 - 1931) by saying that he was not impressed. However, Bonhoeffer was taken with what he heard in Evangelical, black churches and, furthermore, was acutely aware of the hypocrisy inherent in the treatment of "the negro problem" state-side.
Bonhoeffer and The Fuhrer Principle:
Dietrich returned to Berlin determined to "make known the suffering of the negroes." Also, Bonhoeffer around this time (1931-1932) experienced a dramatic shift (Metaxis calls this "the Great Change") in his realization of what it meant to live "the life of a servant of Jesus Christ and belong to the Church." However, he also encountered a Germany that was undergoing great changes of its own.
I'm going to steer away from the word (prophetic) that the author uses to describe Bonhoeffer's reflection on " the Fuhrer Principle " prior to Hitler's election, but it certainly showed quite a bit of foresight. While Bonhoeffer's treatment of the Fuhrer Principle is nuanced in its logic, it boils down to the idea that man is meant to seek salvation from only one authority, and that authority is the ultimate authority.
Hitler was far too astute to think that he could be declared chancellor, denounce the church, and have death camps up and running all in one fell swoop. No, in fact, Hitler would readily invoke God and Christianity as "the basis for our collective morality," in the earliest days of his rule.
However, the heresy apparent to Bonhoeffer was not so readily apparent to much of the church leadership, as the need for unification and authority had intensified in the backlash to the Weimar Republic. By April of 1933, the Nazi regime goal of coordinating the Protestant churches under one Reich church had gained sufficient momentum for the leadership of the Protestant federation to be writing a new constitution for a national church, and elections for the Church Council (below) were held in late 1933 for the Reichsbishop.
The Kirchenkampf (which means "church struggle"), happened in waves (see ) which I won't attempt to describe. Hitler's pick for bishop, Ludwig Muller, was not elected by the original Protestant federation council, so Hitler had to make several maneuvers before Muller could be "elected" and installed as Reich Bishop.
The Aryan Paragraph and the Confessing Church:
Luckily, Bonhoeffer was not alone in his outrage regarding the changes in the Church-State relationship. The Aryan Paragraph (which barred all non-Aryans from civil service) proved to be the tipping point. Protestant Pastor Martin Niemoller, who had previously supported Hitler, formed the Pastors' Emergency League to consider whether or not they could accept this differentiation between Christians and Christians of Jewish descent (excluding the latter from the church).
And lo, the Confessing Church was born. Bonhoeffer, Niemoller and Karl Barth were among the pastors who decided that the adoption of the Aryan Paragraph was incompatible with the church of Jesus Christ.
From Confession to Conspiracy:
Ok, so I'm not really going to describe this in any detail, but it's the name of a chapter, and I thought it was a pretty good one. Bonhoeffer did not think that his responsibility as a Christian could be restricted to schisms in the church. While some members of the Confessing Church were resisting political encroachment on their church activity, Bonhoeffer saw that there was a much larger problem at hand.
About half of this book is dedicated to closely examining how Dietrich Bonhoeffer came to the realization that it was not just his need, but his duty to participate in a plot to assassinate Hitler . Suffice it to say that this wasn't a decision he made lightly.
Bonhoeffer was a serious, rigorous man and one whose story is deservedly told and remembered. Metaxas opens the book with Bonhoeffer's funeral, contrasting it with the sentiment that "the only good German is a dead German." My only critique of the book would be the occasional backhanded pot shot at (admittedly terrible) individuals, not because they were wrong, but they seemed out of tone with the rest of the narrative and certainly un-Bonhoeffer-like.
Let me preface this by saying that I am about as ill-qualified as one can be when it comes to ecumenical history. The full extent of my knowledge on the Protestant Reformation is that Martin Luther posted 95 theses on the door of a church on October 31, 1517 (and I only remember that because I remember thinking that it was weird that he did that on Halloween, and that the digits of 95 and 1517 both add up to 14...random, I know, but, hey, I was a sophomore in high school). As a result, I won't be commenting on any bits of biblical exegesis and/or theology because, really, I would just be making things up.
Die Familie von Bonhoeffer:
Growing up in the Bonhoeffer household (aka "the Wagenheimstrasse") was intense. Dietrich was sixth out of eight children (including his twin sister, Sabine) born to neurologist/psychologist Karl Bonhoeffer and his wife, Paula, granddaughter of a famous Protestant theologian, Karl von Hase. Karl, the pater familias, was effectively an atheist (or agnostic- basically, he wasn't terribly into religion), but the children were brought up with their mother's religion (I don't know what they're looking at in the picture below, but it could be a bible).
However, every subject or endeavor, whether it be science, religion or music, was approached with fervid rigor under Karl Bonhoeffer's roof. The rule of thumb was, in essence, if you're not going to say something devastatingly brilliant, then don't say anything at all. I don't mean that to imply that the children didn't love their father- they adored him, and their house was a veritable hive of activity (click graphic below for it to be almost legibly large).
The big takeaway here was that, though Dietrich was nervous to tell his father he planned to be a theologian, it turned out his dad was a-ok with it, as long as Dietrich studied the bible with the same discipline with which Karl approached his work as a scientist. After all, Dietrich's older brother, Karl-Friedrich, was off working in Physical Chemistry with Albert Einstein and Max Planck. Also, it sets the scene for how Bonhoeffer would be perceived in the world. His future student, Eberhard Bethge, was quoted:
It was hard for any group of people to live up to the standards expected and maintained in the Wangenheimstrasse. Bonhoeffer himself admitted that newcomers to his home were put under the microscope. With that background it was easy for him to create the impression of being superior and stand-offish.
Dietrich Takes Berlin (and also the US, and other places):
Eric Metaxas (author of this book) uses the Bethge quotation (above) by way of introduction to his chapter on Bonhoeffer as a student in Berlin. Bonhoeffer's commitment to his own intellectual integrity would not allow him to just align his thoughts with those of one professor or another (which, at times, could make things uncomfortable). Despite his burdensome schedule as a student, Bonhoeffer was deeply involved with the students in his Sunday school class (all theological candidates had to complete "parish work" in addition to their studies).
Bonhoeffer was never one to shy away from hard questions. He began holding the "Thursday Group," where they would address questions like, "Is there such thing as a necessary lie?" Also, we begin to see the development of Bonhoeffer's ideas of costly grace and (its counterpart) cheap grace. Here is where my theological ignorance will have to be excused, so I'll just borrow from Timothy J. Keller's Foreword in which he describes Bonhoeffer's cheap grace:
That meant going to church and hearing that God just loves and forgives everyone, so it doesn't really matter much how you live.
I'm skipping over quite a bit here, and will sum up Bonhoeffer's take on Christianity in the U.S. (circa 1930 - 1931) by saying that he was not impressed. However, Bonhoeffer was taken with what he heard in Evangelical, black churches and, furthermore, was acutely aware of the hypocrisy inherent in the treatment of "the negro problem" state-side.
Bonhoeffer and The Fuhrer Principle:
Dietrich returned to Berlin determined to "make known the suffering of the negroes." Also, Bonhoeffer around this time (1931-1932) experienced a dramatic shift (Metaxis calls this "the Great Change") in his realization of what it meant to live "the life of a servant of Jesus Christ and belong to the Church." However, he also encountered a Germany that was undergoing great changes of its own.
I'm going to steer away from the word (prophetic) that the author uses to describe Bonhoeffer's reflection on " the Fuhrer Principle " prior to Hitler's election, but it certainly showed quite a bit of foresight. While Bonhoeffer's treatment of the Fuhrer Principle is nuanced in its logic, it boils down to the idea that man is meant to seek salvation from only one authority, and that authority is the ultimate authority.
“The fearful danger of the present time is that above the cry for authority . . . we forget that man stands alone before the ultimate authority and that anyone who lays violent hands on man here is infringing eternal laws and taking upon himself superhuman authority which will eventually crush him.�Nazi Germany and the Church:
Hitler was far too astute to think that he could be declared chancellor, denounce the church, and have death camps up and running all in one fell swoop. No, in fact, Hitler would readily invoke God and Christianity as "the basis for our collective morality," in the earliest days of his rule.
However, the heresy apparent to Bonhoeffer was not so readily apparent to much of the church leadership, as the need for unification and authority had intensified in the backlash to the Weimar Republic. By April of 1933, the Nazi regime goal of coordinating the Protestant churches under one Reich church had gained sufficient momentum for the leadership of the Protestant federation to be writing a new constitution for a national church, and elections for the Church Council (below) were held in late 1933 for the Reichsbishop.
The Kirchenkampf (which means "church struggle"), happened in waves (see ) which I won't attempt to describe. Hitler's pick for bishop, Ludwig Muller, was not elected by the original Protestant federation council, so Hitler had to make several maneuvers before Muller could be "elected" and installed as Reich Bishop.
The Aryan Paragraph and the Confessing Church:
Luckily, Bonhoeffer was not alone in his outrage regarding the changes in the Church-State relationship. The Aryan Paragraph (which barred all non-Aryans from civil service) proved to be the tipping point. Protestant Pastor Martin Niemoller, who had previously supported Hitler, formed the Pastors' Emergency League to consider whether or not they could accept this differentiation between Christians and Christians of Jewish descent (excluding the latter from the church).
And lo, the Confessing Church was born. Bonhoeffer, Niemoller and Karl Barth were among the pastors who decided that the adoption of the Aryan Paragraph was incompatible with the church of Jesus Christ.
From Confession to Conspiracy:
Ok, so I'm not really going to describe this in any detail, but it's the name of a chapter, and I thought it was a pretty good one. Bonhoeffer did not think that his responsibility as a Christian could be restricted to schisms in the church. While some members of the Confessing Church were resisting political encroachment on their church activity, Bonhoeffer saw that there was a much larger problem at hand.
About half of this book is dedicated to closely examining how Dietrich Bonhoeffer came to the realization that it was not just his need, but his duty to participate in a plot to assassinate Hitler . Suffice it to say that this wasn't a decision he made lightly.
Bonhoeffer was a serious, rigorous man and one whose story is deservedly told and remembered. Metaxas opens the book with Bonhoeffer's funeral, contrasting it with the sentiment that "the only good German is a dead German." My only critique of the book would be the occasional backhanded pot shot at (admittedly terrible) individuals, not because they were wrong, but they seemed out of tone with the rest of the narrative and certainly un-Bonhoeffer-like.
![Profile Image for Terence M - [Quot libros, quam breve tempus!].](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gr-assets.com%2Fimages%2FS%2Fcompressed.photo.goodreads.com%2Fusers%2F1712357414i%2F6658001._UY200_CR4%2C0%2C200%2C200_.jpg&w=128&q=75)
September 23, 2023
Was 3-stars, now 2-Stars
Comment 20 September, 2023:
I first read this book sometime in 2010-2011 - maybe prior to joining Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ, but certainly before I commenced writing any reviews.
Kevin Rudd, leader of the Australian Labor Party (ALP, 2006�10, 2013) and Prime Minister of Australia (2007�10, 2013 [3 months]), professed great admiration for Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian, pastor and peace activist. I was intrigued and suspected Rudd's political career was a more likely motivation for his reading and commenting on this book, than a desire to praise, so openly and so highly, some obscure German theologian of whom I knew nothing.
In an essay he wrote for an Australian magazine, The Monthly, on 4 October, 2006, Rudd said:
"Bonhoeffer is, without doubt, the man I admire most in the history of the twentieth century... And above all, he was a man of action who wrote prophetically in 1937 that “when Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.� For Bonhoeffer, whatever the personal cost, there was no moral alternative other than to fight the Nazi state with whatever weapons were at his disposal".
"Three weeks before the end of World War II, Bonhoeffer was hanged by the SS because of his complicity in the plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler. This year marks the centenary of his birth. This essay seeks both to honour Bonhoeffer and to examine what his life, example and writings might have to say to us, 60 years after his death, on the proper relationship between Christianity and politics in the modern world."
This essay generated a great deal of media commentary around the time it was published, because Kevin Rudd was expected to be elected leader of the ALP about that time. It was most unusual practice in Australian politics then for any senior politician to declare publicly such a strong belief in, and attachment to the Christian faith, or any other religion.
Just two months later, Rudd succeeded Kim Beasley as ALP leader, and became Leader of the Opposition in the Australian Parliament. Just eleven months later, Rudd, who was riding a wave of public support, was elected Prime Minister in November 2007.
I did not vote for Kevin Rudd. I thought he was a fraud who would say or do just about anything to be elected. While I was 'intrigued' by his regular references to his Christianity, including his comments about Bonhoeffer, I was not impressed by his new-found piety, nor by his penchant for conducting 'informal' exchanges with the media while leaving church on Sundays.
I was not alone in my disenchantment with Kevin Rudd. Following a number of parliamentary setbacks, Rudd’s popularity within his party declined quite quickly, prompting an internal challenge by Julia Gillard, his deputy prime minister, who succeeded him as prime minister in June 2010.
At some stage I decided to buy a book about Bonhoeffer and because it was newly published, I chose an e-book copy of "Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy" by Eric Metaxas. As a contented atheist, I was simply wondering what all the 'Rudd + Bonhoeffer' fuss was about. I didn't read the book with any great endeavour, skipping here and there when the theology or whatever became too uninteresting, and I'm not sure whether I actually finished the book or not.
When I first joined Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ in late 2011, I entered my "Read" books into the system, without writing reviews, and I gave Stars ratings without too much thought. Originally I gave Bonhoeffer three Stars because I think I 'liked' it at the time.
Reading Michael Perkins review in my feed today, plus all his referrals therein, including a very good review by Kimba Tichenor, I have spent hours thinking about why I read this bloody book in the first place! Hence this review-of-sorts, which says nothing much about "Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy", but a fair bit about how I came to choose it. Given the little more I know now about Bonhoeffer, I have reduced my rating from 3-Stars 'I Liked It', to 2-Stars 'It Was OK', although this is most likely due to my new-found dislike of the author, not his subject.
Comment 20 September, 2023:
I first read this book sometime in 2010-2011 - maybe prior to joining Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ, but certainly before I commenced writing any reviews.
Kevin Rudd, leader of the Australian Labor Party (ALP, 2006�10, 2013) and Prime Minister of Australia (2007�10, 2013 [3 months]), professed great admiration for Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian, pastor and peace activist. I was intrigued and suspected Rudd's political career was a more likely motivation for his reading and commenting on this book, than a desire to praise, so openly and so highly, some obscure German theologian of whom I knew nothing.
In an essay he wrote for an Australian magazine, The Monthly, on 4 October, 2006, Rudd said:
"Bonhoeffer is, without doubt, the man I admire most in the history of the twentieth century... And above all, he was a man of action who wrote prophetically in 1937 that “when Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.� For Bonhoeffer, whatever the personal cost, there was no moral alternative other than to fight the Nazi state with whatever weapons were at his disposal".
"Three weeks before the end of World War II, Bonhoeffer was hanged by the SS because of his complicity in the plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler. This year marks the centenary of his birth. This essay seeks both to honour Bonhoeffer and to examine what his life, example and writings might have to say to us, 60 years after his death, on the proper relationship between Christianity and politics in the modern world."
This essay generated a great deal of media commentary around the time it was published, because Kevin Rudd was expected to be elected leader of the ALP about that time. It was most unusual practice in Australian politics then for any senior politician to declare publicly such a strong belief in, and attachment to the Christian faith, or any other religion.
Just two months later, Rudd succeeded Kim Beasley as ALP leader, and became Leader of the Opposition in the Australian Parliament. Just eleven months later, Rudd, who was riding a wave of public support, was elected Prime Minister in November 2007.
I did not vote for Kevin Rudd. I thought he was a fraud who would say or do just about anything to be elected. While I was 'intrigued' by his regular references to his Christianity, including his comments about Bonhoeffer, I was not impressed by his new-found piety, nor by his penchant for conducting 'informal' exchanges with the media while leaving church on Sundays.
I was not alone in my disenchantment with Kevin Rudd. Following a number of parliamentary setbacks, Rudd’s popularity within his party declined quite quickly, prompting an internal challenge by Julia Gillard, his deputy prime minister, who succeeded him as prime minister in June 2010.
At some stage I decided to buy a book about Bonhoeffer and because it was newly published, I chose an e-book copy of "Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy" by Eric Metaxas. As a contented atheist, I was simply wondering what all the 'Rudd + Bonhoeffer' fuss was about. I didn't read the book with any great endeavour, skipping here and there when the theology or whatever became too uninteresting, and I'm not sure whether I actually finished the book or not.
When I first joined Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ in late 2011, I entered my "Read" books into the system, without writing reviews, and I gave Stars ratings without too much thought. Originally I gave Bonhoeffer three Stars because I think I 'liked' it at the time.
Reading Michael Perkins review in my feed today, plus all his referrals therein, including a very good review by Kimba Tichenor, I have spent hours thinking about why I read this bloody book in the first place! Hence this review-of-sorts, which says nothing much about "Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy", but a fair bit about how I came to choose it. Given the little more I know now about Bonhoeffer, I have reduced my rating from 3-Stars 'I Liked It', to 2-Stars 'It Was OK', although this is most likely due to my new-found dislike of the author, not his subject.
February 9, 2014
This is one of those times I curse my own ignorance. This was my first introduction to Bonhoeffer and I regret not meeting him some other way. Because this book has some freaking problems.
They're not Bonhoeffer's problems though; they're the author's.
Let me start with the easiest. It's the last thing in the book, but it confirmed a lot of what I'd been suspecting. The About the Author section, which for most writers runs a paragraph or two, and even for the likes of Dostoevsky or Faulkner runs a page at most, in Metaxas's case runs for THREE GUSHING PAGES. It's the most shameless self-promotion I've seen by an author, a cataract of celebrity namedropping and self-congratulation. It boasts of his "upstaging Dick Cavett" and being complimented by Woody Allen, and lists everything he's ever done from the 1980s to yesterday evening. There's even mention of receiving praise from the actress who played Alice on The Brady Bunch. It's the kind of resumé that starts employers howling.
But so the book. First, it's boring. Oh good lord is it boring. In attempting thoroughness, Metaxas bogs down the project with incidental details and bland, unilluminating anecdotes. It takes a millennium to get to the first interesting material.
Second, Metaxas adores his subject too much. There's absolutely no questioning of Bonhoeffer here: everything he does is right and true and good. It feels nearly sacrilegious to ask, but are we allowed no consideration of his doubts and depressions, are we not allowed to challenge him just a little? Here, the golden is all we get; there's precious little of B's internal struggles, only the occasional wandering or clouding of doubt, a fleeting mention of his depressions. Otherwise he's depicted as stalwartly, cheerfully marching ever forward. The reader is meant not to connect with Bonhoeffer the human, but to admire from a distance Bonhoeffer the saint.
When Bonhoeffer is unsaintly, Metaxas glosses right over it. B gets engaged to a woman, Maria, barely more than a girl, an engagement that pretty rightly troubles the girl's mother because Maria is half B's age and has recently lost both father and brother in war. She's as vulnerable as it gets. Plus she barely knows Bonhoeffer. Yet in Metaxas's account, B feels no qualms about it. While he's in prison, she's every bit as jailed by the relationship. Maria, for lack of experience and any real face-to-face interaction with B, has to devote herself to imagining a brilliant wedded future with a man she barely knows. He encourages this with promises of the great good to come. After many months, she expresses her misery and her doubts about maintaining the engagement; shouldn't compassion and honor compel him to let her go if she wishes, to release her from this hellish waiting? On the contrary, he stresses the bond between them, claiming to want only the best for her but insisting that the best for her is to remain absolutely, irrevocably bound to him. While comfort and hope and the promise of love is to be expected of someone languishing in prison, I found that particular letter of his -- quoted at length in the book -- to be particularly disturbing, packed with manipulations masquerading as love. Any remark on this from Metaxas? Nosiree, it's all cool and godly and preordained, a love for the ages. And maybe again it's my ignorance speaking -- perhaps Maria and Bonhoeffer's love was the solid gold deal -- but some evidence of this would be reassuring.
Third, there's a tone of smugness permeating this book. Emanating not from Bonhoeffer, but from the author. It's that sort of cheerful condescension that is one of Christianity's more irritating faces. The kind that smiles pityingly upon the poor naïfs who through stubbornness or bad luck remain blind to what the believer so surely sees is The Truth. (To be clear, I'm not blasting believers; my complaint is only with this particular attitude.) This makes Metaxas oblivious to some obvious points. Take just one e.g.: he notes as an example of evil that Goebbels invoked Germanic pagan imagery in the torchlit midnight book burnings. The pagan aspect itself, distinct from the Nazi horror, Metaxas considers evil because it's decidedly unchristian. There's a hint of criticism for the Germans who didn't recognize this, who simply responded viscerally, stupidly to it. Yet surely he's aware of Christianity's own pagan underpinnings, no? The uncanny coincidence of Christmas falling near the winter solstice, Easter's tie to ancient fertility rites? I know that when I've stood in a southern Methodist church on Christmas Eve, singing carols in the tender dark of a candlelit vigil, no one's ever interrupted the service with, "Wait just a minute! Just what the hell does that pine tree have to do with all this anyway?"
Metaxas seems to take for granted that God, his own personal Big Guy, is the only correct and proper God, and that his readers are with him on this -- or should be. Less than a quarter of the way into the book, you realize he's not an unbiased biographer, that the scholarliness obscures his truer project: he's not reporting on a real, fallible human or exploring the evolution of a humble pastor to revolutionary thinker and anti-Nazi collaborator, but rather erecting an icon in the image of his own beliefs.
It's the same problem I have with depictions of Jesus as essentially untroubled. I understand the yearning for a placid soul moving unflinchingly forward through the worst of horrors: it represents security, stability, the power of faith in the face of crisis. But when the temptations of the desert are blown past -- "Oh, but he wasn't really that tempted, he was never fooled" -- it leaves me cold. You don't get credit for resisting something that holds no appeal. "Would you like mayonnaise on your sandwich?" "I don't like mayonnaise." "GOOD FOR YOU! I WISH I HAD YOUR RESTRAINT!"
No, give me a savior who overcomes the most insidious temptations, who wages that battle of living one minute after the next, who's intimately acquainted with fear and doubt and weakness and pain, who in spite of all that finds a way to deal with it healthily, with empathy and optimism and grace. Otherwise you end up with a statue of a savior, as magnificent and unfeeling as bronze. In my experience, I-Thou relationships rarely end well.
Maybe I'm making it sound worse than it is. Ultimately, the book made me quite interested in Bonhoeffer. I just wish I could shake the feeling that Metaxas is somehow using Bonhoeffer to his own ends. I can already see it listed in his next book's About the Author section, given a hearty thumbs-up from Kirk "Enough Already" Cameron from Growing Pains.
They're not Bonhoeffer's problems though; they're the author's.
Let me start with the easiest. It's the last thing in the book, but it confirmed a lot of what I'd been suspecting. The About the Author section, which for most writers runs a paragraph or two, and even for the likes of Dostoevsky or Faulkner runs a page at most, in Metaxas's case runs for THREE GUSHING PAGES. It's the most shameless self-promotion I've seen by an author, a cataract of celebrity namedropping and self-congratulation. It boasts of his "upstaging Dick Cavett" and being complimented by Woody Allen, and lists everything he's ever done from the 1980s to yesterday evening. There's even mention of receiving praise from the actress who played Alice on The Brady Bunch. It's the kind of resumé that starts employers howling.
But so the book. First, it's boring. Oh good lord is it boring. In attempting thoroughness, Metaxas bogs down the project with incidental details and bland, unilluminating anecdotes. It takes a millennium to get to the first interesting material.
Second, Metaxas adores his subject too much. There's absolutely no questioning of Bonhoeffer here: everything he does is right and true and good. It feels nearly sacrilegious to ask, but are we allowed no consideration of his doubts and depressions, are we not allowed to challenge him just a little? Here, the golden is all we get; there's precious little of B's internal struggles, only the occasional wandering or clouding of doubt, a fleeting mention of his depressions. Otherwise he's depicted as stalwartly, cheerfully marching ever forward. The reader is meant not to connect with Bonhoeffer the human, but to admire from a distance Bonhoeffer the saint.
When Bonhoeffer is unsaintly, Metaxas glosses right over it. B gets engaged to a woman, Maria, barely more than a girl, an engagement that pretty rightly troubles the girl's mother because Maria is half B's age and has recently lost both father and brother in war. She's as vulnerable as it gets. Plus she barely knows Bonhoeffer. Yet in Metaxas's account, B feels no qualms about it. While he's in prison, she's every bit as jailed by the relationship. Maria, for lack of experience and any real face-to-face interaction with B, has to devote herself to imagining a brilliant wedded future with a man she barely knows. He encourages this with promises of the great good to come. After many months, she expresses her misery and her doubts about maintaining the engagement; shouldn't compassion and honor compel him to let her go if she wishes, to release her from this hellish waiting? On the contrary, he stresses the bond between them, claiming to want only the best for her but insisting that the best for her is to remain absolutely, irrevocably bound to him. While comfort and hope and the promise of love is to be expected of someone languishing in prison, I found that particular letter of his -- quoted at length in the book -- to be particularly disturbing, packed with manipulations masquerading as love. Any remark on this from Metaxas? Nosiree, it's all cool and godly and preordained, a love for the ages. And maybe again it's my ignorance speaking -- perhaps Maria and Bonhoeffer's love was the solid gold deal -- but some evidence of this would be reassuring.
Third, there's a tone of smugness permeating this book. Emanating not from Bonhoeffer, but from the author. It's that sort of cheerful condescension that is one of Christianity's more irritating faces. The kind that smiles pityingly upon the poor naïfs who through stubbornness or bad luck remain blind to what the believer so surely sees is The Truth. (To be clear, I'm not blasting believers; my complaint is only with this particular attitude.) This makes Metaxas oblivious to some obvious points. Take just one e.g.: he notes as an example of evil that Goebbels invoked Germanic pagan imagery in the torchlit midnight book burnings. The pagan aspect itself, distinct from the Nazi horror, Metaxas considers evil because it's decidedly unchristian. There's a hint of criticism for the Germans who didn't recognize this, who simply responded viscerally, stupidly to it. Yet surely he's aware of Christianity's own pagan underpinnings, no? The uncanny coincidence of Christmas falling near the winter solstice, Easter's tie to ancient fertility rites? I know that when I've stood in a southern Methodist church on Christmas Eve, singing carols in the tender dark of a candlelit vigil, no one's ever interrupted the service with, "Wait just a minute! Just what the hell does that pine tree have to do with all this anyway?"
Metaxas seems to take for granted that God, his own personal Big Guy, is the only correct and proper God, and that his readers are with him on this -- or should be. Less than a quarter of the way into the book, you realize he's not an unbiased biographer, that the scholarliness obscures his truer project: he's not reporting on a real, fallible human or exploring the evolution of a humble pastor to revolutionary thinker and anti-Nazi collaborator, but rather erecting an icon in the image of his own beliefs.
It's the same problem I have with depictions of Jesus as essentially untroubled. I understand the yearning for a placid soul moving unflinchingly forward through the worst of horrors: it represents security, stability, the power of faith in the face of crisis. But when the temptations of the desert are blown past -- "Oh, but he wasn't really that tempted, he was never fooled" -- it leaves me cold. You don't get credit for resisting something that holds no appeal. "Would you like mayonnaise on your sandwich?" "I don't like mayonnaise." "GOOD FOR YOU! I WISH I HAD YOUR RESTRAINT!"
No, give me a savior who overcomes the most insidious temptations, who wages that battle of living one minute after the next, who's intimately acquainted with fear and doubt and weakness and pain, who in spite of all that finds a way to deal with it healthily, with empathy and optimism and grace. Otherwise you end up with a statue of a savior, as magnificent and unfeeling as bronze. In my experience, I-Thou relationships rarely end well.
Maybe I'm making it sound worse than it is. Ultimately, the book made me quite interested in Bonhoeffer. I just wish I could shake the feeling that Metaxas is somehow using Bonhoeffer to his own ends. I can already see it listed in his next book's About the Author section, given a hearty thumbs-up from Kirk "Enough Already" Cameron from Growing Pains.
August 25, 2021
Exhaustive and exhausting
For some reason, I had never read about Bonhoeffer and this book had been on my list for a while. The historical detail is fascinating especially as I studied WW2 at school. To read about events from a Christian perspective was well worth the effort. The conspiracy to assassinate Hitler raised questions in my mind; I had no idea that so many attempts had been made. I'm sure the would-be assassins, many of whom thought they were carrying out God's judgement, must've begun asking themselves why these attempts kept failing and were ultimately unsuccessful. Yet, this doesn't seem to have been a consideration once they had determined their course of action.
This is an extremely thorough biography compiled from journal entries, letters, known facts, media, witnesses and many other sources. There are some excellent quotes. I'm not sure I agree with Bonhoeffer's theology in places, but I admire his courage and perseverance in the face of great persecution.
The book is full of facts and figures and should definitely be edited. It also tails off for the final third becoming less interesting and more rambling. I would have preferred a book about a third of the size written more for a lay reader. This will do well for historians or those with a special interest in Bonhoeffer and is useful for reference, but the story is lost in the mass of information.
I also struggled with the almost saintly presentation of Bonhoeffer by the author. I'm sure the subject would also have struggled to be depicted in this way. He appears to be a man almost without fault, taking on the entire German machine of the Third Reich single-handedly, and predicting the war and Hitler's lunacy years before any of it happened. In fact, the author constantly refers to his incredible foresight in addition to all his other alleged super-human abilities. I found this difficult as the bias was not subtle.
Definitely worth a read just for the historical perspective which is often skipped over in secular history lessons!
For some reason, I had never read about Bonhoeffer and this book had been on my list for a while. The historical detail is fascinating especially as I studied WW2 at school. To read about events from a Christian perspective was well worth the effort. The conspiracy to assassinate Hitler raised questions in my mind; I had no idea that so many attempts had been made. I'm sure the would-be assassins, many of whom thought they were carrying out God's judgement, must've begun asking themselves why these attempts kept failing and were ultimately unsuccessful. Yet, this doesn't seem to have been a consideration once they had determined their course of action.
This is an extremely thorough biography compiled from journal entries, letters, known facts, media, witnesses and many other sources. There are some excellent quotes. I'm not sure I agree with Bonhoeffer's theology in places, but I admire his courage and perseverance in the face of great persecution.
The book is full of facts and figures and should definitely be edited. It also tails off for the final third becoming less interesting and more rambling. I would have preferred a book about a third of the size written more for a lay reader. This will do well for historians or those with a special interest in Bonhoeffer and is useful for reference, but the story is lost in the mass of information.
I also struggled with the almost saintly presentation of Bonhoeffer by the author. I'm sure the subject would also have struggled to be depicted in this way. He appears to be a man almost without fault, taking on the entire German machine of the Third Reich single-handedly, and predicting the war and Hitler's lunacy years before any of it happened. In fact, the author constantly refers to his incredible foresight in addition to all his other alleged super-human abilities. I found this difficult as the bias was not subtle.
Definitely worth a read just for the historical perspective which is often skipped over in secular history lessons!
October 2, 2021
Dietrich Bonhoeffer is an inspiration and a revelation. I do not know anyone who does not find much to admire in Bonhoeffer. Even those who find Christian doctrines to stretch plausibility can admire Bonhoeffer's courage as a moral and principled man standing up to authoritarianism at the risk of his own life.
When the Nazis co-opted the Lutheran Church in Germany, he helped to organize a new church, called the Confessing Church, to oppose the Nazi's corruption of German Christianity. When it became clear that Hitler had widespread political support and would not fail on his own merit - something many influential people in Germany wrongly supposed would happen - Bonhoeffer joined the conspiracy lead by Admiral Canaris of the Abwehr and had no difficulty seeing that it was his duty as a Christian to support Canaris' plans for the assassination of Hitler and the violent overthrow of the Third Reich.
Bonhoeffer's brother-in-law, also a member of the conspiracy, maintained a list documenting Nazi atrocities. The list was to be used to win the loyalty of the populace - which for years was largely in the dark about the Nazi's most horrific crimes - after Hitler was gone. It was the discovery of the list by the SS that likely led to the order that Bonhoeffer be executed.
Bonhoeffer lived and died courageously and Metaxas provides the details of Bonhoeffer's life in this regard effectively. I think this explains the book's success.
Metaxas also wants his readers to understand that Bonhoeffer was a unique and innovative theologian. Here the book is a disappointment. Unquestionably, Bonhoeffer lived a sincerely Christian life and influenced friends to do likewise, even in the difficult circumstances of their time. But more than that, Metaxas is convinced that Bonhoeffer made important, even groundbreaking, contributions to protestant theology. He failed to convince me.
Metaxas just does not engage the substance of Bonhoeffer's theology in any serious way. I am far from an expert on this important subject, but Bonhoeffer seems not to have said anything about breaking with the bourgeois theology, that characterized Christianity on the continent before WWI, that his older contemporary Karl Barth had not already said even better. Though Bonhoeffer's LETTERS FROM PRISON is undeniably compelling as an account of Bonhoeffer's personal psychology of faith, it does not offer anything new regarding the reasons for faith. Or if it does, then Metaxas fails to develop it sufficiently for a reader like me to appreciate. In this sense, it seems to me that Metaxas failed to achieve much of what he set out to do in this ambitious book.
When the Nazis co-opted the Lutheran Church in Germany, he helped to organize a new church, called the Confessing Church, to oppose the Nazi's corruption of German Christianity. When it became clear that Hitler had widespread political support and would not fail on his own merit - something many influential people in Germany wrongly supposed would happen - Bonhoeffer joined the conspiracy lead by Admiral Canaris of the Abwehr and had no difficulty seeing that it was his duty as a Christian to support Canaris' plans for the assassination of Hitler and the violent overthrow of the Third Reich.
Bonhoeffer's brother-in-law, also a member of the conspiracy, maintained a list documenting Nazi atrocities. The list was to be used to win the loyalty of the populace - which for years was largely in the dark about the Nazi's most horrific crimes - after Hitler was gone. It was the discovery of the list by the SS that likely led to the order that Bonhoeffer be executed.
Bonhoeffer lived and died courageously and Metaxas provides the details of Bonhoeffer's life in this regard effectively. I think this explains the book's success.
Metaxas also wants his readers to understand that Bonhoeffer was a unique and innovative theologian. Here the book is a disappointment. Unquestionably, Bonhoeffer lived a sincerely Christian life and influenced friends to do likewise, even in the difficult circumstances of their time. But more than that, Metaxas is convinced that Bonhoeffer made important, even groundbreaking, contributions to protestant theology. He failed to convince me.
Metaxas just does not engage the substance of Bonhoeffer's theology in any serious way. I am far from an expert on this important subject, but Bonhoeffer seems not to have said anything about breaking with the bourgeois theology, that characterized Christianity on the continent before WWI, that his older contemporary Karl Barth had not already said even better. Though Bonhoeffer's LETTERS FROM PRISON is undeniably compelling as an account of Bonhoeffer's personal psychology of faith, it does not offer anything new regarding the reasons for faith. Or if it does, then Metaxas fails to develop it sufficiently for a reader like me to appreciate. In this sense, it seems to me that Metaxas failed to achieve much of what he set out to do in this ambitious book.
December 23, 2020
I have always been curious about Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He's a theologian well-respected by Christianity's more intellectual set, was a principled man who stood up to Hitler's Third Reich, and yet represents for me a major theological conundrum: how a man of God involved in a plot to assassinate one of the most evil men who ever lived could not only fail, but be captured and executed by the Gestapo mere weeks before the war's end.
Eric Metaxas's Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy tells the story of Bonhoeffer's life in great detail, from childhood to death. The focus is on Bonhoeffer's family relations, pastoral work, split with the Reich-supporting church, relationship with the worldwide church, and the historic events surrounding his life. You won't learn Bonhoeffer's broader theological ideas from this book, but will get glimpses in letters and specific reactions to events. Metaxas cannot help but editorialize, and I suspect he has done a fair amount of pruning and white washing to let his own hagiographic take on Bonhoeffer's life and ideas shine through. Metaxas tries to anticipate some of the theological problems and smooth rough edges to keep the reader from asking any difficult or interesting questions.
Bonhoeffer (I've always heard "BON-hoffer", but the 22-hour audio book I read uses the proper German "BON-hoofer") was born to a well-established and well-heeled family. He showed an early aptitude for music, but his passion for faith convinced him to pursue a doctorate in theology against the prodding of his family (his brother Karl Friedrich, for example, became an influential chemist). Too young for ordination, he spent some time as an assistant pastor in Spain (the book downplays his love of bullfighting), returned, and left in 1930 for post-graduate study at Union Theological Seminary in New York, which he found to be missing the passion and Christ-centrism he expected from the church. He found more common ground and inspiration within the Black church, and saw connections between the US treatment of African Americans and his own country's anti-Semitism. In a sadly foreshadowing passage, he writes about how much worse a problem American prejudices are - an assessment I can't fault him for: no one anticipated the nasty turn Germany would take (though God might have foreseen it).
Bonhoeffer returned to Germany and turned his attention to ecumenical relations worldwide. When National Socialism came to power in 1933, Hitler ordered church elections to install his own men, the so-called "German Christian" movement. Bonhoeffer actively fought against this, especially proposals such as the "Aryan Paragraph" which proposed to remove all clergy with Jewish ancestry. While Bonhoeffer rightly spoke out against this act as unfair and un-Christian, and against the concept of a "fuhrer", and promoted study of the Old Testament (which Nazis sought to downplay or remove), he himself held some fairly anti-Semitic views and found Jews of interest only as potential Christian converts (these shortcomings are completely ignored in the book). Influential theologian (and eventual friend to Bonhoeffer) Karl Barth wrote the Barmen Declaration in 1934, declaring independence from earthly authority, and figures such as Martin Niemöller and Bonhoeffer joined the new fledgling "Confessing Church". Metaxas makes a couple sideways references to opposing Christians who "put undue emphasis on Romans 13", without directly quoting or addressing the problematic scripture that clearly states they should all be obeying Hitler's authority:
Metaxas plays the "No True Scotsman" card many times, trying to establish that Hitler was not a Christian (more complicated than that, but essentially true), that the party leadership was unilaterally non-Christian (simply untrue), and that believers everywhere responded forcefully against Hitler (the Confessing Church only had about 20% buy-in). He even finds a way to brush off protestant founder and German hero Martin Luther's rabid anti-Semitism, claiming it was a result of older-age dementia setting in (God should have been able to protect against this in one of his most influential servants). There's a lot of apologetics going on here.
Bonhoeffer was a powerful voice for good in many ways. He respected Gandhi's pacifist teachings and had arranged to visit the spiritual leader (this unfortunately never panned out). He wrote in support of the Christian community, the importance of the Old Testament, and the values of the sermon on the mount. The Nazis noticed and barred him from Berlin, and later from public speaking in general. He encouraged a faith that was active and involved in societal affairs, and chastised those who tried to remain neutral or use their clerical status to avoid political engagement or military service. He himself was conflicted on his own involvement: he was tempted to serve the war effort for his country, and yet could not swear allegiance to Hitler. Bonhoeffer could have chosen to ride out the war safely in America, and did briefly accept a professorship at Union Theological Seminary, but later returned to be present in Germany as he had returned from London before. Germany was his home, and he was going to serve as an active participant in his country's fate.
Bonhoeffer joined the Abwehr (a military intelligence group), where he was aware of multiple assassination attempts on Hitler. It is frustrating to read about all the bombs that fizzled or meetings that changed at the last second. If anyone was ever ripe for assassination, it was Hitler. His death could have prevented the suffering and deaths of millions. While Bonhoeffer was not directly involved in the execution of any of these plots, Metaxas argues that he offered the theological backbone and justification to the efforts. Bonhoeffer even resigned from the Confessing Church so they would not be implicated in assassination if his involvement were discovered. In 1943 he was arrested (for different reasons), but was able to maintain correspondence with conspirators.
There is an interlude shortly before his imprisonment in which Bonhoeffer pursues a relationship with Maria von Wedemeyer, who had 18 years to his 36. This is cringeworthy, especially the letters back and forth between them. One might suspect this to be a product of the time, but her mother was adamantly against the match, and mandated that they wait a year before moving forward with their wedding plans. As it happens, Dietrich was arrested before that year was up, and they never consummated the relationship. Metaxas glosses over the creepiness of this arrangement, and doesn't mention the credible possibility that Bonhoeffer may have been gay (I am curious to read Diane Reynolds' The Doubled Life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer), which might explain some of his sensitivity to the marginalizing practices of the Third Reich, as well as his naming student Eberhard Bethge as his heir.
After the failed July 20, 1944 assassination attempt (in which Hitler survived a bomb that exploded mere feet from him, pulverizing the room and killing other top officials, thanks to a quirk of fate and furniture design (see the movie Valkyrie)), Bonhoeffer was identified as part of the conspiracy and sent to the Buchenwald concentration camp, and then to Flossenbürg, where he was hanged roughly three weeks before Hitler killed himself and the war ended. There are so many small decisions and moments where Dietrich might have been freed, or could have escaped, and it is frustrating to see his inevitable fate approach.
The only notable character missing in this story is God himself. This is a problem for Christianity. Hitler should have been killed as soon as possible. Lives could have been saved. Bonhoeffer was a man of God, theologically rooted, who had prayed to God and felt it was his duty to support assassination of a dictator. Who better to succeed? Think of the witness, and how glorious a testament that could be to God's power? Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Claus von Stauffenberg would be household names. And yet, over and over Hitler was spared (he survived something like 15 serious attempts on his life, and indeed took this as a sign from Providence that his mission was honorable). Instead, it was Bonhoeffer who died first, at the hands of the Gestapo, despite multiple points at which subtle intervention could have saved him. Where was God in all this? Is he not more powerful than a conference room desk? Could he not help a fuse detonate at high altitude? Was it his will that millions more should die first? The events as they actually occurred make a lot more sense if God does not exist. Metaxas tries to defray this conclusion without ever facing it head on. He shares Bonhoeffer's own post-hoc justifications about how you can be in the right, yet on the losing side. How God demands obedience, not success. Bonhoeffer recognizes that the Lord is "plundering his own best instruments", and yet falls back on the foregone assurance that God does not make mistakes. As good people die left and right, he shrugs off the questions and offers pablum: "Whomever God calls home, he certainly loves." And "Thy ways are past understanding, but you know the way for me." Also, "Suffer patiently... God approves."
And yet, whenever things go right for an instant, God receives the praise for intervening. Great "schadenfreude" is had when an evil judge is killed by a falling beam in an air raid... was that God's intervention? If so, then why not a similar fate for Hitler? It is declared "fitting" that the concentration camp rescue should happen at the same time Easter is being celebrated. Wouldn't it be more fitting if the rescue came before Bonhoeffer was killed, or if mass murder were prevented in the first place? It is just-so logic and empty theology that can only respond to events after they have occurred, employing excuses and rationalization for any lack of guidance or predictive power. The life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer is a fascinating window into an important moment in history, an inspiring but ultimately tragic story that invalidates the deeply held beliefs of its protagonist.
Two years later edit (12/22/2020): I'm docking this another star after reading that other serious Bonhoeffer historians take this book to task for a fair amount of fiction. Also, I believe it after finding out that . Yikes.
Eric Metaxas's Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy tells the story of Bonhoeffer's life in great detail, from childhood to death. The focus is on Bonhoeffer's family relations, pastoral work, split with the Reich-supporting church, relationship with the worldwide church, and the historic events surrounding his life. You won't learn Bonhoeffer's broader theological ideas from this book, but will get glimpses in letters and specific reactions to events. Metaxas cannot help but editorialize, and I suspect he has done a fair amount of pruning and white washing to let his own hagiographic take on Bonhoeffer's life and ideas shine through. Metaxas tries to anticipate some of the theological problems and smooth rough edges to keep the reader from asking any difficult or interesting questions.
Bonhoeffer (I've always heard "BON-hoffer", but the 22-hour audio book I read uses the proper German "BON-hoofer") was born to a well-established and well-heeled family. He showed an early aptitude for music, but his passion for faith convinced him to pursue a doctorate in theology against the prodding of his family (his brother Karl Friedrich, for example, became an influential chemist). Too young for ordination, he spent some time as an assistant pastor in Spain (the book downplays his love of bullfighting), returned, and left in 1930 for post-graduate study at Union Theological Seminary in New York, which he found to be missing the passion and Christ-centrism he expected from the church. He found more common ground and inspiration within the Black church, and saw connections between the US treatment of African Americans and his own country's anti-Semitism. In a sadly foreshadowing passage, he writes about how much worse a problem American prejudices are - an assessment I can't fault him for: no one anticipated the nasty turn Germany would take (though God might have foreseen it).
Bonhoeffer returned to Germany and turned his attention to ecumenical relations worldwide. When National Socialism came to power in 1933, Hitler ordered church elections to install his own men, the so-called "German Christian" movement. Bonhoeffer actively fought against this, especially proposals such as the "Aryan Paragraph" which proposed to remove all clergy with Jewish ancestry. While Bonhoeffer rightly spoke out against this act as unfair and un-Christian, and against the concept of a "fuhrer", and promoted study of the Old Testament (which Nazis sought to downplay or remove), he himself held some fairly anti-Semitic views and found Jews of interest only as potential Christian converts (these shortcomings are completely ignored in the book). Influential theologian (and eventual friend to Bonhoeffer) Karl Barth wrote the Barmen Declaration in 1934, declaring independence from earthly authority, and figures such as Martin Niemöller and Bonhoeffer joined the new fledgling "Confessing Church". Metaxas makes a couple sideways references to opposing Christians who "put undue emphasis on Romans 13", without directly quoting or addressing the problematic scripture that clearly states they should all be obeying Hitler's authority:
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience." -Romans 13:1-5, NIV
Metaxas plays the "No True Scotsman" card many times, trying to establish that Hitler was not a Christian (more complicated than that, but essentially true), that the party leadership was unilaterally non-Christian (simply untrue), and that believers everywhere responded forcefully against Hitler (the Confessing Church only had about 20% buy-in). He even finds a way to brush off protestant founder and German hero Martin Luther's rabid anti-Semitism, claiming it was a result of older-age dementia setting in (God should have been able to protect against this in one of his most influential servants). There's a lot of apologetics going on here.
Bonhoeffer was a powerful voice for good in many ways. He respected Gandhi's pacifist teachings and had arranged to visit the spiritual leader (this unfortunately never panned out). He wrote in support of the Christian community, the importance of the Old Testament, and the values of the sermon on the mount. The Nazis noticed and barred him from Berlin, and later from public speaking in general. He encouraged a faith that was active and involved in societal affairs, and chastised those who tried to remain neutral or use their clerical status to avoid political engagement or military service. He himself was conflicted on his own involvement: he was tempted to serve the war effort for his country, and yet could not swear allegiance to Hitler. Bonhoeffer could have chosen to ride out the war safely in America, and did briefly accept a professorship at Union Theological Seminary, but later returned to be present in Germany as he had returned from London before. Germany was his home, and he was going to serve as an active participant in his country's fate.
Bonhoeffer joined the Abwehr (a military intelligence group), where he was aware of multiple assassination attempts on Hitler. It is frustrating to read about all the bombs that fizzled or meetings that changed at the last second. If anyone was ever ripe for assassination, it was Hitler. His death could have prevented the suffering and deaths of millions. While Bonhoeffer was not directly involved in the execution of any of these plots, Metaxas argues that he offered the theological backbone and justification to the efforts. Bonhoeffer even resigned from the Confessing Church so they would not be implicated in assassination if his involvement were discovered. In 1943 he was arrested (for different reasons), but was able to maintain correspondence with conspirators.
There is an interlude shortly before his imprisonment in which Bonhoeffer pursues a relationship with Maria von Wedemeyer, who had 18 years to his 36. This is cringeworthy, especially the letters back and forth between them. One might suspect this to be a product of the time, but her mother was adamantly against the match, and mandated that they wait a year before moving forward with their wedding plans. As it happens, Dietrich was arrested before that year was up, and they never consummated the relationship. Metaxas glosses over the creepiness of this arrangement, and doesn't mention the credible possibility that Bonhoeffer may have been gay (I am curious to read Diane Reynolds' The Doubled Life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer), which might explain some of his sensitivity to the marginalizing practices of the Third Reich, as well as his naming student Eberhard Bethge as his heir.
After the failed July 20, 1944 assassination attempt (in which Hitler survived a bomb that exploded mere feet from him, pulverizing the room and killing other top officials, thanks to a quirk of fate and furniture design (see the movie Valkyrie)), Bonhoeffer was identified as part of the conspiracy and sent to the Buchenwald concentration camp, and then to Flossenbürg, where he was hanged roughly three weeks before Hitler killed himself and the war ended. There are so many small decisions and moments where Dietrich might have been freed, or could have escaped, and it is frustrating to see his inevitable fate approach.
The only notable character missing in this story is God himself. This is a problem for Christianity. Hitler should have been killed as soon as possible. Lives could have been saved. Bonhoeffer was a man of God, theologically rooted, who had prayed to God and felt it was his duty to support assassination of a dictator. Who better to succeed? Think of the witness, and how glorious a testament that could be to God's power? Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Claus von Stauffenberg would be household names. And yet, over and over Hitler was spared (he survived something like 15 serious attempts on his life, and indeed took this as a sign from Providence that his mission was honorable). Instead, it was Bonhoeffer who died first, at the hands of the Gestapo, despite multiple points at which subtle intervention could have saved him. Where was God in all this? Is he not more powerful than a conference room desk? Could he not help a fuse detonate at high altitude? Was it his will that millions more should die first? The events as they actually occurred make a lot more sense if God does not exist. Metaxas tries to defray this conclusion without ever facing it head on. He shares Bonhoeffer's own post-hoc justifications about how you can be in the right, yet on the losing side. How God demands obedience, not success. Bonhoeffer recognizes that the Lord is "plundering his own best instruments", and yet falls back on the foregone assurance that God does not make mistakes. As good people die left and right, he shrugs off the questions and offers pablum: "Whomever God calls home, he certainly loves." And "Thy ways are past understanding, but you know the way for me." Also, "Suffer patiently... God approves."
And yet, whenever things go right for an instant, God receives the praise for intervening. Great "schadenfreude" is had when an evil judge is killed by a falling beam in an air raid... was that God's intervention? If so, then why not a similar fate for Hitler? It is declared "fitting" that the concentration camp rescue should happen at the same time Easter is being celebrated. Wouldn't it be more fitting if the rescue came before Bonhoeffer was killed, or if mass murder were prevented in the first place? It is just-so logic and empty theology that can only respond to events after they have occurred, employing excuses and rationalization for any lack of guidance or predictive power. The life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer is a fascinating window into an important moment in history, an inspiring but ultimately tragic story that invalidates the deeply held beliefs of its protagonist.
Two years later edit (12/22/2020): I'm docking this another star after reading that other serious Bonhoeffer historians take this book to task for a fair amount of fiction. Also, I believe it after finding out that . Yikes.
October 8, 2012
It was said that when he prays it is as if he is really conversing with a God who is listening to him.
His family was rich and influential. He had aristocratic lineage both in the maternal and paternal side. Close relatives occupied high positions in the government, including the military.
He had a real talent for music, but he chose to be a theologian and a pastor of the Lutheran church where he belonged. But he was open-minded insofar as faith and salvation is concerned. He had wanted to visit India and talk to Mahatma Gandhi.
He was a well-read scholar and a poet. The poem "Powers of Good" which he wrote in prison has become famous throughout Germany and is included in many school textbooks. He had made monumental contributions to Christian thought.
He had fallen in love thrice, the last one to a young lady named Maria.
In saner times we would have seen him marry, raise children, write more books on philosophy and theology, grow old teaching and holding services for his flock. But no. He was a German. And it was the time of Hitler and the Nazis.
A gentle, kind, humble man of God in the most fucked up of times and places!
The extermination of the Jews and other people deemed undesirable by the Nazis, the killings of the sick, infirm and mentally ill, the suppression of free speech and other basic civil liberties, the systematic attack on religion and religious groups, the deification of Hitler and the indoctrination of the populace on the Nazi ideology--what cruel cosmic joke was it to present all these before a man like Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Long before the world came to know of the Holocaust, he already knew about it through his contacts within the German military. He loved his country, lost a brother fighting for it during world war one and had lost many friends, relatives and students in the current one. But he is face-to-face with evil incarnate. He had been praying that Germany lose the war but Hitler kept on winning battles and conquering territories. So what to do? Part of the enjoyment one can get out of reading this biography is to see the unraveling of this very fascinating moral conundrum.
If you have any real plans of someday reading it then stop here. But I tell you that it is a thick volume and if you have lots in your tbr then maybe you can disregard the coming spoilers and continue, for here I will tell you what Bonhoeffer did.
He joined the German resistance against Hitler and his Nazi cohorts. More than that, he was part of the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler and his closest henchmen. A devout follower of Christ conspiring to murder the head of state of his own country.
He had gone to the United States twice, and during the second time concerned friends had urged him to stay since the Gestapo was already hot on his heels. But he chose to go back to Germany. He was needed there, he felt, at the very least to speak up for the weak and defenseless, especially the Jews. In prison later, a plan was hatched for his escape and flight to another country but upon learning that such would further endanger some friends and relatives, he chose to remain behind bars. Fully aware of the dangers to his very life, he boldly looked forward, with complete trust, and proposed to Maria and they became engaged. He said that acts like this in times of great peril is "embracing God's earth."
He considered it as an act of faith in God to step out in freedom and not to fear future possibilities. As to killing Hitler as a sin or a violation of God's own commandment he said, confiding to a church colleague, that it is his moral conviction that:
"the structure of responsible action includes both readiness to accept guilt and freedom...(and that) If any man tries to escape guilt in responsibility he detaches himself from the ultimate reality of human existence, and what is more he cuts himself off from the redeeming mystery of Christ's bearing guilt without sin, and he has no share in the divine justification which lies upon this event."
But fate was kinder. It was not guilt he suffered from. The opposition to Hitler was extensive, even right at the start of his ascension to power, and there had been many plots to oust him via coups or outrightly assassinate him, but all these had failed. Including the last one where Bonhoeffer was a participant--Valkyrie--recently made into a film starring Tom Cruise.
While Nazi Germany was already tottering, with allied bombs raining upon Berlin itself, Bonhoeffer was executed upon the orders of the Fuhrer himself. He was just 39, not able to marry Maria, and most likely still a virgin (so unlike Thomas Merton!)
His family was rich and influential. He had aristocratic lineage both in the maternal and paternal side. Close relatives occupied high positions in the government, including the military.
He had a real talent for music, but he chose to be a theologian and a pastor of the Lutheran church where he belonged. But he was open-minded insofar as faith and salvation is concerned. He had wanted to visit India and talk to Mahatma Gandhi.
He was a well-read scholar and a poet. The poem "Powers of Good" which he wrote in prison has become famous throughout Germany and is included in many school textbooks. He had made monumental contributions to Christian thought.
He had fallen in love thrice, the last one to a young lady named Maria.
In saner times we would have seen him marry, raise children, write more books on philosophy and theology, grow old teaching and holding services for his flock. But no. He was a German. And it was the time of Hitler and the Nazis.
A gentle, kind, humble man of God in the most fucked up of times and places!
The extermination of the Jews and other people deemed undesirable by the Nazis, the killings of the sick, infirm and mentally ill, the suppression of free speech and other basic civil liberties, the systematic attack on religion and religious groups, the deification of Hitler and the indoctrination of the populace on the Nazi ideology--what cruel cosmic joke was it to present all these before a man like Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Long before the world came to know of the Holocaust, he already knew about it through his contacts within the German military. He loved his country, lost a brother fighting for it during world war one and had lost many friends, relatives and students in the current one. But he is face-to-face with evil incarnate. He had been praying that Germany lose the war but Hitler kept on winning battles and conquering territories. So what to do? Part of the enjoyment one can get out of reading this biography is to see the unraveling of this very fascinating moral conundrum.
If you have any real plans of someday reading it then stop here. But I tell you that it is a thick volume and if you have lots in your tbr then maybe you can disregard the coming spoilers and continue, for here I will tell you what Bonhoeffer did.
He joined the German resistance against Hitler and his Nazi cohorts. More than that, he was part of the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler and his closest henchmen. A devout follower of Christ conspiring to murder the head of state of his own country.
He had gone to the United States twice, and during the second time concerned friends had urged him to stay since the Gestapo was already hot on his heels. But he chose to go back to Germany. He was needed there, he felt, at the very least to speak up for the weak and defenseless, especially the Jews. In prison later, a plan was hatched for his escape and flight to another country but upon learning that such would further endanger some friends and relatives, he chose to remain behind bars. Fully aware of the dangers to his very life, he boldly looked forward, with complete trust, and proposed to Maria and they became engaged. He said that acts like this in times of great peril is "embracing God's earth."
He considered it as an act of faith in God to step out in freedom and not to fear future possibilities. As to killing Hitler as a sin or a violation of God's own commandment he said, confiding to a church colleague, that it is his moral conviction that:
"the structure of responsible action includes both readiness to accept guilt and freedom...(and that) If any man tries to escape guilt in responsibility he detaches himself from the ultimate reality of human existence, and what is more he cuts himself off from the redeeming mystery of Christ's bearing guilt without sin, and he has no share in the divine justification which lies upon this event."
But fate was kinder. It was not guilt he suffered from. The opposition to Hitler was extensive, even right at the start of his ascension to power, and there had been many plots to oust him via coups or outrightly assassinate him, but all these had failed. Including the last one where Bonhoeffer was a participant--Valkyrie--recently made into a film starring Tom Cruise.
While Nazi Germany was already tottering, with allied bombs raining upon Berlin itself, Bonhoeffer was executed upon the orders of the Fuhrer himself. He was just 39, not able to marry Maria, and most likely still a virgin (so unlike Thomas Merton!)
February 28, 2025
I'm about to whine a bit... I've borrowed this audio book from my library and am thrilled when our local public library makes such books available. It is a long book and I'll say a dense book. There is history, and theology, and biography, and names - oh, so many names to try to keep track of. I've had to renew it twice which wasn't a problem- until last week. I tried to renew and received a message that the book was no longer available at my library. Yikes! The message said to go to the library and speak to a librarian and 'express my interest'. So I did that. To no avail.
Not only is this book not available but about 3/4 of my library FAVORITES (books that I have made a list of that were to be read sometime in the future) are no longer available . I thought the library had been hacked. Now when I put murder mystery in the search engine instead of a Commissario Brunetti story or a Louise Penny book; I get a list of Boxcar Children books. I. am. not. kidding.
The librarian at my local library branch couldn't provide any answers as to what has happened. She suggested I write to the Main Branch Librarian (which I have done - no response yet). I am at a loss. If I want cheesy romance, horror stories, or children's books (not classic children's books mind you); they abound at my library. But the books that I want to read are gone.
The librarian at my local branch said she could do an inter library loan for me and she found this book on CD from another branch. She seemed annoyed when I told her that I don't have a CD player and even if I did; it's difficult to carry one around on my evening walk when I listen to the book (or listen in my car). I am truly at a loss.
I am still hoping that someone hacked my library's Hoopla app and they will figure this out and go back to providing good books.
UPDATE: Hooray, my library has this book back and is available on Hoopla! Not just this book but many others that I had on my wish list. It makes me so happy to have such a resource available!
Not only is this book not available but about 3/4 of my library FAVORITES (books that I have made a list of that were to be read sometime in the future) are no longer available . I thought the library had been hacked. Now when I put murder mystery in the search engine instead of a Commissario Brunetti story or a Louise Penny book; I get a list of Boxcar Children books. I. am. not. kidding.
The librarian at my local library branch couldn't provide any answers as to what has happened. She suggested I write to the Main Branch Librarian (which I have done - no response yet). I am at a loss. If I want cheesy romance, horror stories, or children's books (not classic children's books mind you); they abound at my library. But the books that I want to read are gone.
The librarian at my local branch said she could do an inter library loan for me and she found this book on CD from another branch. She seemed annoyed when I told her that I don't have a CD player and even if I did; it's difficult to carry one around on my evening walk when I listen to the book (or listen in my car). I am truly at a loss.
I am still hoping that someone hacked my library's Hoopla app and they will figure this out and go back to providing good books.
UPDATE: Hooray, my library has this book back and is available on Hoopla! Not just this book but many others that I had on my wish list. It makes me so happy to have such a resource available!
February 23, 2025
Post 2025 Inaugural Update:
Today, February 22, I spoke with my father by phone. While I never bring up politics with him (because we tend to conflict), he, unusually, asked me what I thought of the current political “turmoil.� I told him I thought “turmoil� was putting it mildly. I said that if they really do withdraw America from NATO as they are hinting, that it would be the worst foreign relations disaster in the history of the United States. To which he responded, “I feel like I have lived too long. I cannot understand or follow politics any more.� He is 92. After the call I felt he was probably echoing the sentiments of older German voters as they watched Germany go to war again in the late 1930s. In particular, I wondered if that was how Hindenburg might have felt near the end. It certainly was how Ernst Junger (“Storm of Steel�) felt by 1942.
Update: Well, we have nearly finally arrived at the moment the backers of this book hoped for when it was published, the ultimate takeover of the government by fascists who their rich backers think they can control, and who conservative Catholics think represent their interests. (They made that mistake once before.)
Vote for America. Vote for the rule of law.
**
The text was acceptable, readable like a knife through warm butter. But the front cover endorsements and the back pages ‘Study Guide� firmly place this work in the polemic sphere. In particular, the writers of the Study Guide encourage readers to see the parallels between modern America and Hitler's Germany. I wonder what the good pastor would think of all this. I am sure the Study Guide authors are certain they know.
The good pastor, though, may have disagreed with them. It is true that in ‘The Cost of Discipleshipâ€� [Touchstone Edition, 1995], he does not seem to like the “conformity to the worldâ€� of Reformation theology. He notes that Jesus says: “Let your light so shine before men.â€� He says that “any attack on the order of the Church from without [i.e., the Nazi party] means an attack on the Body of Christ itself.â€� And he called on Christians to “remain in the world to engage in frontal assault on it,â€� and for each Christian to “live the life of his secular calling in order to show himself as a stranger in this world all the more.â€� This was intended to follow the example of Luther, whose actions, he noted, were “a radical criticism and protest against the secularization of Christianity.â€I mention Bonhoeffer’s advocacy of resistance because it is a fair point to be considered below.
I read the central argument of this book is as follows: If sole (political) authority comes from the people, then because Hitler was popularly elected, the German people did not appear to be remiss in following his policies. Thus, in order to resist the tyranny of the Nazis, a higher source of authority than ‘the people� was necessary. Bonhoeffer had that in his faith. Many of his co-Lutherans lacked such authority, the argument goes, because it had been torn down by liberal theology. The institution of the Church was lacking in strength, and the cause was the rot of liberal thought.
With that in mind, let us review some history, as set forth in detail in William Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.�
What is the source of authority in a republican form of government? One possible source in a republican monarchy is the monarch. The Nazis argued for restoration of the good old days of the monarchy, and Field Marshall Hindenburg and the army sympathized. The other source of political authority is the people. At their peak of popularity in the last arguably free election, July 1932 (when the Nazi S.A., a voter suppression unit of organized thugs, already numbered more than 100,000), the Nazi party polled only 37% of the voters. It was then through a series of backroom deals and imaginative use of political leverage that Hitler weaseled his way into power.
Hitler’s government was not popularly elected. It was the weakness of Field Marshall Hindenburg, the fecklessness of his advisors, and the power of Nazi propaganda, that eased the way for the awful tyranny. William Shirer points out repeatedly that Hitler made no secret of his agenda, regardless of his suavity and cunning in lying to whomever he needed to con. After choosing Hitler to be Chancellor, Hindenburg stayed on for nearly two years (20 months) while the Nazis tore the German republic apart. All it takes for evil to triumph is for aging men to believe they are choosing the lesser evil in appointing creeps to positions of power. To be fair, the Nazis were careful not to overstep the bounds set by the old man, but the Nazi settling of scores that was the bloodbath of June 1934 (in which, among others, the leader of Catholic Action was arrested and sent a concentration camp) received Hindenburg’s thanks for their “prompt action.�
Catholics and Lutherans, as individuals and institutions, supported, resisted and toed the line drawn by the Nazis. Initially, the Catholic political party voted WITH the Nazi party in an effort to leverage their own political power. After Hitler was awarded the Chancellorship, some Protestant pastors welcomed Nazi rule as a change from the dark times of the Weimar Republic. (Be careful what you wish for). The Pope thought he had made a deal with the Nazis for the independence of the Catholic Church. But as time went on, more people realized their mistake, and resisted. Hundreds of ministers, priests and nuns were imprisoned or executed. Church property was confiscated.
But it was not only elements of the Church that resisted Hitler. Communists resisted Hitler, and the Nazis hunted them down in the streets. The Social Democrats resisted Hitler, even in the first Reichstag assembly after the heavily fixed landslide of the March 1933 elections. There, despite a dozen Social Democrat representatives having been ‘detained� by the police, Otto Wells rose and spoke truth to power: “We German Social Democrats pledge ourselves solemnly in this historic hour to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and socialism. No enabling act can give you the power to destroy ideas which are eternal and indestructible.� Bonhoeffer and the embattled Lutherans were by no means alone. Even those lousy socialist supporters of welfare had faith in a higher authority (of ideas) and guts to boot. And even atheists helped Jewish individuals escape.
In the study guide (as well as in the body of the book itself) the details of how Hitler came to power are left to history. (To be fair, it’s darn complicated.) But sinister parallels to the present state of the U.S. are implied. Several of the questions in the study guide ask the reader to think about how the U.S. government is persecuting Christians (including negative references to supposed book bans, disallowance of prayer in public schools and, oddly, allowance of conscientious objectors), presumably (because the guide is bound to the main text with glue), LIKE THE NAZIS DID. Although the study guide does not name the U.S., but simply refers to the reader’s “country� or “government,� no one is fooled.
What the book’s sponsors want to forget (or perhaps, more disturbingly, never even thought about) is that the most important difference between the Nazi government and modern western societies, including America, is a respect for PLURALISM. It is precisely this pluralism that the U.S. government often struggles to preserve through the shouting of various interest groups who claim they are being attacked. As Bettina Stangneth, German philosopher and historian, in her recently translated book, “Eichmann Before Jerusalem,� explains, “Evil doesn’t arrive from ignorance, it arrives from thinking men and women becoming unwilling to accept thinking as worthwhile. The real danger of the Nazi ideology was in its war against reason, a mistrust of thinking itself.�
In this age of talking past each other in increasingly loud volumes, and disputation as to what is fact, it is the humble opinion of this reader that it is not the subject of Pastor Bonhoeffer, good man though he was, that needed yet another book. It is the subject of what happened in Germany up to the death of Field Marshall Hindenburg in August 1934. What ideas, what fears, led 37% of the voters to support the Nazi platform in July 1932? And how could Hindenburg, after January 1933, the only man standing between Hitler and the destruction of Germany, simply look on while this group of paranoid myth spinners, fact twisters, power mongers, criminals and bullies took over and tore down the institutions of a seemingly rational country? Did the good people not see what was in store for Germany and rush to knock down the Field Marshall’s door with pleading and entreaties? This, to me, is the central issue, and vital to our day.
If you think I am exaggerating, I direct you to Exhibit A, a recent YouGov survey (conducted August/Sept 2015) which showed that 29% of Americans could imagine supporting a military coup “to take control from a civilian government that is beginning to violate the constitution.� The breakdown by political party was 43% Republican; 20% Democrat; 29% Other.
Judging from the endorsements, this book, intended to incite passions against the U.S. government, was pitched at evangelical Christians, the majority of whom seem to lean Republican these days. But what would the good pastor, Pastor Bonhoeffer, think of this book?
Pastor Bonhoeffer, in ‘The Cost of Discipleship� explains that the light that Jesus encourages us to “let shine before men,� is the light of the suffering of Christ on the cross, and “it is in this light that the good works of the disciples are meant to be seen,� which good works are “poverty, peregrination, meekness, peaceableness, and finally persecution and rejection.� The Pastor points out that “[e]very attempt to impose the gospel by force, to run after people and proselytize them, to use our own resources to arrange the salvation of other people, is both futile and dangerous. It is futile, because the swine do not recognize the pearls that are cast before them, and dangerous, because it profanes the world of forgiveness. � Worse still, we shall only meet with the blind rage of hardened and darkened hearts, and that will be useless and harmful.� He notes that “we must hide our righteousness from ourselves,� and explains that “discipleship means estrangement from the world.� � “The disciples of Jesus must not fondly imagine that they can simply run away from the world � False prophets� he warns, “will rise up among them, and amid the ensuing confusion they will feel more isolated than ever. � Maybe he [the false prophet] hopes his intellectual ability or his success as a prophet will bring him power and influence, money and fame. His ambitions are set on the world, not on Jesus Christ.� [Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship]
So, I have to ask, when a proselytizing Christian resurrects a Christian pastor who fought against the forces of an evil fascist regime for the purpose of spurring political action against a democratic and pluralistic government, which results in many of the target audience saying they would favor a military coup against such a government, what kind of prophet is he?
Today, February 22, I spoke with my father by phone. While I never bring up politics with him (because we tend to conflict), he, unusually, asked me what I thought of the current political “turmoil.� I told him I thought “turmoil� was putting it mildly. I said that if they really do withdraw America from NATO as they are hinting, that it would be the worst foreign relations disaster in the history of the United States. To which he responded, “I feel like I have lived too long. I cannot understand or follow politics any more.� He is 92. After the call I felt he was probably echoing the sentiments of older German voters as they watched Germany go to war again in the late 1930s. In particular, I wondered if that was how Hindenburg might have felt near the end. It certainly was how Ernst Junger (“Storm of Steel�) felt by 1942.
Update: Well, we have nearly finally arrived at the moment the backers of this book hoped for when it was published, the ultimate takeover of the government by fascists who their rich backers think they can control, and who conservative Catholics think represent their interests. (They made that mistake once before.)
Vote for America. Vote for the rule of law.
**
The text was acceptable, readable like a knife through warm butter. But the front cover endorsements and the back pages ‘Study Guide� firmly place this work in the polemic sphere. In particular, the writers of the Study Guide encourage readers to see the parallels between modern America and Hitler's Germany. I wonder what the good pastor would think of all this. I am sure the Study Guide authors are certain they know.
The good pastor, though, may have disagreed with them. It is true that in ‘The Cost of Discipleshipâ€� [Touchstone Edition, 1995], he does not seem to like the “conformity to the worldâ€� of Reformation theology. He notes that Jesus says: “Let your light so shine before men.â€� He says that “any attack on the order of the Church from without [i.e., the Nazi party] means an attack on the Body of Christ itself.â€� And he called on Christians to “remain in the world to engage in frontal assault on it,â€� and for each Christian to “live the life of his secular calling in order to show himself as a stranger in this world all the more.â€� This was intended to follow the example of Luther, whose actions, he noted, were “a radical criticism and protest against the secularization of Christianity.â€I mention Bonhoeffer’s advocacy of resistance because it is a fair point to be considered below.
I read the central argument of this book is as follows: If sole (political) authority comes from the people, then because Hitler was popularly elected, the German people did not appear to be remiss in following his policies. Thus, in order to resist the tyranny of the Nazis, a higher source of authority than ‘the people� was necessary. Bonhoeffer had that in his faith. Many of his co-Lutherans lacked such authority, the argument goes, because it had been torn down by liberal theology. The institution of the Church was lacking in strength, and the cause was the rot of liberal thought.
With that in mind, let us review some history, as set forth in detail in William Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.�
What is the source of authority in a republican form of government? One possible source in a republican monarchy is the monarch. The Nazis argued for restoration of the good old days of the monarchy, and Field Marshall Hindenburg and the army sympathized. The other source of political authority is the people. At their peak of popularity in the last arguably free election, July 1932 (when the Nazi S.A., a voter suppression unit of organized thugs, already numbered more than 100,000), the Nazi party polled only 37% of the voters. It was then through a series of backroom deals and imaginative use of political leverage that Hitler weaseled his way into power.
Hitler’s government was not popularly elected. It was the weakness of Field Marshall Hindenburg, the fecklessness of his advisors, and the power of Nazi propaganda, that eased the way for the awful tyranny. William Shirer points out repeatedly that Hitler made no secret of his agenda, regardless of his suavity and cunning in lying to whomever he needed to con. After choosing Hitler to be Chancellor, Hindenburg stayed on for nearly two years (20 months) while the Nazis tore the German republic apart. All it takes for evil to triumph is for aging men to believe they are choosing the lesser evil in appointing creeps to positions of power. To be fair, the Nazis were careful not to overstep the bounds set by the old man, but the Nazi settling of scores that was the bloodbath of June 1934 (in which, among others, the leader of Catholic Action was arrested and sent a concentration camp) received Hindenburg’s thanks for their “prompt action.�
Catholics and Lutherans, as individuals and institutions, supported, resisted and toed the line drawn by the Nazis. Initially, the Catholic political party voted WITH the Nazi party in an effort to leverage their own political power. After Hitler was awarded the Chancellorship, some Protestant pastors welcomed Nazi rule as a change from the dark times of the Weimar Republic. (Be careful what you wish for). The Pope thought he had made a deal with the Nazis for the independence of the Catholic Church. But as time went on, more people realized their mistake, and resisted. Hundreds of ministers, priests and nuns were imprisoned or executed. Church property was confiscated.
But it was not only elements of the Church that resisted Hitler. Communists resisted Hitler, and the Nazis hunted them down in the streets. The Social Democrats resisted Hitler, even in the first Reichstag assembly after the heavily fixed landslide of the March 1933 elections. There, despite a dozen Social Democrat representatives having been ‘detained� by the police, Otto Wells rose and spoke truth to power: “We German Social Democrats pledge ourselves solemnly in this historic hour to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and socialism. No enabling act can give you the power to destroy ideas which are eternal and indestructible.� Bonhoeffer and the embattled Lutherans were by no means alone. Even those lousy socialist supporters of welfare had faith in a higher authority (of ideas) and guts to boot. And even atheists helped Jewish individuals escape.
In the study guide (as well as in the body of the book itself) the details of how Hitler came to power are left to history. (To be fair, it’s darn complicated.) But sinister parallels to the present state of the U.S. are implied. Several of the questions in the study guide ask the reader to think about how the U.S. government is persecuting Christians (including negative references to supposed book bans, disallowance of prayer in public schools and, oddly, allowance of conscientious objectors), presumably (because the guide is bound to the main text with glue), LIKE THE NAZIS DID. Although the study guide does not name the U.S., but simply refers to the reader’s “country� or “government,� no one is fooled.
What the book’s sponsors want to forget (or perhaps, more disturbingly, never even thought about) is that the most important difference between the Nazi government and modern western societies, including America, is a respect for PLURALISM. It is precisely this pluralism that the U.S. government often struggles to preserve through the shouting of various interest groups who claim they are being attacked. As Bettina Stangneth, German philosopher and historian, in her recently translated book, “Eichmann Before Jerusalem,� explains, “Evil doesn’t arrive from ignorance, it arrives from thinking men and women becoming unwilling to accept thinking as worthwhile. The real danger of the Nazi ideology was in its war against reason, a mistrust of thinking itself.�
In this age of talking past each other in increasingly loud volumes, and disputation as to what is fact, it is the humble opinion of this reader that it is not the subject of Pastor Bonhoeffer, good man though he was, that needed yet another book. It is the subject of what happened in Germany up to the death of Field Marshall Hindenburg in August 1934. What ideas, what fears, led 37% of the voters to support the Nazi platform in July 1932? And how could Hindenburg, after January 1933, the only man standing between Hitler and the destruction of Germany, simply look on while this group of paranoid myth spinners, fact twisters, power mongers, criminals and bullies took over and tore down the institutions of a seemingly rational country? Did the good people not see what was in store for Germany and rush to knock down the Field Marshall’s door with pleading and entreaties? This, to me, is the central issue, and vital to our day.
If you think I am exaggerating, I direct you to Exhibit A, a recent YouGov survey (conducted August/Sept 2015) which showed that 29% of Americans could imagine supporting a military coup “to take control from a civilian government that is beginning to violate the constitution.� The breakdown by political party was 43% Republican; 20% Democrat; 29% Other.
Judging from the endorsements, this book, intended to incite passions against the U.S. government, was pitched at evangelical Christians, the majority of whom seem to lean Republican these days. But what would the good pastor, Pastor Bonhoeffer, think of this book?
Pastor Bonhoeffer, in ‘The Cost of Discipleship� explains that the light that Jesus encourages us to “let shine before men,� is the light of the suffering of Christ on the cross, and “it is in this light that the good works of the disciples are meant to be seen,� which good works are “poverty, peregrination, meekness, peaceableness, and finally persecution and rejection.� The Pastor points out that “[e]very attempt to impose the gospel by force, to run after people and proselytize them, to use our own resources to arrange the salvation of other people, is both futile and dangerous. It is futile, because the swine do not recognize the pearls that are cast before them, and dangerous, because it profanes the world of forgiveness. � Worse still, we shall only meet with the blind rage of hardened and darkened hearts, and that will be useless and harmful.� He notes that “we must hide our righteousness from ourselves,� and explains that “discipleship means estrangement from the world.� � “The disciples of Jesus must not fondly imagine that they can simply run away from the world � False prophets� he warns, “will rise up among them, and amid the ensuing confusion they will feel more isolated than ever. � Maybe he [the false prophet] hopes his intellectual ability or his success as a prophet will bring him power and influence, money and fame. His ambitions are set on the world, not on Jesus Christ.� [Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship]
So, I have to ask, when a proselytizing Christian resurrects a Christian pastor who fought against the forces of an evil fascist regime for the purpose of spurring political action against a democratic and pluralistic government, which results in many of the target audience saying they would favor a military coup against such a government, what kind of prophet is he?
December 29, 2019
Just finished my thick skim of Metaxas' book. I enjoyed the flow of his narrative, though the attempt to cram the historical record--kicking and screaming if necessary--into the ideological categories of contemporary politics was troubling and a bit distracting at times. That said, I enjoyed it and may spend more time with it once I'm not quite as busy as I am now.
This paragraph from the review in Books and Culture seems particularly apt:
"What will be the impact of this heroic tale on American evangelicals? Haynes insightfully warns us that people tend to unreflectively associate themselves with Bonhoeffer and draw parallels between their perceived enemies and Nazi Germany. In other words, Bonhoeffer's story can be misused to fuel self-righteousness. Evangelicals in the United States are not a persecuted minority threatened with annihilation. On the other hand, evangelicals are similar to Bonhoeffer in that they find themselves citizens of a militarily powerful country consisting predominantly of conservative Protestants. Like the church in Bonhoeffer's Germany, evangelicals need to seek renewal through truth-telling, accountability, education of the young, and Scripture."
This paragraph from the review in Books and Culture seems particularly apt:
"What will be the impact of this heroic tale on American evangelicals? Haynes insightfully warns us that people tend to unreflectively associate themselves with Bonhoeffer and draw parallels between their perceived enemies and Nazi Germany. In other words, Bonhoeffer's story can be misused to fuel self-righteousness. Evangelicals in the United States are not a persecuted minority threatened with annihilation. On the other hand, evangelicals are similar to Bonhoeffer in that they find themselves citizens of a militarily powerful country consisting predominantly of conservative Protestants. Like the church in Bonhoeffer's Germany, evangelicals need to seek renewal through truth-telling, accountability, education of the young, and Scripture."
March 18, 2013
I saw early on what Metaxas was trying to do here but stuck with it. Then I got to page 124, where he asks whether or not Bonhoeffer had been "born again", and I couldn't take it anymore. This book is a poorly-concealed attempt to cast Bonhoeffer in the role of a 21st-century American Fundamentalist preacher without actually stating it in a complete sentence. That may be fine and dandy to people who walk that way. But for an open-minded and critical history nerd who just wants to read a decent bio of Bonhoeffer that tells his story and explains his theology and politics in layman's terms - or, really, for anyone who wants to read a biography untainted by the author's personal beliefs and prejudices - this book is not only a major failure but also a little bit insidious. Call me over-sensitive, but I do adore my Widerstand boys and would love to see a book hit the the New York Times Bestseller list that does any one of them justice. Unfortunately, all Metaxas's book does is stroke right-wing evangelical egos. I don't need to finish it to know that it isn't going to improve.
Victoria J. Barnett has written an excellent critical review of Bonhoeffer which you can (and should) read . (As if noticing the praise from Glenn Beck and Joseph Loconte doesn't deter you first. Well, okay, Publisher's Weekly raves about it too...)
Victoria J. Barnett has written an excellent critical review of Bonhoeffer which you can (and should) read . (As if noticing the praise from Glenn Beck and Joseph Loconte doesn't deter you first. Well, okay, Publisher's Weekly raves about it too...)
March 30, 2012
He gave everything for principle during WWII. The Nazis murdered him while his former fellow Lutherans, the German nationla established church, adopted Nazi liturgy and caved. Bonhoeffer and others founded an alternative denomination that was opposed to national socialism. A great lesson for today's moral relativists in the USA.
April 17, 2012
I wish I could have taken longer to read this book. It's excellent. Like the subject's "Letters and Papers from Prison", I found myself not wanting to turn pages because I knew they would bring me to the end of his story. Bonhoeffer is one of those rare men whose close following of Christ led him to very difficult places. Yet he went, with boldness and even joy at times, knowing that following God's call was the most important thing. His story personally challenges me through his combination of method and emotion, meditation and solitude with strong standard and firmly held theology. So many seem to divide these into two different worlds. Yet he embraced both, clearly stating and boldly living the things he taught.
July 20, 2022
Great book. I will give a full review at a later date.
June 26, 2011
Metaxas has written a compelling biography of a complex hero of the German Resistance, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He was the product of two aristocratic German families. His father was a psychiatrist at the leading hospital in Berlin. His mother was a member of the von Hase family, a descendant of well known theologians. A mixture of science, logic, discipline and devotion were daily presences in the Bonhoeffer home. When Dietrich announced he had chosen to study theology at the age of thirteen, it was not a childish decision, but a very deliberate and carefully considered choice.
The Bonhoeffers lost their eldest son, Walter, in World War One. They were loyal subjects of the Kaiser and the Weimar Republic. However, the entire family recognized that the founding of the National Socialist Party would lead to drastic consequences for their country. As Hitler cemented his position of leadership, the Bonhoeffers were vocal opponents of the changes sweeping across Germany.
Bonhoeffer was a leading proponent of the Confessing Church, founded in opposition to the Reichskirche represented by the Deutsche Christians. He would be outspoken in his condemnation of the infamous "Aryan paragraph" that the Nazi party sought support for among the Deutsche Christians to remove anyone of Jewish descent from being allowed to participate in Christian worship, though baptized as Christians.
Hitler used the principles of Christianity to support his political agenda as one means of cleansing the German race. The traditional Deutsche Christians did not realize that Hitler intended to abolish the church when the time came. His openly anti-christian supporters such as Himmler, Goebbels, and Heydrich intended to replace the cross with the swastika and bring back the Tuetonic gods.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was deeply involved in the growing international ecumenical church movement. His brilliance as a theologian brought him to England and America where he developed ties which would later become outlets to the world for Bonhoeffer's revelation of Hitler's atrocities against the disabled, his political opponents and the Jewish populations of Germany and all of Europe.
From academic theologian, Bonhoeffer transformed to a committed pastor, ministering to those who found themselves without a voice as the Nazi juggernaut began to crush every opponent following the outbreak of war in 1939. Bonhoeffer transformed from pastor to spy, joining in the earliest conspiracies to remove Hitler from power. He would become a member of the Abwehr, the Intelligence Division of the German military to cloth himself in a cloak of deception to be in a position to bring about Hitler's downfall, even through assassination if necessary.
Throughout this meticulous study, Metaxas reveals Bonhoeffer's innermost thoughts through careful selections from his letters and his best known writings. And Metaxas offers a unique perspective of Hitler's rise to power from a theological perspective. To the greater extent this is a brilliant book, and would be completely so, were Metaxas a more incisive writer, resorting to his own analysis as opposed to his heavy reliance on the careful recitation of not only Bonhoeffer's own words, but those of the most significant people around him.
Whatever the reader's religious beliefs may be,"Bonhoeffer" is a book that deserves to be read. And Dietrich Bonhoeffer is a man whose courage, morality, and sense of justice should be remembered and practiced today.
The Bonhoeffers lost their eldest son, Walter, in World War One. They were loyal subjects of the Kaiser and the Weimar Republic. However, the entire family recognized that the founding of the National Socialist Party would lead to drastic consequences for their country. As Hitler cemented his position of leadership, the Bonhoeffers were vocal opponents of the changes sweeping across Germany.
Bonhoeffer was a leading proponent of the Confessing Church, founded in opposition to the Reichskirche represented by the Deutsche Christians. He would be outspoken in his condemnation of the infamous "Aryan paragraph" that the Nazi party sought support for among the Deutsche Christians to remove anyone of Jewish descent from being allowed to participate in Christian worship, though baptized as Christians.
Hitler used the principles of Christianity to support his political agenda as one means of cleansing the German race. The traditional Deutsche Christians did not realize that Hitler intended to abolish the church when the time came. His openly anti-christian supporters such as Himmler, Goebbels, and Heydrich intended to replace the cross with the swastika and bring back the Tuetonic gods.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was deeply involved in the growing international ecumenical church movement. His brilliance as a theologian brought him to England and America where he developed ties which would later become outlets to the world for Bonhoeffer's revelation of Hitler's atrocities against the disabled, his political opponents and the Jewish populations of Germany and all of Europe.
From academic theologian, Bonhoeffer transformed to a committed pastor, ministering to those who found themselves without a voice as the Nazi juggernaut began to crush every opponent following the outbreak of war in 1939. Bonhoeffer transformed from pastor to spy, joining in the earliest conspiracies to remove Hitler from power. He would become a member of the Abwehr, the Intelligence Division of the German military to cloth himself in a cloak of deception to be in a position to bring about Hitler's downfall, even through assassination if necessary.
Throughout this meticulous study, Metaxas reveals Bonhoeffer's innermost thoughts through careful selections from his letters and his best known writings. And Metaxas offers a unique perspective of Hitler's rise to power from a theological perspective. To the greater extent this is a brilliant book, and would be completely so, were Metaxas a more incisive writer, resorting to his own analysis as opposed to his heavy reliance on the careful recitation of not only Bonhoeffer's own words, but those of the most significant people around him.
Whatever the reader's religious beliefs may be,"Bonhoeffer" is a book that deserves to be read. And Dietrich Bonhoeffer is a man whose courage, morality, and sense of justice should be remembered and practiced today.
December 31, 2016
The problem of evil. The origins of morality. German culture. Twentieth-century Protestant theology.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a more conservative thinker than I'd assumed. I've never read Cost of Discipleship or Ethics, so this long biography filled in my knowledge of his life and career while at the same time introduced me to his actual writings and sermons. (One challenge of listening to the audiobook was tolerating the lengthy sermon-excerpts that Metaxas offers. But I also had the print edition and referred to it to re-read certain expository passages.) This theological conservatism led me to continually try to reconcile his pious views with my idea of a radical figure involved in the plot to kill Hitler, to undermine the existing "Satanic" regime of the country he loved. E.g., DB's belief that his strength to make moral decisions came from God, not from himself. ~ But what of the loving and tolerant Bonhoeffer family and his "liberal" upbringing - why cannot that have contributed to his moral strength? Or, that DB claimed he was not afraid of death because of his belief in God and an afterlife. ~ But what of the courageous members of the Resistance who were atheist or non-Christian and didn't have the hope for an afterlife with God?
Alan Wolfe apparently mused on some these same questions in his 2011 New Republic review of this book.
Side observation: Karl Barth does not come off looking so good. Read more about Barth's stance on Nazi Germany and what if any effect on his legacy.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a more conservative thinker than I'd assumed. I've never read Cost of Discipleship or Ethics, so this long biography filled in my knowledge of his life and career while at the same time introduced me to his actual writings and sermons. (One challenge of listening to the audiobook was tolerating the lengthy sermon-excerpts that Metaxas offers. But I also had the print edition and referred to it to re-read certain expository passages.) This theological conservatism led me to continually try to reconcile his pious views with my idea of a radical figure involved in the plot to kill Hitler, to undermine the existing "Satanic" regime of the country he loved. E.g., DB's belief that his strength to make moral decisions came from God, not from himself. ~ But what of the loving and tolerant Bonhoeffer family and his "liberal" upbringing - why cannot that have contributed to his moral strength? Or, that DB claimed he was not afraid of death because of his belief in God and an afterlife. ~ But what of the courageous members of the Resistance who were atheist or non-Christian and didn't have the hope for an afterlife with God?
Alan Wolfe apparently mused on some these same questions in his 2011 New Republic review of this book.
Is it possible to face death with courage without knowing that a better life awaits? Can one be loyal to one’s collaborators in the resistance without being loyal to some higher power? Can faith help overcome torture? Lurking behind all such questions is the major one: if the problem of evil is not one that humans can solve, have we no choice but to rely on God for help? Does Bonhoeffer’s greatness prove his rightness?(Wolfe concludes: "Bonhoeffer may have been convinced that God was telling him what to do, but I am not convinced.") I think I'd also conclude that for me his greatness does not necessarily prove his rightness, and his faith does not explain his courage. But of course my cultural views and agnosticism/atheism contribute to my opinion. So to give Bonhoeffer "the benefit of the doubt" it seemed necessary to grapple with these paradoxes and re-educate myself. -- And what is already one of the most fascinating and unlikely stories of World War II becomes even more fascinating when understood in the context of Bonhoeffer's conservative Protestant worldview. It's too easy to make Bonhoeffer a martyr and assume I understand what motivated him. I'm not the only one, I'm sure: Metaxas explicitly calls out the postwar "death of God" theologians who misappropriated Bonhoeffer, and rues how DB's "religionless Christianity" has been misunderstood.
Side observation: Karl Barth does not come off looking so good. Read more about Barth's stance on Nazi Germany and what if any effect on his legacy.
March 14, 2023
This lives up to all the praise it's received.
Full review to come at some point
Full review to come at some point
March 4, 2023
“ð—ªð—µð—²ð—� ð—®ð—¹ð—¹ ð—¶ð˜€ ð˜€ð—®ð—¶ð—± ð—®ð—»ð—± ð—±ð—¼ð—»ð—², ð˜ð—µð—² ð—¹ð—¶ð—³ð—² ð—¼ð—³ ð—³ð—®ð—¶ð˜ð—µ ð—¶ð˜€ ð—»ð—¼ð˜ð—µð—¶ð—»ð—´ ð—¶ð—³ ð—»ð—¼ð˜ ð—®ð—» ð˜‚ð—»ð—²ð—»ð—±ð—¶ð—»ð—´ ð˜€ð˜ð—¿ð˜‚ð—´ð—´ð—¹ð—² ð—¼ð—³ ð˜ð—µð—² ð˜€ð—½ð—¶ð—¿ð—¶ð˜ ð˜„ð—¶ð˜ð—µ ð—²ð˜ƒð—²ð—¿ð˜† ð—®ð˜ƒð—®ð—¶ð—¹ð—®ð—¯ð—¹ð—² ð˜„ð—²ð—®ð—½ð—¼ð—» ð—®ð—´ð—®ð—¶ð—»ð˜€ð˜ ð˜ð—µð—² ð—³ð—¹ð—²ð˜€ð—µ.â€â£
â�
°Â´Ç·É!â�
What a hero of the faith. I feel like I barely skimmed his life. Always have heard so very much about him and his conspiracy against Hitler and his zeal for the gosepl and Christianity. I have read some of his works as well, but this biography was my first in depth look at his life. A immensely big book, I started the physcial copy and finished on audio. Last year’s goal finished this year. â�
â�
How can Christians today even understand what it was like during his time? What an example of faith, tested and tried. Would love to keep learning about him.â�
â�
"ð—¢ð—»ð—¹ð˜† ð—µð—² ð˜„ð—µð—¼ ð—¯ð—²ð—¹ð—¶ð—²ð˜ƒð—²ð˜€ ð—¶ð˜€ ð—¼ð—¯ð—²ð—±ð—¶ð—²ð—»ð˜ ð—®ð—»ð—± ð—¼ð—»ð—¹ð˜† ð—µð—² ð˜„ð—µð—¼ ð—¶ð˜€ ð—¼ð—¯ð—²ð—±ð—¶ð—²ð—»ð˜ ð—¯ð—²ð—¹ð—¶ð—²ð˜ƒð—²ð˜€."â�
â�
°Â´Ç·É!â�
What a hero of the faith. I feel like I barely skimmed his life. Always have heard so very much about him and his conspiracy against Hitler and his zeal for the gosepl and Christianity. I have read some of his works as well, but this biography was my first in depth look at his life. A immensely big book, I started the physcial copy and finished on audio. Last year’s goal finished this year. â�
â�
How can Christians today even understand what it was like during his time? What an example of faith, tested and tried. Would love to keep learning about him.â�
â�
"ð—¢ð—»ð—¹ð˜† ð—µð—² ð˜„ð—µð—¼ ð—¯ð—²ð—¹ð—¶ð—²ð˜ƒð—²ð˜€ ð—¶ð˜€ ð—¼ð—¯ð—²ð—±ð—¶ð—²ð—»ð˜ ð—®ð—»ð—± ð—¼ð—»ð—¹ð˜† ð—µð—² ð˜„ð—µð—¼ ð—¶ð˜€ ð—¼ð—¯ð—²ð—±ð—¶ð—²ð—»ð˜ ð—¯ð—²ð—¹ð—¶ð—²ð˜ƒð—²ð˜€."â�
June 25, 2021
Full review at
Short reviews: I keep going back and forth between 3 and 4 stars. I think this was a good biography. And it left me wanting more, which I think is a good sign. Metaxas did a good job pulling Bonhoeffer out of the boxes that he is often put into. He was more than just a theologian or writer, or part of an assassination plot. But there were some editing errors and lots of strange descriptions. I called them Dan Ratherisms in my full review. They were descriptive, but distracting. On the whole though, this was a needed popular biography but there are now more biographies and I would skip this one in favor of others.
____
After a couple years, all of the digital ink spilled about the accuracy and more reading of other biographies here are my modified thoughts. There are issues with Metaxas trying to make Bonhoeffer into a modern US Evangelical. On the whole, if you have the money I would suggest that you buy and read Ferdinand Schlingensiepen's biography "Dietrich Bonhoeffer 1906-1945" My review or Charles Marsh's biography Strange Glory
The problem with that Schlingensiepen’s biography is that it is expensive. I got it on a one day sale and it is way better than Metaxas biography. Schligensiepen is from Germany, knew and worked with many of the characters of Bonhoeffer's life and is a renowned Bonhoeffer scholar. Metaxas is none of those things. Metaxas is a decent writer and he has written a much needed popular biography of Bonhoeffer.
Charles Marsh is more available and also much better than Metaxes.
Short reviews: I keep going back and forth between 3 and 4 stars. I think this was a good biography. And it left me wanting more, which I think is a good sign. Metaxas did a good job pulling Bonhoeffer out of the boxes that he is often put into. He was more than just a theologian or writer, or part of an assassination plot. But there were some editing errors and lots of strange descriptions. I called them Dan Ratherisms in my full review. They were descriptive, but distracting. On the whole though, this was a needed popular biography but there are now more biographies and I would skip this one in favor of others.
____
After a couple years, all of the digital ink spilled about the accuracy and more reading of other biographies here are my modified thoughts. There are issues with Metaxas trying to make Bonhoeffer into a modern US Evangelical. On the whole, if you have the money I would suggest that you buy and read Ferdinand Schlingensiepen's biography "Dietrich Bonhoeffer 1906-1945" My review or Charles Marsh's biography Strange Glory
The problem with that Schlingensiepen’s biography is that it is expensive. I got it on a one day sale and it is way better than Metaxas biography. Schligensiepen is from Germany, knew and worked with many of the characters of Bonhoeffer's life and is a renowned Bonhoeffer scholar. Metaxas is none of those things. Metaxas is a decent writer and he has written a much needed popular biography of Bonhoeffer.
Charles Marsh is more available and also much better than Metaxes.
September 25, 2014
Sept 2014
As excellent on the 3rd reading as it was on the first 2. Highly highly recommended.
What struck me at this reading was how Bonhoeffer's family was privy to so much that was happening in the German government so far ahead of when the average German seemed to find out. I am reading "The Storm of War" now, and it is fascinating to see the military issues set in contrast to this much more personal view of history in Germany at the time.
Feb 2011 Review -- I am reading the library copy of this book, and it is due tomorrow. I have not finished it, but am about 1/2 of the way through. I have read many books on Bonhoeffer in the past, and have read a substantial number of books written by Bonhoeffer himself. He has always fascinated me. A Christian, a pastor, a German, living in the time when Hitler came to power. What did those Christians in Germany see, or not see, about what was coming? If they saw, what did they do? Or not do?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, as the author has aptly written in the title of his book, was indeed a "prophet". Only two days after Hitler was democratically elected chancellor of Germany (Jan. 30, 1933), Dietrich Bonhoeffer gave a radio address on February 1, 1933 called "The Younger Generation's Altered Concept of Leadership" where he examined and dissected the fundamental problems with leadership by a Fuhrer. Bonhoeffer saw, and he acted to inform Christians as he preached and taught. He also was led to act to remove Hitler from power. His courage in speaking as a prophet and in acting led to his arrest and eventual execution in the waning days of WWII. Hitler himself ordered Bonhoeffer's execution, a mere three weeks before Hitler himself committed suicide.
While not finished with the book, I have already ordered it from amazon. This is one book that will be worthwhile to have and read and study. A fascinating book to read in conjunction with Viktor Frankl's books.
I recommend this book with 10 stars.... or more! I wonder how many more stars I'll add when I get to finish it?! I'll update the review when I do.
Some fascinating things about the Bonhoeffer family:
Christel Bonhoeffer, Dietrich's older sister, married Hans von Dohnanyi. Their son Christoph von Dohnanyi was born in 1929 and is a well known German conductor. He was for over 20 years the music director of the Cleveland Orchestra.
Hans von Dohnanyi was a schoolmate and friend of Klaus Bonhoeffer, Dietrich's older brother.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was executed by hanging using piano wire on April 9, 1945.
Bonhoeffer's brother-in-law Hans von Dohnanyi (husband of Christel) was executed by gunshot on April 8th (or 9th), 1945.
Klaus Bonhoeffer was executed by gunshot on April 25, 1945.
Bonhoeffer's brother-in-law Rudiger Schleicheter (husband of Ursula Bonhoeffer) was executed by gunshot April 25, 1945.
Of the 8 children that Karl and Paula Bonhoeffer had, three of their 4 sons died in war. Walter, the 2nd oldest, was killed in WWI. Karl and Dietrich were executed by the Nazis in WWII. Only their oldest son, Karl Friedrich, outlived them. Of their 4 sons-in-laws, two were executed by the Nazis in WWII. Only the daughters Sabine and Susanne had husbands who died natural deaths.
As excellent on the 3rd reading as it was on the first 2. Highly highly recommended.
What struck me at this reading was how Bonhoeffer's family was privy to so much that was happening in the German government so far ahead of when the average German seemed to find out. I am reading "The Storm of War" now, and it is fascinating to see the military issues set in contrast to this much more personal view of history in Germany at the time.
Feb 2011 Review -- I am reading the library copy of this book, and it is due tomorrow. I have not finished it, but am about 1/2 of the way through. I have read many books on Bonhoeffer in the past, and have read a substantial number of books written by Bonhoeffer himself. He has always fascinated me. A Christian, a pastor, a German, living in the time when Hitler came to power. What did those Christians in Germany see, or not see, about what was coming? If they saw, what did they do? Or not do?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, as the author has aptly written in the title of his book, was indeed a "prophet". Only two days after Hitler was democratically elected chancellor of Germany (Jan. 30, 1933), Dietrich Bonhoeffer gave a radio address on February 1, 1933 called "The Younger Generation's Altered Concept of Leadership" where he examined and dissected the fundamental problems with leadership by a Fuhrer. Bonhoeffer saw, and he acted to inform Christians as he preached and taught. He also was led to act to remove Hitler from power. His courage in speaking as a prophet and in acting led to his arrest and eventual execution in the waning days of WWII. Hitler himself ordered Bonhoeffer's execution, a mere three weeks before Hitler himself committed suicide.
While not finished with the book, I have already ordered it from amazon. This is one book that will be worthwhile to have and read and study. A fascinating book to read in conjunction with Viktor Frankl's books.
I recommend this book with 10 stars.... or more! I wonder how many more stars I'll add when I get to finish it?! I'll update the review when I do.
Some fascinating things about the Bonhoeffer family:
Christel Bonhoeffer, Dietrich's older sister, married Hans von Dohnanyi. Their son Christoph von Dohnanyi was born in 1929 and is a well known German conductor. He was for over 20 years the music director of the Cleveland Orchestra.
Hans von Dohnanyi was a schoolmate and friend of Klaus Bonhoeffer, Dietrich's older brother.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was executed by hanging using piano wire on April 9, 1945.
Bonhoeffer's brother-in-law Hans von Dohnanyi (husband of Christel) was executed by gunshot on April 8th (or 9th), 1945.
Klaus Bonhoeffer was executed by gunshot on April 25, 1945.
Bonhoeffer's brother-in-law Rudiger Schleicheter (husband of Ursula Bonhoeffer) was executed by gunshot April 25, 1945.
Of the 8 children that Karl and Paula Bonhoeffer had, three of their 4 sons died in war. Walter, the 2nd oldest, was killed in WWI. Karl and Dietrich were executed by the Nazis in WWII. Only their oldest son, Karl Friedrich, outlived them. Of their 4 sons-in-laws, two were executed by the Nazis in WWII. Only the daughters Sabine and Susanne had husbands who died natural deaths.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 4,933 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.