\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{Church and Theology in Germany During the Time of National Socialism,
1933-1945}



\author[1]{Charles Maynard}%
\affil[1]{University of Washington}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{June 14, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
This paper examines how the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches and
their theologians responded to the specter of national socialism. The
Roman Catholic church was silent regarding the Jewish genocide, while
the German Christian church sought to remove all vestiges of Judaism.
The Confessing church struggled against its Protestant counterpart, but
failed to address the genocide. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, one of a few who
resisted the regime, recognized the error of the dichotomy between faith
and political life. It was this grievous error made by good churches and
good people that contributed to the development of the evil regime that
continues to haunt the church.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


\textbf{Introduction}

Consider for a moment the great cultural contributions of the German
nation, the gifts of music, art, science, and on another level, the
reforms of the nineteenth century nation-state, the first modern nation
to provide national health insurance to its citizens. On the other hand,
there is the darker side of society: the Prussian military machine, the
strong sense of nationalism, the will to expand its borders and impose
on other nations its culture, government, and ways of doing things. The
events of the early twentieth century were calamitous: World War I in
1914; defeat in 1918, a nation severely punished for its aggression; the
1920s with the Weimar Republic; the 1930s with worldwide depression; and
the rise of Adolph Hitler, who in his depraved mind would restore
Germany to its rightful place in the world. This synopsis provides
perspective for understanding the place of the church and theology in
German society. Germany in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
was a fertile place for the development of theological and philosophical
thought. In philosophy, the names are too numerous to mention. Kant and
Hegel were two philosophers who were foundational for both theologians
and philosophers in the years to come.11Gary Dorrien, \emph{Kantian
Reason and Hegelian Spirit}(Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), ix.
Concerning theology, the names of many famous Germans or those of other
nationalities who worked in Germany come to mind. In Old Testament
theology, there was Gerhard von Rad; in New Testament, Rudolf Bultmann
and Martin Dibelius; in systematic theology, Paul Tillich and Karl
Barth; and Adolf von Harnack and Ernst Troeltsch in historical theology.
There were many universities that provided opportunities for these
thinkers to teach, study, and write. The church in both its Protestant
and Roman Catholic forms was strongly ingrained in German society, and
with the rise of Hitler, this did not change. Thus, in the early 1930s,
Christian churches and universities were strong institutions in national
socialism. While some theologians, most notably Barth and Tillich, saw
the evil in this form of government (the most blatant being its
systematic oppression of the Jewish people) and were asked to leave the
country (Barth to his native Switzerland after refusing to swear
allegiance to the fuehrer and Tillich to the United States), others were
unable or unwilling to leave the fatherland. Still other church leaders
and theologians did not see what was to happen; they saw national
socialism as a way of restoring their beloved country to its appropriate
place in the world.22Robert P. Ericksen, \emph{Complicity in the
Holocaust Churches and Universities in Nazi Germany} (Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 2012), 1. This paper examines the Protestant
and Roman Catholic churches during the time of national socialism
(1933-1945) as well as select theologians who were part of those
churches during that time. Within Protestantism, there were essentially
two major churches, the Deutsche Christen or German Christian church and
the Confessing church, which was formed in reaction to the German
Christian church.33Doris L. Bergen, \emph{Twisted Cross: The German
Christian Movement in the Third Reich} (Chapel Hill, NC: The University
of North Carolina Press, 1996), 1. Within Catholicism, six theologians,
including Karl Eschweiler, Joseph Lortz, Karl Adam, Romano Guardini,
Edith Stein, and Engelbert Krebs, will be considered. These individuals
had quite different responses to the Nazi regime as did three Protestant
theologians, namely Paul Althaus, Helmut Thielicke, and Dietrich
Bonhoeffer, who will also be considered. This paper assumes that the
actions of Hitler were evil and that to give them support was wrong.
However, one must also recognize the complexity of the crisis which
faced Germany in the Weimar period.44Robert P. Ericksen,
\emph{Theologians Under Hitler} (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press,
1985), 27. Seventy-five years after the fact it seems so easy to say
what was the right response to this dreaded situation; in the 1930s
things were not so clear; Germany was on the brink of collapse and there
was a man and a party to revive the nation both economically and
spiritually. Tragically, there were leaders of the churches and
universities, including theologians, who gave their allegiance to Hitler
and national socialism. In a letter to Reinhold Niebuhr, Bonhoeffer
described the dilemma, which confronted all Germans, including
theologians and church leaders,\emph{I have made a mistake in coming to
America. I must live through this difficult period of our national
history with the Christian people of Germany. I will have no right to
participate in the reconstruction of Christian life in Germany after the
war if I do not share the trials of this time with my people\ldots{}.
Christians in Germany will face the terrible alternative of either
willing the defeat of their nation in order that Christian civilization
may survive, or willing the victory of their nation and thereby
destroying our civilization. I know which of these alternatives I must
choose; but I cannot make that choice in security.}55Elizabeth Sifton,
and Fritz Stern, \emph{No Ordinary Men} (New York, NY: The New York
Review of Books, 2012), 69. In the stories that follow, it is remarkable
that the churches and individuals who had very much in common could have
such different responses to the evil which was to overtake the German
nation. There were many aspects to this evil, but the most important one
was the Nazi program to annihilate the Jewish people. An important
objective of this paper is to understand how the Protestant and Catholic
churches, as well as the individual theologians, responded to national
socialism. More specifically, what was the response: complicity,
accommodation, or outright opposition, including actions to bring down
the government? A distinctive aspect of the paper is that it considers
both Catholic and Protestant churches and theologians.66John S. Conway,
``Coming to Terms with the Past: Interpreting the German Church
Struggles 1933-1990,'' \emph{German History} 16, no. 3 (1998),
377.\textbf{The Roman Catholic Church}Since its origins in the first
century and its designation as the official religion of the Roman Empire
in the fourth century, the Roman Catholic church evolved into a
hierarchical organization intent on preserving itself so that God's
grace would be immediately available to its members.77Robert A. Krieg,
\emph{Catholic Theologians in Nazi} \emph{Germany} (New York, NY:
Continuum, 2004), viii. For the church, redemption was a matter of
saving the soul and not a moral commitment to the socio-political
betterment of humankind.88Donald J. Dietrich, ``Catholic Theologians in
Hitler's Reich: Adaptation and Critique,'' \emph{Journal of Church and
State} 29, no. 1 (1987), 20. Unfortunately, the Catholic church had a
long history of anti-Semitism which enabled it to easily abandon its
association with the Jews.99Dietrich, ``Catholic Theologians in Hitler's
Reich: Adaptation and Critique,'' 45. One source of this anti-Semitism
was the pernicious belief that the Jews had killed Christ, who
ironically was a Jew. Since this was the case, Jews could not be part of
the German nation, as they would contaminate the blood purity of the
volk or people. With the advent of national socialism in 1933, the
church's initial response was one of adaptation to the new regime.
Initially, the church was prepared to support Hitler, but this changed
as Nazi policies regarding sterilization were anathema to the church and
its leadership.1010Dietrich, ``Catholic Theologians in Hitler's Reich:
Adaptation and Critique,'' 29. In Catholicism, procreation was the only
purpose of human sexuality. Efforts to control fertility including
contraception or sterilization were sinful and contradicted church
teaching. In addition, suppression of the Catholic press by the regime
also contributed to the change. Among Catholics, there was minimal
support for the regime in that only one in seven Catholics voted for the
Nazis.1111Krieg, \emph{Catholic Theologians in NaziGermany,} 3\emph{.}
On the other hand, there was not much in the way of opposition from rank
and file Catholics. There was a strong resistance to modernity among
Catholics who feared communism and were suspicious of democracy. In the
end, the first obligation was to protect the church from outside
threats, including other non-Roman churches and meddling governments;
the Jews were for the most part an afterthought.1212Krieg,
\emph{Catholic Theologians in NaziGermany,} 29. Ultimately, the
structure and ideology of the church abetted the consolidation of Nazi
rule.1313Dietrich, ``Catholic Theologians in Hitler's Reich: Adaptation
and Critique,'' 44. In the Catholic church, clergy and laity were not
equal, and the pope was viewed as infallible. Pius XI, who was pope at
the beginning of the regime, died in 1939 and was succeeded by Pius XII.
Much has been written about what the Catholic church, and Pius XII
especially, knew about the Holocaust and what it and he did in response
to it. Some have called Pius XII Hitler's pope, whereas others have
named him a righteous Gentile.1414Kevin Madigan, ``Judging Pius XII,''
\emph{The Christian Century} 118, no. 9 (2001), 6. Recently, papal
documents regarding Pius XII and the Jews were released. These documents
indicated that the Vatican did not want to jeopardize its relationship
with Nazi Germany by denouncing the ongoing murder of Italian
Jews.1515Kevin Madigan, ``Neither Demonic nor Heroic,''
\emph{Commonweal} 147, no. 10 (2020), 19. Moreover, the pope did not
intervene with the president of Slovakia to stop the exporting of Jews
to Auschwitz.1616Kevin Madigan, ``What the Vatican Knew About the
Holocaust, and When,''\emph{Commentary} 112, no. 3 (2001), 43. On the
other hand, there is evidence that Pius XII loathed Hitler and that he
did allow Catholics to rescue Jews.1717Madigan, ``What the Vatican Knew
About the Holocaust, and When,'' 50. Kevin Madigan argues that the
situation involving Pius XII, the church, and the Nazis was not black
and white, but very complicated and deserving of nuance. In the end,
Pius XII was like most Catholic priests-``no better or worse than those
moral mediocrities who, like most European Christians, failed to
transcend the cultural assumptions and religious prejudices of their
day.''1818Madigan, ``Neither Demonic nor Heroic,'' 21. As did Pius XII,
most Catholic theologians of the day remained silent regarding the Nazi
regime; this was particularly true for Catholic theologians in
Germany.1919Krieg, \emph{Catholic Theologians in Nazi} \emph{Germany,}
29. These individuals were for the most part suspicious of modernity and
subscribed to scholastic or neo-scholastic theologies that had their
beginnings with Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. There were,
however, several who did speak out either in support of or in opposition
to national socialism. Regardless of their stance toward Hitler, these
priests, who were not all liberal or progressive, believed that theology
must be engaged in the issues and ideas of the day. Compared to material
on the Protestant church and its theologians, there are fewer English
language books and papers on the Catholic church and its theologians
during the time of national socialism as many of these documents are in
German.\emph{Karl Eschweiler (1886-1936)}Eschweiler, who had a PhD in
philosophy and later earned degrees in theology, advocated for
cooperation between the church and the Nazis.2020Krieg, \emph{Catholic
Theologians in NaziGermany,} 31. He moved to Bonn where he encountered a
diversity of thought, although most of the Catholic faculty there
opposed Hitler. In 1928, he went to Braunsberg in Prussia, where the
faculty was somewhat more favorable to the Nazi regime. For Eschweiler,
the church was the ongoing incarnation of Jesus. He published
extensively in political theology or the relationship between church and
state. Suspicious of both democracy and communism, he desired a
contemporary restoration of the Holy Roman Empire.2121Krieg,
\emph{Catholic Theologians in Nazi} \emph{Germany,} 42. In May 1933 he
joined the Nazi party and argued that the church and state had
compatible world views, and that the swastika should not be offensive.
Initially, he supported Nazi sterilization laws, and as a result he lost
his ability to teach seminarians. Consequently, he withdrew his support
of the laws and resumed teaching. In 1936, he developed kidney failure,
died in September of that year, and was buried in his Nazi
uniform.\emph{Joseph Lortz (1887-1975)}Lortz was a proponent of
ecumenism and studied at Bonn with Eschweiler and Guardini. Later he was
a colleague of Eschweiler at Braunsberg. Educated as a Reformation
historian, he was a sharp critic of modernity. In his mind, the church
was a bastion of truth among corrupt cultures. He opposed liberalism and
relativism and was disposed toward national socialism. For Lortz, the
optimal form of government was not clear in that neither communism nor
democracy worked for the church. Lortz joined the Nazi party in May 1933
and felt that Naziism respected the church's autonomy in that there was
a kinship between the two entities.2222Krieg,\emph{Catholic Theologians
in Nazi} \emph{Germany,} 64. In 1935, Lortz moved to the University of
Munster as a reward for his pro-Nazi stance, although he encountered
resistance from his bishop who was an outspoken critic of the Nazi
regime.2323Krieg, \emph{Catholic Theologians in Nazi} \emph{Germany,}
77. Lortz had second thoughts about his support of the regime, and in
1937 he tried to cancel his party membership but was told he could not.
After the war, Lortz underwent denazification and after a long process
was able to resume teaching in the university. He was heavily involved
in an ecumenical movement which was founded by Max Metzger, a pacifist
who tried to stop the war instigated by the Nazis and was executed by
the Nazis in 1944.2424Krieg, \emph{Catholic Theologians in NaziGermany,}
79. Although he was a champion of ecumenism, Lortz opposed modernity and
like Eschweiler favored an authoritarian regime that would formally
recognize the church.2525Krieg, \emph{Catholic Theologians in Nazi}
\emph{Germany,} 82.\emph{Karl Adam (1876-1966)}Adam was at Tubingen
where he was an historical and systematic theologian who critiqued the
church's modernism. The Tubingen faculty also included the Protestant
scholar Gerhard Kittel who was a supporter of Hitler. Catholic
theologians at Tubingen were viewed suspiciously by Protestants and most
of them remained distant from national socialism.2626Krieg,
\emph{Catholic Theologians in NaziGermany,} 92. Adam was an exception to
this, as he believed it was important to find common ground between
Catholicism and national socialism. For Adam, Catholicism was a
community of believers and although he never joined the Nazi party, he
was distrustful of modernity and democracy. Adam's disagreement with
Rudolf Bultmann's demythologizing of the New Testament is further
evidence of his distrust of modernity.2727Krieg, \emph{Catholic
Theologians in NaziGermany,} 104. The authoritarian nature of the Nazi
government was appealing to him, as was the idea of the German volk.
Adam spoke out against the neopagan German Faith movement yet had a
positive view of invasion of Poland.2828Krieg, \emph{Catholic
Theologians in NaziGermany,} 100. Adam did not undergo denazification
after the war, and like Lortz was very involved in ecumenism. Unlike
Lortz, he did not recognize his own complicity in the Nazi regime.
Ultimately, Adam weakened the church's resistance to national socialism
by trying to find common ground. Like most humans, he was a combination
of both good and bad, but what was unusual is that he combined both in
such abundance.2929John Connelly. ``Reformer and
Racialist,''\emph{Commonweal} 135 no. 1 (2008), 13.\emph{Romano Guardini
(1885-1968)}Guardini was a professor at the University of Berlin when
Hitler came to power.3030Krieg, \emph{Catholic Theologians in
NaziGermany,} 107. He was a progressive thinker, who was against
scholasticism and used the language of existentialism. Guardini was
stalked by Nazi informers, and in 1939, the government dismissed him
from his academic chair at Berlin for his views about Jesus and his
anti-Naziism. He did not like national socialism but told his priests to
live with it. The Catholic faculty at the university was wary of the
Nazis but tried to steer clear of topics that would alarm the Pius XII
and the holy office. Guardini survived the war and was named a cardinal
by Pius XII in 1945. He had no illusions about national socialism and
went to Tubingen in 1946 and later to Munich. He had concerns about
liberal democracy in that it distanced Germans from the objective human
values that were part of the Christian tradition, but he worked hard to
build Germany into a pluralistic society with a vibrant
democracy.3131Krieg, \emph{Catholic Theologians in NaziGermany,}
130.\emph{Edith Stein (1891-1942)}Born into a Jewish family, Stein
converted to Catholicism and was a philosopher who studied under Edmund
Husserl. She also served as a nurse in World War I and was a strong
supporter of the German nation. Because she was a woman, she was not
allowed to pursue the second dissertation that would have allowed to her
to become a professor in a German university.3232John T. McGreevy,
\emph{Catholicism: A Global History from the French Revolution to Pope
Francis} (New York, New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2022), 189. The
fact that she was born a Jew limited her employment opportunities in
that she was often competing with Jewish men for non-faculty teaching
positions. Stein was highly critical of the Nazi regime and feared that
her church's silence would lead to attacks on
Catholics.3333McGreevy,\emph{Catholicism: A Global History from the
French Revolution to Pope Francis}, 187. With Hitler's rise to power she
lost her university teaching job, and ultimately joined the Carmelite
order of sisters in Holland. Her request to join the Carmelite order in
Switzerland was denied by the Swiss government. The Dutch bishops
opposed the Nazi regime who in turn retaliated by arresting Stein and
sending her to Auschwitz where she was murdered in
1942.3434McGreevy,\emph{Catholicism: A Global History from the French
Revolution to Pope Francis}, 214. The fact that Stein converted to
Catholicism made no difference to the Nazi regime; she was murdered
because of her Jewish heritage. She died a martyr because of her
courageous opposition to the regime and for this reason she was
beatified as a saint of the church by Pope John Paul II.3535McGreevy,
\emph{Catholicism: A Global History from the French Revolution to Pope
Francis}, 386.\emph{Engelbert Krebs (1881-1950)}Krebs was a colleague of
Martin Heidegger at Freiburg, where the latter joined the party. He was
ordained in 1906 and directed Guardini's thesis. He had respect for
post-enlightenment thought and believed humans would be judged according
to how generous they were to those in need. He addressed racism in the
church and made no distinction between Jew and Greek. He insisted that
Christians acknowledge their Jewish origins and expressed a view of
Judaism remarkable for the time.3636Krieg, \emph{Catholic Theologians in
NaziGermany,} 139. He also supported Metzger's ecumenical efforts and
opposed the Nazis but showed respect for the Reich's officials. Despite
his efforts to remain on good terms with the government, he could not
stop the execution of two Freiburg priests, Heinrich Feuerstein and
Josef Schmidlin.3737Krieg, \emph{Catholic Theologians in Nazi}
\emph{Germany,} 143. He did oppose the removal of Jewish professors,
although Pius XII did not name him a cardinal as he did Guardini. In
1934, he stated that, ``We are being governed by robbers, murderers, and
criminals.''3838Krieg, \emph{Catholic Theologians in Nazi}
\emph{Germany,} 146. This statement led to the revocation of his
teaching license in 1936. He lost his faculty position, which was
restored in 1945, although he could not teach due to poor health. His
theology brought Catholicism into dialogue with modernity. While
Eschweiler, Lortz, and Adam saw the west as being in decline, Krebs had
a much different view of the place of the church in the world. It is
ironic, that among these individuals, it was the woman, the non-priest,
Edith Stein, who was elevated to sainthood. As seen in the lives of
these six theologians, there were vastly different responses to the
specter of national socialism. It was Stein, a woman, who gave her life
in opposition to the regime. None of the men, including the revered
Guardini, gave his life as did Stein. Yet, the church recognized her
courage and supreme sacrifice when it made her a saint. In the end, it
is clear that the Catholic church could have done more to oppose Hitler.
It paid a high moral price for its silence, especially as it applied to
the Jews. The goal of Pius XII was to protect the church and not damage
it by advocating for others. Karl Rahner stated that more could have
been done to save the skins of others, including non-Christians, and not
just the skins of those in the Catholic church.3939Krieg, \emph{Catholic
Theologians in NaziGermany,} 173. The church above all else viewed
itself as a perfect society and also as the body of Christ and less as a
moral voice.4040Krieg, \emph{Catholic Theologians in NaziGermany,} 158.
In conclusion, ``the Catholic leaders' readiness to support the
nationalist and anti-Semitic goals of the Nazi regime demonstrated how
unprepared they were, institutionally or theologically, to mobilize
their following in any campaign beyond the defense of the immediate
interests of their own community.''4141Conway, ``Coming to Terms with
the Past: Interpreting the German Church Struggles 1933-1990,
386.\textbf{The Protestant Churches: German Christian and Confessing}

The so called church struggle or Kirchenkampf in Nazi Germany was not so
much between church and state as it was between two factions in
Protestantism, the German Christian and Confessing Christian
churches.4242John Conway, \emph{The Nazi Persecution of the Churches}
(Vancouver, CA: Regent College Publishing, 1997), xxvi. The German
Christian church wanted to be the state church, but Hitler did not want
a state church. Nevertheless, he did use the German Christian church to
his advantage.4343Conway, \emph{The Nazi Persecution of the Churches} ,
38. The German Christian church was anti-Jewish, anti-doctrinal, and was
a ``manly'' church in which women were seen primarily as
mothers.4444Bergen, \emph{Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movement
in the Third Reich} , 119. The German Christian church sought to remove
all elements of Judaism and the Jewish people, including the removal of
the Old Testament from the canon. It also promoted the idea of the volk
or people as God's revelation. The Jewish people were not part of this
people and this included Jewish women and men who converted to
Christianity. Even pastors who were Jewish were excluded. The German
Christian church was based on a mix of race, ethnicity, and culture, and
in the end, it failed, because for the Nazi true believers, it was not
Nazi enough and for those who ascribed to the Gospel of universal love,
German Christians were not seen as brothers and sisters in
Christ.4545Bergen, \emph{Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movement in
the Third Reich} , 230.

The Evangelical church in Germany or the Confessing church was
established in opposition to the German Christian church. Karl Barth
contended that the heresy of the German Christian church was its
designation of race as God's revelation. While Barth and other members
of the Confessing church, including Martin Niemoller, recognized this
heresy, they did not acknowledge that it was rooted in hatred of Judaism
and the Jewish people.4646Bergen, \emph{Twisted Cross: The German
Christian Movement in the Third Reich} , 21. The Confessing church also
faced the dilemma of being true to the Gospel yet also not incurring the
wrath of the German state. As shall be seen, this was not sufficient for
Bonhoeffer, who felt that the Confessing church was not doing enough to
oppose the Nazi regime. Within both the Roman Catholic and Confessing
churches, there were a few individuals who recognized the Nazi menace
and did everything they could to resist it.4747Conway,\emph{The Nazi
Persecution of the Churches} , 46. As the various Protestant theologians
are considered, the characteristics of the German Christian and
Confessing churches will become more apparent.

\emph{Paul Althaus (1888-1966)}Paul Althaus was a Lutheran theologian of
great stature in twentieth century Germany, and is best remembered as a
scholar of Martin Luther.4848Paul Althaus, \emph{The Theology of Martin
Luther}(Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1966), 1. In 1925, he went to
Erlangen as a professor of systematic theology; he enjoyed the respect
of his colleagues and was the perfect gentleman, teacher, and friend,
who was inherently conservative and
orthodox.4949Ericksen,\emph{Theologians Under Hitler}, 79. He was
comfortable with the middle ground in his approach to theology and
politics as well. Generally, he did not pay much attention to politics,
but felt that Germany had been cruelly degraded by the terms of
surrender. He supported the rebirth of the German people but was not
strongly anti-Jewish. He welcomed the leadership of Hitler and national
socialism as the means for bringing about the rebirth of the people; for
him, national socialism as such was above
politics.5050Ericksen,\emph{Theologians Under Hitler}, 86. The Weimar
was permissive and had led to a breakdown of moral values which national
socialism would correct. The Barmen declaration, with Barth as its
primary spokesman and representative of the Confessing church, was
written in opposition to the Deutsche Christen or the German Christian
church and stated that God speaks to humankind only through Jesus
Christ. Althaus could not accept this and supposedly signed the
Ansbacher Ratschlag written by Werner Elert in opposition to
Barmen.5151Ericksen, \emph{Theologians Under Hitler}, 87. There is some
controversy as to Althaus' role in his opposition to Barmen, but it is
clear that he rejected the politics of Barmen. On the other hand,
Althaus was also in opposition to those theologians who supported the
German Christian church and saw Hitler as a prophet. The specter of
communism was also a motivation for his support of national socialism.
Politically, Althaus remained moderate within his milieu. He avoided the
extremes of fanatical support of and any form of opposition to the Third
Reich.5252Ericksen,\emph{Theologians Under Hitler}, 98. Theologically,
Althaus disagreed with Barth and the signers of Barmen over the question
of revelation. The view of Barth and others was that God revealed
himself only through the life of Jesus as described in the Bible.
Althaus argued for a natural revelation as well, the message of God
through his creation. Another area of theological contention was that of
church and state and Luther's concept of the two kingdoms, that of God
and man. Althaus hoped that the rebirth of Germany could be facilitated
by the church in concert with the new state. A third area of theological
concern had to do with the Jewish question. His belief that the unity of
the race and its protection was an essential condition for the formation
and preservation of the people. Although, he did not fully accept racial
theory, he did support the national socialist policy of discrimination
against the Jewish people. As in all areas of his life, he was not a
fanatical supporter of this policy, but at the same time, he opposed the
doctrine of the Marburg faculty (Bultmann et al.) that stated that the
Aryan racial policy was inconsistent with Christian teaching. By 1943,
Althaus was aware of the genocide and recognized the guilt of the
nation; his hopes for a German rebirth were
gone.5353Ericksen,\emph{Theologians Under Hitler}, 109. Although Althaus
lost a son on the battlefield, his life during the war was spent in
relative comfort particularly when compared to Bonhoeffer and Thielicke.
Immediately after the war, Althaus was dismissed from his position at
Erlangen because of his early support of Nazism, but he garnered the
support of many of his former students, including Thielicke. The
denazification board found in favor of Althaus, and he resumed his
teaching activities at Erlangen. He was held in high esteem by his
colleagues and students and actively taught and published until his
death in 1966. It is clear that before the war's end, he became
disillusioned with national socialism and in his sermons after the war,
there is a strong statement of corporate guilt, but no personal
confession of guilt.5454Ericksen, \emph{Theologians Under Hitler}, 115.
Paul Althaus was a good man who was intellectually honest and above all
a mediator. His failing if it can be called that was that he was
inherently conservative and had a great fear of change and instability.
What he had hoped would bring about a new Germany produced instead more
instability and chaos than he could have imagined. Theologically, his
differences with contemporaries such as Barth and Tillich were not
dramatic; the major difference was political, having to do with his hope
for the rebirth of the German state, a new moral order, which was
ultimately exclusionary and illusory and led by the some of the most
despicable men of the twentieth century or of any time in human history.
Unfortunately, it took too long for Althaus to recognize
this.5555Ericksen,\emph{Theologians Under Hitler}, 119.\emph{Helmut
Thielicke (1908-1986)}Born in Barmen in western Germany, Helmut
Thielicke was a member of the reformed parish of Barmen-Gemarke where
the Barmen declaration was first announced in 1934.5656Helmut Thielicke,
\emph{Notes from a Wayfarer} (New York, NY: Paragon House, 1995), 37.
Thielicke embarked on theological studies, but his work was interrupted
by a severe illness resulting from an enlarged thyroid gland that
impeded his breathing. Despite the advice of doctors that this could be
treated with medication, he used his considerable persuasive talents to
convince doctors to perform surgery. Thielicke says that it was not only
his delight in dramatic and quick solutions that drove him to his
decision, but above all the desire through pain and the dulling of
consciousness to distract him from the horrible emptiness and dreadful
lack of direction he was feeling.5757Thielicke, \emph{Notes from a
Wayfarer,} 60. The results of the surgery were disastrous, he developed
a pulmonary embolism and also postoperative tetany which was to plague
him for years. These attacks of paralysis, due to lack of calcium, would
come on suddenly and drove him to many doctors and ultimate despair and
near death. Some physicians thought his condition was psychogenic, and
he suffered the humility of being injected with placebos that worsened
his condition. Fortunately, new research provided the medication which
corrected his condition, though he was dependent on this medication for
the rest of his life.5858Thielicke,\emph{Notes from a Wayfarer,} 66. As
a result of his restoration to health, Thielicke approached his studies
with a new vigor. After completing his first dissertation, he moved to
Bonn to complete his habilitation or second thesis. It was there that he
encountered Barth in 1932. Thielicke was critical of Barth because his
theology was in the ''ivory tower.'' He felt that Barth's lack of
interest in anthropology created a vacuum which made the Nazi takeover
even easier, since the takeover was concentrated on the church's worldly
surroundings and not its dogma (e.g., creeds and
confessions).5959Thielicke, \emph{Notes from a Wayfarer,} 68. As a
student, Thielicke's instinct was that Barth's theology did not take the
secular framework of human existence seriously and would therefore
inevitably generate into dogmatic speculation. In an evening seminar at
Barth's home, the young Thielicke told Barth this in as many words; of
course, neither could convince the other of the correctness of his
position.6060Thielicke, \emph{Notes from a Wayfarer,} 69. Thielicke left
Bonn for Erlangen to study with Althaus for the second doctorate.
Thielicke did not go to Erlangen to become a disciple of Althaus (there
were no Althausians as there were Barthians), rather he went, because
Althaus would allow him to develop his own thought, which ultimately was
quite opposed to Althaus'. Once again, we encounter the kindly Althaus,
the consensus builder, of whom Barth once said, ''I would like to shake
him again and again until at last he expresses an unambiguous
opinion.''6161Thielicke, \emph{Notes from a Wayfarer,}74.

Thielicke and Althaus got along well except they had a major
disagreement over the Barmen declaration. As mentioned earlier, Althaus
allegedly signed the Ansbach Nazi recommendation of 1934, which
Thielicke called an evil theological sanctioning of ideology. This
document was actually the brainchild of Elert, the Lutheran dean of
Erlangen. Thielicke's dissertation was an attempt to construct a
reformed theology of history in opposition to the belief that God's
eternal order could be ascertained empirically through observation of
the world. That Althaus accepted Thielicke's dissertation was consistent
with his character and indicative that his motives were not influenced
by expediency. Elert, on the other hand, was a different kettle of fish;
he did everything he could to prevent Thielicke from receiving his
degree, and failing to do that, he was ultimately successful in
thwarting Thielicke's efforts to obtain an academic
position.6262Thielicke,\emph{Notes from a Wayfarer,} 75.

Thielicke's first contact with the Nazi regime came in a camp or academy
required of university teachers and opened his eyes to the terrors it
held. Thielicke was confronted with the dilemma of building a career
without selling out to the government. He refused to join the Nazi party
and would never in any form express support for the regime; his greatest
disdain was for the unscrupulous opportunists who did not join the Nazi
party, but nevertheless compromised their principles to help the party.
His search for an academic position, constantly thwarted by Elert,
resulted in Althaus sending him to Emmanuel Hirsch, one of the chief
ideologists of the Deutsche Christen church and an ardent Nazi. He had a
bizarre meeting with Hirsch, who asked him, ``What do you feel when you
press your ear against the stomach of a pregnant cow?'' Of course, the
desired response was that he would hear the creator's voice in the
embryo's heartbeat; indication of affirmation of a natural theology
supporting the belief that God was at work in the German state.
Thielicke's insolent reply was that he thought he was interviewing to
become a university lecturer in theology and not a
veterinarian.6363Thielicke, \emph{Notes from a Wayfarer,} 93. This snub
led to later actions on the part of Hirsch who denounced Thielicke and
put his life in danger in 1943. Unexpectedly in 1936, Thielicke received
an appointment to a position in theology at Heidelberg where he married
Marie-Luise Hermann in 1937. Thielicke spent several productive years at
Heidelberg, but events there would ultimately lead to his dismissal.
First, there was the reappearance of the man who was the previous
occupant of the position that Thielicke held. There was an attempt to
find Thielicke a non-tenured position at Heidelberg; when Thielicke
confronted the dean who had been two timing him, the dean replied,
''What stress the likes of us live under! Please take into consideration
that a theology dean cannot have any principles
nowadays.''6464Thielicke, \emph{Notes from a Wayfarer,} 113. Thielicke's
appointment was denied at the higher levels of government, but one
professor in the dental school, himself a member of the party, helped
him with salary support for three months.6565Thielicke,\emph{Notes from
a Wayfarer,} 114. There is some evidence, however, that Thielicke may
have played up to university leadership in order to keep his position at
Heidelberg, thus negating the idea that he was always in opposition to
the Nazi regime.6666Fabian F. Grassl,\emph{In the Face of Death:
Thielicke-Theologian, Preacher, Boundary Rider} (Eugene, OR: Pickwick
Publications, 2019), loc 1575. So here is Thielicke in 1940 without a
job, a young wife, traveling to Munich to speak with the government
office in charge of higher education. Essentially, he was told that as
long as theology faculties existed, and that wouldn't be for long, they
would be occupied by suckling pigs and no wild boars. Thielicke was in
desperate straits without a job and the Gestapo paying more attention to
him. With the help of an influential friend, he enlisted in the German
army; this provided some money and reduced the interest of the
Gestapo.6767Thielicke,\emph{Notes from a Wayfarer,} 121. Finding the
army boring after nine months, Thielicke used his medical condition as a
reason to be discharged. Shortly after discharge, he received a letter
from Bishop Wurm, the Swabian primate, who had read some of Thielicke's
papers and was aware of his opposition to the Nazi regime. Thielicke
traveled to Stuttgart in southwestern Germany to meet with the bishop to
discuss how the Swabian state church could help him. Thielicke was sent
to the Swabian uplands where he became a pastor. It was here that he
began his great career of preaching; a task which early on caused him
great difficulty and which later in his life brought him considerable
fame as one of the world's best known preachers. Thielicke learned that
faith comes from preaching and that theology is the result of later
reflection on this faith. Therefore, theology does not precede
preaching, as he originally supposed, it follows it. Thielicke, as was
Bonhoeffer, was part of the Freiburg group, which worked in part to
bring an end to Hitler, but also planned for the reorganization of
German life after the war. After the failed assassination attempt on
Hitler in July 1944, one of the documents that Thielicke wrote for the
group fell into the Gestapo's hands as did a list of men who were
present at the main meeting of November 17, 1942. One of the names on
that list was illegible. In early 1945, a fellow member of the group,
Walter Bauer, was tortured for two days with the result that he revealed
the name of the one man who was yet to be captured. It was Helmut
Thielicke! After his home in Stuttgart had been destroyed, Thielicke
moved to a remote village in southern Germany. This coupled with the
fact that communications were at a near collapse prevented Thielicke's
capture. Thielicke had many encounters with the Gestapo, but the
Freiburg document was never mentioned.6868Thielicke, \emph{Notes from a
Wayfarer,} 178. In the last year of the war, Thielicke became a refugee
as did other Germans. His house and country had been destroyed, but he
continued to preach in the bombed out churches of Stuttgart. The end of
the war came, but much was to happen before normalcy returned. There
were atrocities committed against the Germans by occupying Moroccan
troops, and there was the denazification program, which was conducted by
the French in southern Germany and resulted in some injustices. As was
seen, Thielicke was a strong supporter of Althaus, as well as others,
who in his mind had been unfairly treated. After the war, Thielicke was
very outspoken about some of the injustices of denazification and
attacks on the German people. Thielicke's theology defies
categorization, as he is claimed by both liberals and conservatives. His
theological concerns were always with the place where God and man
intersect; his theology and preaching are characterized by its ''down to
earth character.'' As mentioned, he had fundamental disagreements with
Barth over theological concepts such as the law and gospel and the
doctrine of the two kingdoms, and he also had a great disdain for the
Nazi government and for opportunists who were not necessarily members of
the Nazi party. Remarkably, there is nothing in his autobiography about
the Jewish question, although this was regrettably the case with most
German theologians. Thielicke had a distinguished career as theologian,
preacher, and university administrator. He went to Tubingen in 1945, and
in 1954 established a new theological school at Hamburg. Thielicke was a
world traveler and prolific writer who authored several volumes of
theology, including an eight volume treatise on theological ethics, and
a three part systematic theology. He is probably best known for his many
volumes of sermons which became especially popular in the United
States.6969Helmut Thielicke, \emph{Life Can Begin Again: Sermons on the
Sermon on the Mount} (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003), 24.
Again, it is significant that his autobiography contains little to
nothing about the persecution of the Jews that he witnessed or
ultimately the significance of the Holocaust.7070Lawrence S. Cunningham,
``Notes from a Wayfarer,'' \emph{Commonweal} 123, no. 1 (1996),
27.\emph{Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945)}

Bonhoeffer and his twin sister Sabine were born in Breslau to a
well-to-do German family.7171Eberhard Bethge, \emph{Dietrich Bonhoeffer,
Revised Edition} (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005), 3. His father,
Karl Bonhoeffer, was a neurologist-psychiatrist and his great
grandfather on his mother's side was the famous church historian,
Karl-August von Has, and his grandfather, Karl-Alfred von Has, was
preacher to the court of Kaiser Wilhelm II. In 1912, the Bonhoeffers
moved to Berlin, where Karl was professor of psychiatry at the
University of Berlin. In 1923, Bonhoeffer started his theological
studies at Tubingen and a year later moved to the University of Berlin.
Before moving to Berlin, he visited Rome and his short time there led
him to see how nationalistic, sectarian, and narrow minded his own
church was. In 1927, he completed his doctoral dissertation, and in
1928, Bonhoeffer moved to Barcelona to assume his first pastorate. For
the first time he was away from Germany for an extended period of time
and saw the beginnings of the worldwide economic depression as well as
the burgeoning poverty. In 1929, he returned to Germany to complete his
second dissertation which led to an academic appointment at the
University of Berlin.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/image3/image3}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

In 1930, with the support of a Sloane fellowship he journeyed to the
United States to study at Union Theological Seminary in New York City.
While in New York he studied with Reinhold Niebuhr and developed a close
friendship with Paul Lehman, who introduced Bonhoeffer to the concept of
social justice. He saw racism firsthand as he gained familiarity with
Black churches in Harlem through his friendship with Frank Fisher, an
African American student at Union.11Bethge, \emph{Dietrich Bonhoeffer,
Revised Edition} , 150. He also developed an understanding of pacifism
and the need for nonviolent solutions to the day's problems through his
friendship with the Frenchman, Jean Lasserre.22Bethge, \emph{Dietrich
Bonhoeffer, Revised Edition} , 153.

When Bonhoeffer returned to Berlin in 1931, he was particularly
disturbed by increasing discrimination against the Jewish people of
Germany, some of whom were pastors in German churches. In this
Bonhoeffer was a lone voice for the most
part.33Ericksen,\emph{Complicity in the Holocaust Churches and
Universities in Nazi Germany,} 100. The attempts to make a strong
statement against discrimination were thwarted in the Bethel confession,
a precursor to the Barmen declaration.44Bethge, \emph{Dietrich
Bonhoeffer, Revised Edition}, 371. Bonhoeffer found himself in sharp
opposition to the Nazi government, but also was in opposition to his
fellow pastors and theologians, whom he felt were not strong enough in
their opposition to the discriminatory practices of the Nazi regime. In
order to get his bearings, he assumed pastoral duties in England in
1934. Bonhoeffer supported the Barmen declaration, but again was
frustrated by its inadequacies with respect to the Jewish question. He
witnessed the further assault of the government on the Confessing
church. He became more convinced of the importance of nonviolent means
as a way of resisting this evil and made plans to visit Gandhi in India.
However, the increasing pressure of the Nazi regime forced him to return
to Germany to set up a seminary in exile at Finkenwalde where he met
Eberhard Bethge.55John W. de Gruchy, \emph{Daring, Trusting Spirit}
(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005), loc 268. The conflict for
Bonhoeffer heightened as time progressed; he knew his government was
evil, and yet it was as if he were a lone voice in his support of the
Jews. His frustration with his fellow pastors grew and he drifted into a
self-exile. He went to America in 1939 to teach at Union but after a
short period of time returned to Germany, despite the pleas of Niebuhr
and Lehmann. Upon his return to Germany he became actively involved in
the resistance movement, including the plan to assassinate Hitler,
through his brother-in-law, Hans von Dohnanyi, and brother, Klaus, who
worked in the Abwehr, which was not only the counterintelligence agency
of the German military but was also part of the resistance movement
against the Nazi government as well as the center for plans to
assassinate Hitler.66Sifton and Stern, \emph{No Ordinary Men}, 73.
Bonhoeffer became an agent of the Abwehr, which prevented him from being
drafted by the military and also gave him immunity from arrest by the
Gestapo. From 1940 to his arrest in April 1943, Bonhoeffer traveled
throughout Europe, trying to find ways to bring down the Nazi
government. The failed assassination attempt and increasing suspicion by
the Gestapo led to the arrest of Bonhoeffer and many others, including
his brother and brother-in-law. While in several prisons, including
Tegel in Berlin, he wrote numerous letters which were ultimately
published.77Dietrich Bonhoeffer, \emph{Letters and Papers from Prison}
(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010), 56. With the help of his
jailers and Bethge, these letters as well as his unfinished book on
ethics were smuggled out of Tegel and years later were read by millions
thanks to the heroic efforts of his best friend Bethge.88de Gruchy,
\emph{Daring, Trusting Spirit}, loc 1274. In late 1944 and early 1945,
Bonhoeffer was sent to a series of concentration camps, the last one
being Flossenburg, where he was murdered April 9, 1945, weeks before the
Allies liberated Europe. His death was a final act of solidarity not
only with the cross of Jesus Christ but also with the countless victims
of Nazi evil, as he himself became one of the last to die for having
dared to resist that evil. The Bonhoeffer family, who lost sons Dietrich
and Klaus as well as sons-in-law Hans and Rudiger Schleicher, suffered
greatly as a result of the twelve years of Nazi rule. Bonhoeffer's
Lutheran theology underwent radical changes as his contempt for the
government and his fellow pastors grew, although there is an underlying
consistency in his thought which was informed by Luther's theology of
the cross.99H. Gaylon Barker, \emph{The Cross of Reality}(Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress Press, 2015), 12. Throughout his life he was concerned
about what it meant to be a disciple or follower of Jesus. For
Bonhoeffer, accepting the call of Jesus leads to a change in the
behavior of those who hear it. The call to discipleship creates a new
situation1010Dietrich Bonhoeffer, \emph{Discipleship}(Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress Press, 2001), 62. and leads to death, if not physical, then at
least death of the old self or the old ways.1111Bonhoeffer,
\emph{Discipleship}, 87. As a result of his imprisonment, Bonhoeffer
began to see the world in a new way, stating, ``It remains an experience
of incomparable value that we have for once learned to see the great
events of history from below, from the perspective of the outcasts, the
suspects, the maltreated, the powerless, the oppressed and reviled, in
short from the perspective of the suffering.''1212Bonhoeffer,
\emph{Letters and Papers from Prison}, 52. Unlike Althaus and Thielicke,
Bonhoeffer had traveled extensively and spoke English. For a young man
who died before his fortieth birthday, he had experienced a great deal.
His travels to America and his dogged opposition to racial cleansing
shaped his view that the church is the church only when it exists for
others, to be of service to others and not the self-esteem of the
clergy. This radical view of Jesus as the one for others and the church
as the servant of the world caught many of his fellow theologians off
guard; some felt that this was not the real Bonhoeffer, the traditional
Lutheran. Of course, Bonhoeffer never lived to write a theology to fully
explain himself. This has led to controversy as to who Bonhoeffer really
was and what he professed; it has resulted in much speculation and
debate and has served to heighten interest in this remarkable man. One's
view of Bonhoeffer is shaped by which of his books you read, which
period of his life you consider.

Another perplexing aspect of Bonhoeffer's life was how he changed from a
pacifist to someone who advocated the violent overthrow of his
government. Bonhoeffer had been warned by Niebuhr that the nonviolent
method of Gandhi would not work in the evil regime of Nazi Germany. This
change was one that caused Bonhoeffer much doubt and insecurity but
given his disdain for his government and his frustration with the
Confessing church, it was probably the only course of action available
to him. There is much that is not known about Bonhoeffer's reasons for
joining the conspiracy; the best source for understanding this is
his\emph{Ethics} , which he wrote while in prison and which was
published posthumously. For Bonhoeffer, the decision to join the
conspiracy was like a leap in the dark.1313Robin Lovin, ``Reinhold
Niebuhr and Dietrich Bonhoeffer on Responsibility,'' in \emph{Engaging
Bonhoeffer: The Impact and Influence of Bonhoeffer's Life and Thought} ,
ed. Matthew D. Kirkpatrick (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2016), 78.
The only certainty was that the conspirators were breaking the law by
contemplating a premeditated killing and breaking their oaths of office.
This grave action was in part explained by Bonhoeffer's understanding of
Jesus Christ, ``who has taken on and bears the selves of all human
beings.''1414Dietrich Bonhoeffer, \emph{Ethics (} Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress Press, 2005), 231. In essence, Bonhoeffer broke the law in
order to sanctify it.1515Bonhoeffer, \emph{Ethics} , 297. In the end,
all he could do was rely on the grace of the Lord, who acts on behalf of
others and becomes guilty in their place.1616Lovin, ``Reinhold Niebuhr
and Dietrich Bonhoeffer on Responsibility,'' 78.

Amazingly, 1996 was the year that Dietrich Bonhoeffer ceased to be a
traitor in the eyes of the German law.1717John W. de Gruchy,
''Bonhoeffer's Legacy: A New Generation,'' \emph{Christian Century}114,
no. 11 (1997), 343. Whereas some have viewed him as a traitor to his
country, others believe he did not do enough when it came to the
Jews.1818Kenneth C. Barnes, ``Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Hitler's
Persecution of the Jews,'' in \emph{Betrayal German Churches and the
Holocaust,} ed. Robert P. Ericksen and Susanna Heschel (Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress Press, 1999), 110. It is noteworthy that Bonhoeffer's twin
sister, Sabine, was married to a Jewish man, Gerhard Leibholz, who moved
to England before the start of the war. Despite these different
assessments, one must never forget that Bonhoeffer had to leave the
church in order to resist the Nazi evil and the complicit church. He
paid the ultimate price for this resistance. Over the years, the
interest in Bonhoeffer has been considerable. Never has a single
theologian been claimed by so many from all over the world in places as
varied as South Africa and South America. The International Bonhoeffer
Society was established in 1973, and the Bonhoeffer works project was
launched by Bethge to reconstruct and reedit Bonhoeffer's works
resulting in a sixteen volume set in both German and English. Most
recently this intense interest along with the different views of
Bonhoeffer have resulted in a battle over his identity.1919Stephen R.
Haynes, \emph{The Battle for Bonhoeffer} (Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2018), 1.

\textbf{Conclusion}

There was a staggering loss of life due to the never ending wars of the
twentieth century, which must stand as one of the low points in human
history. The years 1933-1945, the time of the Third Reich, may well be
the nadir of human existence. This paper has examined the responses of
Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians and their churches to the evil
Nazi regime; these men and one woman were noted scholars and seemingly
committed Christians for whom following Jesus was of utmost importance.
The Roman Catholic theologians demonstrated a range of responses to
national socialism; at one end of the spectrum, Eschweiler was a party
member and was buried in his Nazi uniform, whereas on the other, Krebs
opposed the regime and lost his position for statements vilifying Nazi
leadership. Moreover, he recognized the Jewish roots of his faith, and
unlike some of his colleagues, he welcomed modernity. Yet, far worse was
the fate of the Jewish convert Stein, who was murdered at Auschwitz.

Like his Roman Catholic counterparts, Eschweiler, Lortz, and Adam,
Althaus was wary of change, but also wanted his nation and his race
restored to its rightful place. He was on the fence, not supporting the
German Christian church, but also in disagreement with the Confessing
church. Yet, it was clear that he did not care about the Jews, even
those who became Christians. Thielicke was disgusted with the Nazi
regime and paid a price for his resistance, although he played up to the
Nazi backed university leaders in hope that he could continue his work
as a theologian. His memoir says nothing about the suffering of the Jews
and the complicity of the church in that suffering. Even Bonhoeffer in
his early years was criticized for not doing enough for the Jews. This
of course changed as he left the church and joined family members in the
resistance movement and the failed plot to assassinate Hitler.

Unlike Althaus and Thielicke, Stein and Bonhoeffer did not live to see
the new Germany. Yet, it seems that Bonhoeffer's actions, were different
from those of the others with the exception of Krebs and obviously
Stein, particularly when it came to the Jews. It can be asked why
Bonhoeffer's response was different from those of Althaus, Thielicke,
and his Roman Catholic counterparts. This is a complex question,
although it is possible that Bonhoeffer's exposure to life outside
Germany may have given him a different view of the German nation. His
time at Union Theological Seminary and his experience in the Black
church in Harlem may have also provided perspective on the meaning of
race and prejudice. Undoubtedly, the work of his brother and
brothers-in-law in German intelligence had much to do with his decision
to join the resistance. Again, the perspective of seventy-five years of
hindsight makes it easy to judge these men, who all paid a great price
for living in Nazi Germany. Ironically, Bonhoeffer decided to leave
Germany for America, but then changed his mind. Who could have blamed
him for not returning to Germany or his elders Barth and Tillich who
remained in Switzerland and the United States, respectively? With this
fateful decision, Bonhoeffer joined the Christian martyrs of the
twentieth century, some well-known and others nameless, who followed
Jesus' command ``to take up your cross and follow me.'' (Mark 8:34).
Among the were the aforementioned Roman priests, Metzger, Feuerstein,
Schmidlin, and the Jesuit, Alfred Delp, who was executed for trying to
persuade others that the Nazi regime had no value.11Conway,\emph{The
Nazi Persecution of the Churches} , 290. And of course there was Stein
who was disregarded because of her sex and her Jewish ancestry.

These executions of these devout individuals can be viewed as
intimidation that was especially aimed at the Roman Catholic church
whose influence extended far beyond Germany.22Conway, \emph{The Nazi
Persecution of the Churches} , 66. Consequently, the Nazi regime had
more to fear from the Roman Catholic church than it did from the
feckless German Christian church or the weak Confessing church that
still could not recognize its Jewish roots and its grave sin of
supersessionism. One could ask why these churches offered such little
resistance to national socialism, or asked in another way, why did they
surrender to Caesar?33Conway, \emph{The Nazi Persecution of the
Churches} , 334. The reasons for this are complex, but it is likely that
these churches had never found themselves in this position. Both
Protestant churches and the Roman church were part ofGerman society and
had worked with governments in the past, in many ways these were state
churches. In essence, these churches were in a new situation which was
very difficult to navigate. Many of the theologians cited in this paper
distrusted modernity and may have been happier living in the scholastic
era of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, where politics mattered
little to those living in a cloistered environment. For those who had a
passing interest in politics, national socialism may have been more
desirable than the dreaded entity on the other end of the political
spectrum, communism. Although the churches' responses were more
concerned with self-preservation and the denial of Judaism, the Roman
and Confessing churches did have a few brave souls who resisted the evil
regime. Among these souls were Stein and Bonhoeffer who understood that
he had to live in this world and confront the powers. Niebuhr was
impressed that in a short time Bonhoeffer had developed his political
and social interests and was shrewd in his assessment of German
political and military tendencies.44Reinhold Niebuhr, ``The Death of a
Martyr,'' \emph{Christianity and Crisis} 5, no. 11 (1945): 6. Moreover,
in his faith, according to Niebuhr, Bonhoeffer had overcome the one
fateful error of German Protestantism, the complete dichotomy between
faith and political life.55Niebuhr, ``The Death of a Martyr,'' 7. It was
this fateful error made by good churches and good men such as Althaus
that contributed to the development of the evil regime that continues to
haunt the church.

\textbf{Works Cited}

Althaus, Paul. \emph{The Theology of Martin Luther} . Philadelphia, PA:
Fortress Press, 1966.

Barker, H. Gaylon. \emph{The Cross of Reality} . Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress Press, 2015.

Barnes, Kenneth C. ``Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Hitler's Persecution of the
Jews.'' In \emph{Betrayal German Churches and the Holocaust,} edited by
Robert P. Ericksen and Susanna Heschel, 110-128. Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress Press, 1999.

Bergen, Doris L.\emph{Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movement in
the Third Reich} . Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina
Press, 1996

Bethge, Eberhard.\emph{Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Revised Edition} .
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. \emph{Discipleship} . Minneapolis, MN: Fortress
Press, 2001.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. \emph{Ethics.} Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press,
2005.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. \emph{Letters and Papers from Prison} .
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010.

Connelly, John. ``Reformer and Racialist,'' \emph{Commonweal} 135, no. 1
(2008): 10-13.

Conway, John S. \emph{The Nazi Persecution of the Churches} . Vancouver,
CA: Regent College Publishing, 1997.

Conway, John S. ``Coming to Terms with the Past,'' \emph{German
History}16 no. 3 (1998): 377-396.

Cunningham, Lawrence S. ``Notes from a Wayfarer,'' \emph{Commonweal}123,
no. 1 (1996): 27.

de Gruchy, John W. ''Bonhoeffer's Legacy: A New
Generation,''\emph{Christian Century} 114, no. 11 (1997), 343-345.

de Gruchy, John W. \emph{Daring, Trusting Spirit} . Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress Press, 2005.

Dietrich, Donald J. ``Catholic Theologians in Hitler's Reich: Adaptation
and Critique,'' \emph{Journal of Church and State} 29, no. 1 (1987):
19-45.

Dorrien, Gary. \emph{Kantian Reason and Hegelian Spirit} . Chichester,
UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.

Ericksen, Robert P. \emph{Theologians Under Hitler} . New Haven, CN:
Yale University Press, 1985.

Ericksen, Robert P.\emph{Complicity in the Holocaust Churches and
Universities in Nazi Germany} . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 2012.

Grassl, Fabian F. \emph{In the Face of Death: Thielicke-Theologian,
Preacher, Boundary Rider} . Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2019.

Haynes, Stephen R. \emph{The Battle for Bonhoeffer} . Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2018.

Krieg, Robert A. \emph{Catholic Theologians in Nazi} \emph{Germany} .
New York, NY: Continuum, 2004.

Lovin, Robin. ``Reinhold Niebuhr and Dietrich Bonhoeffer on
Responsibility.'' In \emph{Engaging Bonhoeffer: The Impact and Influence
of Bonhoeffer's Life and Thought} , edited by Matthew D.
Kirkpatrick,65-85. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2016.

Madigan, Kevin. ``What the Vatican Knew About the Holocaust, and
When,''\emph{Commentary} 112, no. 3 (2001): 43-52.

Madigan, Kevin. ``Judging Pius XII,'' \emph{The Christian Century} 118,
no. 9 (2001): 6-7.

Madigan, Kevin. ``Neither Demonic nor Heroic,'' \emph{Commonweal} 147,
no. 10 (2020):18-21.

McGreevy, John T.\emph{Catholicism: A Global History from the French
Revolution to Pope Francis} . New York, New York: W. W. Norton and
Company, 2022.Niebuhr, Reinhold. ``The Death of a Martyr,''
\emph{Christianity and Crisis} 5, no. 11 (1945), 6-7.

Sifton, Elizabeth, and Stern, Fritz. \emph{No Ordinary Men} . New York,
NY: The New York Review of Books, 2012.

Thielicke, Helmut. \emph{Notes from a Wayfarer.} New York, NY: Paragon
House, 1995.

Thielicke, Helmut. \emph{Life Can Begin Again: Sermons on the Sermon on
the Mount} . Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003.

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

