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, 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, 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, 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, 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,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…. 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, 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,” German History 16, no. 3 (1998), 377.The Roman Catholic ChurchSince 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, Catholic Theologians in
Nazi 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,” 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, Catholic Theologians in NaziGermany, 3. 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, 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,” 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,” 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,”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, Catholic Theologians in
Nazi 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.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, 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, Catholic
Theologians in Nazi 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.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,Catholic Theologians in Nazi 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, Catholic
Theologians in Nazi 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, 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, Catholic
Theologians in Nazi Germany, 82.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, 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, 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, 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,”Commonweal 135 no. 1 (2008), 13.Romano Guardini (1885-1968)Guardini was a professor at the University of Berlin when Hitler came to
power.3030Krieg, 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, Catholic Theologians in NaziGermany, 130.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, 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,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,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, Catholicism: A Global
History from the French Revolution to Pope Francis, 386.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, 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, Catholic
Theologians in Nazi 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, Catholic
Theologians in Nazi 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, 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, 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.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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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,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.
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, 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,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,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, 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,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,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, 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,Theologians Under Hitler, 119.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, 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, 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,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, 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, 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, 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,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, 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, 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,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,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,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, 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, 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,” Commonweal 123, no. 1
(1996), 27.Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945)
Bonhoeffer and his twin sister Sabine were born in Breslau to a
well-to-do German family.7171Eberhard Bethge, 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.