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,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, 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, 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,” 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.