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.