Eberhard Bethge- Interpreter of Bonhoeffer

7/27/2019 Eberhard Bethge- Interpreter of Bonhoeffer

1/21

EBERHARD BETHGE: INTERPRETER

EXTRAORDINAIRE OF DIETRICH

BONHOEFFER

JOHN W. de GRUCHY

Eberhard Bethge was undoubtedly Dietrich Bonhoeffers special friendas Bonhoeffer himself called him.1 He was also the person Bonhoefferappointed as the executor of his literary estate, a task that Bethge under-took with immense energy and commitment over more than forty yearsafter the Second World War. But Bethge was far more than friend, and more

than editor of Bonhoeffers works; he was also the major interpreter of hislegacy, an interpreter extraordinaire. In this essay I will explore this role,already evident during Bonhoeffers life, and developed in a remarkableway after his death.

Questions abound. Why was it that of all Bonhoeffers other friends(Franz Hildebrandt, for example) and his many students, Bethge becamethe internationally recognised chief interpreter? How did Bethge under-stand this role in terms of his commitment to Bonhoeffer as friend andliterary executor? In what ways did Bethge undertake his task? How much

was he influenced by post-war debates and issues in which he himselfbecame involved? To what extent is the Bonhoeffer we know the Bonho-effer we have received through Bethges experience and reflection? Howdid Bethges interpretation change over the years? In what ways has Bethgebecome the paradigmatic interpreter of Bonhoeffer, influencing the way inwhich others have interpreted him? And, does our knowledge of Bethge asinterpreter of Bonhoeffer shed light on the task of theological interpretationas such?

Modern Theology 23:3 July 2007ISSN 0266-7177 (Print)ISSN 1468-0025 (Online)


2/21

Preparation for the Task

Well before he first met Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Eberhard Bethge, hadembarked on his life-long vocation as a pastor and theologian. The son of

a pastor in rural Sachsen-Anhalt, he made a vow to follow in his fathersfootsteps at an early age and regarded himself as primarily a pastor to theend of his life.2 But he was not a particularly conscientious student, andhad no ambitions to become a professor of theology. Nonetheless, inpursuit of his calling between 19291933 he studied at the universities ofKnigsberg, Berlin, Vienna, and Tbingen, and at Wittenberg seminaryfrom where Martin Luther had launched the Protestant Reformation. It wasthere that Bethge took his first examinations as a theological candidate forthe Magdeburg consistory of the Evangelical church of Saxony. But there,too, he took a fateful step that brought him under Bonhoeffers influence.

After a brief involvement in the Young Reformation Movement, Bethgeand several of his fellow students joined the Confessing Church followingthe Barmen Synod. Having informed the secretary of the Reich bishop oftheir actions, they were immediately expelled from the seminary, forfeitingtheir second theological examination necessary for ordination. Neverthe-less, in October 1934, Bethge started his ministry as vicar in the confessingcongregation at Lagendorf (Altmark), and the following April the Councilof Brethren of the Confessing Church in Sachsen-Anhalt sent him tocomplete his training at the recently established Confessing Seminary atFinkenwalde directed by the youthful yet aristocratic theologian Bonhoef-fer, just four years Bethges senior.

Formation at Finkenwalde

Unlike those ordinands who knew Bonhoeffer from their student days inBerlin, Bethge and his companions had never heard of him.3 In company

and comparison with them Bethge felt his country boy status acutely, andwas initially treated by some of the insiders with condescension. But byvirtue of his genial yet solid personality, the stand he had already taken inidentifying with the Confessing Church at considerable cost along with hisinnate theological acumen, he soon stood out as one of the real theolo-gians at the seminary according to his cousin and fellow ordinandGerhard Vibrans.4 Undoubtedly this in itself brought Bethge and Bonho-effer together, but their relationship was also nurtured on other levels, notleast a mutual love of music, Dietrich playing the piano to accompany

Eberhards singing.Bethge attended the majority of Bonhoeffers lectures and homiliesd i th fi i h t d t t Fi k ld b bi ll th t

350 John W. de Gruchy


3/21

cal, systematic and historical insight with pastoral commitment and politi-cal awareness. He began to engage critically with the Lutheran doctrine ofthe two kingdoms, and, with Bonhoeffer, became critical of the inability

of the Confessing Church to resist Nazism and speak out on behalf ofthe Jews. As one of the few to remain with the House of Brethren atFinkenwalde throughout its existence, Bethge was put in charge of theseminarys financial accounts, given responsibility for tutorials, homiliesand lectures, and acting on behalf of Bonhoeffer during his frequentabsences.5 He was especially regarded as the resident expert in liturgy,church music, and the interpretation of hymns.6 The later interpreter ofBonhoeffer was already within his first year at Finkenwalde becoming wellpracticed in that art, mentored by Bonhoeffer himself.

The relationship was by no means one-way. Bonhoeffer quickly sensedthat Bethge had much to offer him. Bethges steady personality stood incontrast to his own moodiness. The situation was particularly bad forBonhoeffer in early 1936. There were days, Bethge writes, when Bonho-effer was overcome by what he later called his accidie, tristia, with all itsmenacing consequences.7 Only Bethge, who became Bonhoeffers confes-sor in the House of Brethren, knew about these bouts of depression. Theywere not occasioned by feelings of deprivation or desire, but beset Bon-hoeffer precisely when he realized how strongly others believed in the

success of his path and placed great faith in his leadership. This led hisintellect, as Bethge observed, to gain an evil ascendancy over faith. Then,in private confession, he would seek and find a renewed innocence andsense of vocation.8 Some years later, when in prison, Bonhoeffer wouldacknowledge that he had sometimes made life hard for Bethge,9 referringspecifically to his tyrannical nature that, he says, Bethge knew so well!10

The correspondence and frequent telephone calls between Bethge andBonhoeffer, the one in Sakrow the other in Berlin, at the time of theOlympic Games in 1936, well illustrates the intimate relationship that had

developed between the two friends, and the extent to which Bonhoefferrelied on Bethge and sought his advice on important matters.11

The two friends now spent their holidays together, and Bethge began tovisit the Bonhoeffer family home in Berlin. In entering this circle, theprovincial boy discovered an aristocratic cultural and intellectual life,and became privy to discussions about the growing resistance. He waspresent, for example, when Bonhoeffer and Hans von Dohnanyi firstdiscussed participation in the resistance. In March 1939, he was withBonhoeffer in London, meeting Bishop George Bell of Chichester and other

key people in politics and the ecumenical movement. He also assumedBonhoeffers mantle during his frequent periods of absence, as in 1939h h b i fl t i t il i N Y k B th t l

Eberhard Bethge 351


4/21

own personal affairs.12 But over and above this, the two friends continuallydiscussed theological and church concerns. Bethge undoubtedly provideda sounding board for Bonhoeffer during the four weeks when, in the

Leibholz home in Gttingen, he wrote Life Together. These are but someexamples of Bethges growing insider knowledge of the man he would laterinterpret to the world.

The closing of the illegal seminary at Sigurdshof, the successor toFinkenwalde, by the Gestapo in March 1940 brought to an end the first fiveyears of Bethges relationship with Bonhoeffer. A pattern had now beenestablished that would continue, develop and deepen over the next fivefateful years. Each had already contributed to the relationship out of theirvariant personalities, backgrounds and skills. But in the mix something

remarkable had emerged that linked them together in a way that was toendure even beyond Bonhoeffers early death. There were only five moreyears ahead of them when they left the collective pastorates, but thesewould determine Bethges life in ways that he could not have anticipated,ensuring that he alone of all Bonhoeffers later interpreters would be thebest prepared for that task.

Sounding Board, Confidant and Clarifier

Bethge had little sense of what the conspiracy might eventually mean forBonhoeffer or himself.13 That awareness grew over the ensuing months asthey discussed events together, and as Bethge entered ever deeper into thefamily circle and that of the conspirators. Even though he often describedhimself later as a marginal figure in the whole thing,14 he was in fact aparticipant-witness. He also soon discovered that much of what he hadlearned from Bonhoeffer at Finkenwalde about confessing the faith andstanding firmly and openly for the truth had to be re-thought as theymoved more deeply into the shadowy underworld of conspiracy.

At this time Bonhoeffer was already an undercover agent of the resis-tance working for the Abwehr. But the constant threat of conscriptionconfronted Bethge with the same dilemmas Bonhoeffer had faced, prompt-ing the Confessing Church leaders to appoint him as an inspector ofmissions for the Gossner Mission Society in Berlin. Most of his time andenergy there was spent in enabling confessing congregations to continuetheir ministry, using the insights and lessons learnt from his experience atFinkenwalde, and caring for the scattered community of pastors who hadtrained at the seminary. The two major themes of his teaching and

preaching were the need to confess Christ concretely within the life of thechurch and costly discipleship as the presupposition of mission whether ath b d 15 B th th h h d l t f B h ff b t h



5/21

Throughout this period, the two friends made every effort to keep intouch, meeting when they could, but writing to each other regularly whenthey were separated. Although theological, political, and church matters

were of paramount importance, much of the Bethge-Bonhoeffer correspon-dence focussed on more mundane and intimate matters so important fortheir friendship. They discussed books they were reading or music theyenjoyed. And in a letter in January 1941 Bonhoeffer expressed his delightthat Bethge could write such intelligent and helpful letters in the midstof human difficulties, adding that it hardly surprised him given the factthat Bethge had such special talents. That which you have to say in thesesorts of human questions, he wrote, is generally simple and clear;and in complicated matters I am particularly grateful for that.16 In short,

Bethge was the sounding board and confidant for Bonhoeffers ideas.17

But he also helped to clarify Bonhoeffers thought. In the first letterBonhoeffer wrote to him from prison, he told Bethge: I wish I could talkit over with you everyday, indeed, I miss that now more than you think.I may often have originated ideas, but the clarification of them wascompletely on your side.18 The more famous letters written later toBethge from prison were part of an ongoing conversation about theologi-cal issues that had been in process for some time in which Bethge playeda role that anticipated his post-War vocation. Years later Albrecht

Schnherr wrote of Bethges remarkable ability to generate catalysingthoughts in Bonhoeffer.19

During the first few months of Bonhoeffers imprisonment, Bethge,having been conscripted in July 1943, was in the military training campin Lissa, Poland. Nonetheless he was able to visit Bonhoeffer in prison on26 November 1943, together with Bonhoeffers parents and his fianceMaria, the four people, Bonhoeffer wrote, who are nearest and dearestto me.20 Bonhoeffer was delighted that their separation had not in any wayaffected their relationship. Thats the advantage, he wrote after the visit,

of having spent almost every day and having experienced almost everyevent and discussed every thought together for eight years.21 A few weekslater, on Christmas Day 1943, he wrote: I had become so used to talkingeverything over with you that the sudden and prolonged interruptionmeant a profound change and a great deprivation.22 In a later letter,Bonhoeffer wrote:

A few pregnant remarks are enough to touch on a wide range ofquestions and clear them up. This ability to keep on the same wave-

length, to play to each other, took years to cultivate, not always withoutfriction, and we must never lose it.23

Eberhard Bethge 353


6/21

are likely to last. And since one day you will be called to write mybiography!24

In January 1944 Bethge was sent to the Italian front, an experience that

undoubtedly influenced his reception of Bonhoeffers letters and his ownresponse to them. But even though he had been privy to the developmentof Bonhoeffers post-Finkenwalde thinking, the theological reflections onChristianity in a world come of age that began with the letter of 30 April1944 came as something of a surprise. He was especially excited by whathe read because his own thought was moving along a parallel track. But hewas never quite sure of what was to come in the next letter. So digestingeach in turn, he responded to Bonhoeffers thought in an ad hoc manner.Indicative of this is that prior to receiving Bonhoeffers programmatic letter

of 30 April, he wrote:

Can you tell me anything about the fact that all my feeling andthinking is now really concentrated on personal experience, and thatexcitement over church affairs, love for its cause, has been caught upin a degree of stagnation? My conscious missionary impulse, which inearlier years was there perhaps more or less navely, has given way tothe attempt to understand things, people and circumstances and tograsp them in a human way.25

After receiving Bonhoeffers groundbreaking letter, he immediatelyresponded: I got your letter of 30 April today. It came very quickly. I amdelighted about the things which, I must say, excite me very much. Someof it is echoed in the questions I have written above, though put morenavely and primitively.26

During Bethges visit to Bonhoeffer in Tegel prison at the time of his sonsbaptism, the two friends found time to discuss some of Bonhoeffers newtheological ideas. These questions and observations, Bethge wrote to tell

him on his return to Italy, struck him afterwards in an electrifyingway . . .27 Their discussion also led Bonhoeffer to write: Ive again seenfrom our conversation recently that no one can interpret my thoughts betterthan you can. That is always a great satisfaction to me.28 But now Bethgebegan to feel that he could not keep Bonhoeffers new ideas to himself. Sohe asked for permission to share them with some of their former Finken-waldian colleagues.29 To this request Bonhoeffer soon replied that he had noobjection, though he himself would not do it because youre the onlyperson with whom I venture to think aloud, as it were, in the hope of

clarifying my thoughts.30

But he did ask Bethge to keep his specificallytheological letters just in case he might want to read them again later.With thi i i d B th d t h h i d th I th l t



7/21

You can imagine how pleased I am that youre bothering about them.How indispensable I would now find a matter-of-fact talk to clarify thiswhole problem. When that comes about, it will be one of the great days

of my life.31

Indeed, Bonhoeffer feels that it all sounds too clumsy. It cant be printedyet, and it will have to go through the purifier later on.32 Who else, butBethge, could fulfil such a role!

Bethge destroyed all of Bonhoeffers September 1944 letters for securityreasons. The last thing he received and kept was Bonhoeffers Outline fora Book, which provided the framework Bethge used when he laterinterpreted Bonhoeffers prison theology.33 Bethge, in turn, wrote his lastletter to his friend on 30 September 1944 in which he said: I find yourthoughts about the future bold and perhaps even comforting.34 So thesecond five years of the relationship began to reach its fateful climax.Marked by periods of enforced separation relieved by almost daily contactthrough correspondence and phone calls when possible, the two friendshad shared anxieties and joys even while they explored theological issueson the boundaries. While some of Bonhoeffers other colleagues andstudents had a good grasp of his theology prior to this period, no one otherthan Bethge shared his personal life at such a deep level, or was party tohis thoughts as they developed in the underworld of the resistance, andfound expression in his essays on ethics and his correspondence fromprison.

I. Custodian and Interpreter

Bethges post-war role as custodian of Bonhoeffer legacy may be consideredin two interrelated respects. Firstly, it required historical reconstruction,archival organisation, and biographical narration, but secondly, theological

interpretation soon became vital and inescapable as Bethge recognised thegrowing importance of the legacy not only in Germany but also in theAnglo-Saxon world. Bethges ability to straddle these cultural and theo-logical divides profoundly influenced the way in which he would engagein Bonhoeffer interpretation, and how Bonhoeffers legacy would bereceived. He was not only well prepared for his task, but also strategicallyplaced to take it forward with maximum effect.

On the one hand, living in Germany meant that Bethge was close to thesources and the resources that made his work possible. It also meant that

he was well placed to interpret Bonhoeffers legacy in discussions about thereconstruction of the church, the Holocaust and Jewish-Christian relations.O th th h d h f th ti ti l ti i B h ff i t

Eberhard Bethge 355


8/21

global struggle for justice and peace. Living in these two worlds did notdetract from Bethges task, but made it possible in ways that would nothave otherwise been so.

The First Wave of Interpretation

Bethges first major step as custodian and interpreter of Bonhoeffers legacycame with his publication of the Ethik in 1949. For Bethge this was apriority as he, with Bonhoeffer, regarded the work as his most important.The fact that scant attention was given to this first edition was, to say theleast, disappointing for him. But that did not deter him from proceedingwith the next volume of Bonhoeffers writings, namely Widerstand und

Ergebung, in 1951, which included a poem he had published as early as1946.35 While collecting and editing the prison letters was his primaryconcern, Bethges choice of which letters to publish and how to introducethem was, of course, a significant step in the task of interpretation. Theresult was, some might say, as earth shattering as the publication of Barthscommentary on Romans twenty years previously.

Bethge, it must be recalled, began what became his life-long task at atime when theology was in a state of considerable post-war ferment in bothGermany and the United States. Many of the new generation of theologians

had moved beyond Barth and were engaged with Rudolf Bultmannsprogramme of demythologisation, Paul Tillichs reinterpretation of Chris-tian symbols, and the escalating debate about God in a secular age.Bonhoeffers prison theology spoke directly to these concerns. As a result,he was immediately elevated to the company of twentieth-century seminaltheologians despite considerable opposition or caution on the part of thosefor whom Barth, Emil Brunner, and Bultmann remained pre-eminent.Bonhoeffer, it must be remembered, had hitherto been a largely unknown,youthful figure during theKirchenkampf, he was a controversial figure in the

post-war German churches because of his role in the political resistance,and he had left no comprehensive systematic theology. These factors ledmore established German theologians to discount the radical elements inhis prison writings, and ignore much of his earlier theology.

Yet former Bonhoeffer students and colleagues who had survived thewar, but who only knew his theology from earlier times, were keen to findout more about the Bonhoeffer they did not know. In August 1954, largelythrough the efforts of Bethge, former Finkenwaldians gathered together atBethel to discuss Bonhoeffers new theology. The papers from that

occasion were published soon after as Die Mndige Weltthe first volume inwhat became a series under the same title.36 The Bethel conference wasf ll d l t b d f t W i i E t B li 37



9/21

Bethge was the major, and in some respects, the only resource for thesediscussions. He did not, however, produce the first comprehensive inter-pretation of Bonhoeffers theology. These came from the American scholar

John Godsey and the German Hanfried Mller38

whose pioneering studieshelped set the parameters for the debate about Bonhoeffer interpretation atthe end of what Bethge described as the first wave of interest in Bonho-effer.39 They also contributed to the way in which Bethge constructed hisown approach. In response to Mller, Bethge argued that he had failed todo justice to the continuity between Bonhoeffers earlier theology and thatof the prison letters, and in response to Godsey, with whom he had greateraffinity, Bethge stressed more the discontinuities.40 Another interpreterwho helped shaped Bethges own approach was that of his Scottish friend,

Ronald Gregor Smith, who saw connections between Bonhoeffer andBultmann rather than Barth, but who also recognized the importance ofBonhoeffers earlier theology, insisting that the revolution in his thoughthad to be seen in relation to his earlier life and writings.41 Smith was sodetermined to see Bonhoeffers dissertationSanctorum Communiopublishedin English that he translated it himself. As it turned out, this was a verysignificant event in the second phase of Bonhoeffer interpretation. For itwas becoming evident, through Bethges work and that of others,42 thatBonhoeffers later theology could only be understood as a development

that, for all its radical newness, already had its foundations in SanctorumCommunioand his Habilitation Act and Being.There was a further, critical issue in interpreting Bonhoeffer that emerged

during the first wave, namely the relationship between his theology and hishistorical context. Bethge recognized the danger of linking these in such away that Bonhoeffers life and martyrdom were misused in giving uncriti-cal approval to his theology. He had no truck with attempts at creating aBonhoeffer cultus, and he had great respect for theologians, such as theRoman Catholic scholar Ernst Feil, who treated Bonhoeffers theology

strictly on its intrinsic merits.43

Nonetheless, for Bethge it was impossible tointerpret Bonhoeffers theology without constant reference to his life andcontext. So Bethge set about developing a coherent overview of Bonhoef-fers life and theology, partly to clarify the issues and partly in preparationfor the biography he knew he would have to write.

Developing a Coherent Framework

By the late nineteen-fifties, Bethges reputation as the close confidant of

Bonhoeffer, the editor of his writings, and the key interpreter of his life andtheology, was established. But as the minister of a London parish there waslittl ti f hi t th t k h h d t hi lf F t t l

Eberhard Bethge 357


10/21

19571958.44 There, he gave a lecture to the theological faculty on theediting and publishing of Bonhoeffers papers in which he set out what hadbeen accomplished thus far, and what he was now planning to do.45

Bethge was convinced that Bonhoeffers theology could not be properlyunderstood if only some of his writings were available, or if he was studiedin a piecemeal way. Hence his commitment not only to edit and publish orrepublish all of Bonhoeffers books, especially those previously neglected,but also to gather together, edit and publish everything that could berecoveredsermons, lectures, exegetical studies, seminar presentations,notes, conference papers, as well as letters both from and to Bonhoeffer. Hisoverall aim was fivefold: to make a contribution to the history of theGerman church, to the ecumenical movement, to the history of National

Socialism, to the question of opposition to tyranny, and to theology.46

Thisled eventually to the publication of Bonhoeffers collected writings (Gesa-mmelte Schriften), the forerunner of the Dietrich Bonhoeffer Werke.47 At thesame time he was gathering material for the monumental biography thatwould eventually be based on this archival recovery.

The Bethges revisited the United States in January 1961 when Eberhardgave the Alden-Tuthill Lectures at Chicago Theological Seminary. Thisprovided an opportunity to develop his interpretation of Bonhoeffers lifeand theology in a more structured and coherent way. Anyone familiar with

these lectures, entitled The Challenge of Dietrich Bonhoeffers Life andTheology, knows that they provide the framework within which Bethgeinterpreted Bonhoeffer. Although systematic in character, Bethge did not tryto force Bonhoeffers thought into a system of his own devising. Howevermuch of Bonhoeffers theology was founded on key insights that informedhis thought throughout its development, the challenge of Bonhoefferstheology lay in its provisional character and his ongoing attempt to reflecton the probing question Who is Jesus Christ, for us, today? Christ wasat the centre of Bonhoeffers theology, but the way in which he dealt with

his Christological question changed in shape and intensity as his lifeunfolded. In the process it became ever more concrete, ever more related tothe reality of God and the world, ever more costly, and led inexorablytowards its finale in the prison writings and martyrdom.

Bonhoeffers confidence in Bethge as the one who was most gifted tointerpret and clarify his thoughts,48 was fully justified by the Chicagolectures, which, from now on were frequently used and quoted by thoseintent on understanding Bonhoeffers theology in relation to his life andhistorical context. But the lectures also demonstrated Bethges consummate

skill in giving structure and form to Bonhoeffers theology; in showing itsrelationship to contemporary debates; in discerning the most appropriateh d i B h ff i d iti t hi hli ht k t



11/21

convincing. Yet developments were on the horizon that would wrench thatlegacy out of the domain of theologians, pastors and seminarians, andthrust it into a larger public domain. These would make Bethges contri-

bution even more necessary and significant for understanding Bonhoeffer.

In the Public Domain

The publication of John Robinsons Honest to God in 1963, was a majormedia event.49 Suddenly what Bultmann, Tillich, and Bonhoeffer had saidabout God in a secular world had become newsworthy, not least becausean Anglican bishop had attempted to popularise much of what they wereabout. The ensuing honest to God debate showed that Robinson had not

only touched a raw nerve within the church establishment, but also that hehad gained the attention of many on the periphery of the church. Sometheological reviewers even regarded his book as a means of evangelism ina new key. Robinson agreed with this viewwas this not precisely whatBonhoeffer was hoping to achieve through his prison theology?50 WhetherRobinson achieved what he had hoped or not, the name Bonhoeffer hadbecome a household word. Whereas previously he had been knownamongst some clergy and informed lay people through the publication ofthe Cost of Discipleship,51 now, in the popular mind, he was a radical

theologian who advocated a religionless Christianity.Bethge appreciated what Robinson had attempted to do acknowledgingthat his book had unleashed a new search for the specific nature ofBonhoeffers contribution beyond the continental borders of Europe, in theEnglish-speaking world, and beyond denominational barriers as well,among Roman Catholics.52 He also appreciated the fact that Robinsonhimself had made it clear that he had not attempted to give a balancedpicture of Bonhoeffers theology as a whole, and that he had referredreaders to the Alden-Tuthill lectures for such an introduction to Bonhoef-

fers theology.53

Yet, for Bethge, Robinsons interpretation remained unbal-anced, and showed the extent to which the German and Anglo-Saxonreception of the prison letters differed so markedly. But what botheredBethge far more than Robinsons eclectic treatment of Bonhoeffer, or thedisjunction between German and Anglo-Saxon interpretations of the prisontheology and its implications, was the creative misuse that was beingmade of Bonhoeffer in the wake of the honest to God debate by someNorth American secular and death of God theologians.54 While he wasnever one to disparage the interpretations of others, and was always open

to learning from them, Bethge now saw that his role in interpretingBonhoeffers legacy was even more important than he had previouslyi d

Eberhard Bethge 359


12/21

back in Germanyincluding former students of Bonhoefferto the criticalquestions people were raising about the Nazi era and the response of thechurches, especially to the Holocaust. In the decades that followed, Bethge

would receive hundreds of letters from younger colleagues and studentsseeking answers to the larger questions about resistance and complicity.Not only did he answer many of them at length, but his papers also showhow he wove their concerns into new essays and reviews. And how these,in turn, at least in the nineteen-sixties, became embodied in the biographyin which he so masterfully integrated the development of Bonhoefferstheology in the unfolding of Bonhoeffers life in a way that spoke to boththe German and the Anglo-Saxon world.55

In many respects, Bethges interpretation was shaped by the debates that

Bonhoeffers legacy had sparked off, and the questions and interpretationsof others. Given the controversies about the resistance in Germany, thedifferent factions in the German church, and the diversity of early inter-pretations of Bonhoeffers work both within Germany and the Anglo-Saxonworld, this was imperative. Thus a major section of the biography focusedupon Bonhoeffers theological training, down to the details of the seminarsand lectures he attended and the papers he had written. And such detailedattention to the development of his thought at each stage of his life in itsvarious historical moments continued throughout the volume.

Although he was in possession of his friends papers and certainly knewthe family history, Bethge began several years of intensive correspondencewith Bishop Bell, Visser t Hooft, and others to close the gaps in his ownknowledge and clarify the open questions. In his careful methodicalfashion, he was also checking stories. A number of early memoirs hadalready appeared, including books by Otto Dibelius, Bishop Wrm ofWrttemberg, Bonhoeffers fellow conspirator Josef Mller, and HansBernd Gisevius account of his role in the resistance. But, of course, as thecustodian of Bonhoeffers papers, his friend and confidant, Bethge was

better placed than any other to undertake this task even if his closeness tohis subject precluded a degree of critical distance. But the biographycertainly, even if inadvertently, placed Bonhoeffer in the foreground of theGerman church struggle and the resistance in a way that he had not beenduring the actual history. Thus, although Bethge later decried the Bonho-effer mythology that developed in some circles, the sheer scope of thebiography placed Bonhoeffer in the centre of his times. Yet, by todaysstandards, the biography is remarkably reticent. There are few truly per-sonal glimpses of Bonhoeffer the man. These would emerge only much

later with the complete publication of his letters and other writings, andmost particularly with the publication of his correspondence with MariaW d 56



13/21

interpretation. To be true to the legacy also meant, as Bonhoeffer would haveexpected, engaging in the ongoing church and political struggles thatfollowed the end of the war. The completion of the biography set Bethge free

to engage more actively in this task, and thus to interpret Bonhoeffer notsimply in terms of what he did say and do, but in terms of what faithfulnessto his legacy now demanded even if this meant going beyond him.

II. Going beyond Bonhoeffer

Like Bonhoeffer, Bethges exposure to other cultures and contexts, and hisinnate ability to see things differently, enabled him to gain fresh perspec-tives on Bonhoeffers legacy. At the Second International Bonhoeffer Con-gress in 1976 in Geneva, Bethge referred to the wholly different contextualinterests in the study of Bonhoeffer that brought the participants fromaround the world together, interests that were not only varied in terms ofcontext but also in terms of discipline: systematic-theological, ethical-political, sociological-psychological, biographical and historical.57 Thesedifferent interests, he went on to say, will define our questions . . . givingdifferent shape to our critique and our tentative answers.58

His visit to South Africa in 1973, and the way in which this influencedhis interpretation of Bonhoeffers legacy, provides a good example of theway in which he went about interpreting Bonhoeffer in a context differentto his own. It was one that brought back to mind the many discussions anddebates that he had had with Bonhoeffer around the themes of confession,resistance, military conscription, and solidarity with the victims of totali-tarian power. The plight of black South Africans under apartheid was asalutary reminder of the plight of the Jews in the Third Reich. Indeed, thedebate at that time in Germany on the Holocaust, on the one hand, and thecontroversial World Council of Churches Programme to Combat Racismon the other, were, for Bethge, related to each other and demanded hisattention. Bethge could easily have decided that his ongoing responsibilityas editor and archivist of Bonhoeffers legacy demanded his full attentionand therefore that he should refrain from becoming involved. Yet he coulddo no other both out of his personal pastoral concern and on the basis ofhis understanding of what faithfulness to Bonhoeffers legacy and itsinterpretation actually meant in practice.

Bethge and Apartheid South Africa

As a pastor in London from 1953 to 1961, Bethge moved in British

ecumenical circles. It was there that he came to know about the growingecumenical opposition to apartheid especially after the Sharpeville Massa-i 1960 d th C tt l C lt ti th f ll i d b

Eberhard Bethge 361


14/21

country in 1973 and see things for himself.59 From the outset of his visit hewas made acutely aware of both the plight of black people and of thechurch struggle against apartheid. Staying not far from the headquarters of

the anti-apartheid South African Council of Churches and the ChristianInstitute, he was introduced to the heated debates on the Programme toCombat Racism that were then, as in Germany, dividing the churches, andof the discussion about the need for a confessing church in South Africathat would directly address the political situation.

In his lectures given around the country, later to be published asBonhoeffer: Exile & Martyr, Bethge avoided speaking directly to the SouthAfrican situation, or overtly trying to make Bonhoeffer relevant. But hisaudiences immediately sensed a correspondence between Bonhoeffers

theology and witness within the Kirchenkampfand their own experience.Though anticipating that this might be the case, Bethge himself was in turnsurprised at the extent to which it was so.60 But he was ambivalent aboutwhether or not the Confessing Church model in Nazi Germany wasappropriate for the South African context. The German experience certainlyresonated with the thinking of those engaged in the church struggle againstapartheid, but there were too many variables to equate it with the Germancontext. Nevertheless, Bethge sensed that Bonhoeffer provided a bridgebetween confession and resistance, between confessing theology as

expressed in The Message to the People of South Africa in 1968, and later, in1982, the Belhar Confession, and black theology and the 1986 KairosDocument, both expressions of liberation theology.61

When Bethge came to South Africa the question was what could SouthAfricans learn from the German Kirchenkampf and from the legacy ofBonhoeffer? But over the years the question had become for him, whatcould and should Germans learn from the church struggle in South Africa,from the testimony of black theologians, the Belhar Confession, and theKairos Document? Was Bonhoeffers testimony better understood in South

Africa, than in Germany, perhaps even the Germany of the Kirchenkampf?We may recall that in 1959 Bethge had noted the danger of regardingthinking of the theology of the church struggle as only an interlude.62 HisSouth African experience had confirmed his conviction to the contrary andprovided grist for the mill in his interpreting Bonhoeffer against prevailingopinion in much of the German church. In addressing the South Africansituation, Bethge reminded his audiences that Bonhoeffers legacy was toremember rightly the past in which he struggled to witness to the truemeaning of Jesus Christ. In addressing the German situation back home he

constantly spoke of the need to connect confession and resistance, and torecognise the prophetic voice that came from those who spoke from below,f th ti f i d ff i N h thi



15/21

Bethge and the Holocaust Debate

During the last decades of his life Bethge became particularly burdened by

memories of the Holocaust. There was an urgent need for the Germanchurch to deal with its past failure and guilt and to engage with Jews in adialogue that would begin to heal the wounds. There was also the need toovercome a theological legacy that had both encouraged anti-Judaism andprevented engagement in political resistance. This led him to embark on anintensive study of the issues and a campaign to get his own church of theRhineland to reconsider its attitude towards Jews and Judaism. It also ledhim into conversation with many Jews and Holocaust survivors, and toparticipation in seminars and conferences on the Holocaust and Jewish-

Christian relations. Nothing challenged him more in retrieving Bonhoefferslegacy and in thinking about his own faith in Christ and his membershipof the church. In entering this emotionally charged and controversial arena,Bethge not only recognised the need to honestly reconsider what Bonho-effer had said and done with regard to the Jews, but also moved beyondhim into unfamiliar territory, tackling head-on the question whether Bon-hoeffer had failed to confront the issues directly.

Bethge came into conversation not only with Christians working on theHolocaust, but also with Jewish scholars who forced him to reread German

church historyand Bonhoeffers own writingsmore critically.63

It was apainful process, and one that brought him into conflict with his church. Butas a result of his tireless work, his church in the Rhineland approved astatement in 1980 on the relationship of Christians and Jews. While notentirely satisfactory from Bethges perspective, it signalled the fact thatBethge had now come into his own as a theologian. Although he continuedto refer to Bonhoeffers writings and wrestle with their post-Holocaustimplications, Bethge went beyond him on the basis of his own experience,his historical study and theological reflection. This required a new way of

living as a Christian and a German in ongoing dialogue with the Jewishvictims of the Holocaust. Only in this way was it possible to begin toremember rightly. But it also required rethinking classical Christology, asubject that was particularly perplexing and difficult for Bethge, but whicheventually led him beyond Bonhoeffer, but always on the basis of what hehad learnt from Bonhoeffer.

What did it mean to confess Christ here and now, and to do so in away that corresponded to reality? Whether this had to do with confessingChrist in a secular world, against apartheid, against militarism in Asia, or

in dialogue with Jews in the light of the Shoah, Bethge repeatedly wrestledwith the existential question: Who is Christfor me? In a postscript to Amb O t i f th f l h B th t f hi

Eberhard Bethge 363


16/21

In sum: Bethges ability as a theologian faithful to Bonhoeffer yet goingbeyond him can be judged from his many lectures published in fourvolumes of his collected papers between 1967 and 1991.65 He was not just

the custodian of the Bonhoeffer legacy, but also of a theologian in his ownright. As Christian Gremmels would later say at his funeral: His voice wasloud and clear in the theological debates of these past decadesagainstracism, against apartheid, against forgetting; the unwritten seventh thesisof the Barmen Declaration; the Rhineland Synod Resolution on Renewal ofChristian-Jewish Relations; theology after the Holocaust. Whenever futuregenerations refer to theology in the second half of the twentieth century,Bethges voice will continue to be heard on these themes.66

III. No Bethge, no Bonhoeffer?

Before everything else, wrote Heinz Eduard Tdt, Bethge was publiclyknown as the interpreter of the theology and life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.67

But where did the contribution of the one begin and of the other end? Canwe unravel the strands that have been woven by their respective lives?Would Bonhoeffer, a young pastor, relatively unknown except within hiscircle of friends, colleagues and the emerging ecumenical movement, havebecome so well known around the world if it were not for Bethges labour

of friendship? And would Bonhoeffers theology have been received andinterpreted in the way that it has been if Bethge had not provided thedirection that he did?

Bethge would have been the first to say that Bonhoeffers witness toChrist and the truth was not dependent upon him or anyone else. Theintegrity of Bonhoeffers testimony as one of the twentieth-century Chris-tian martyrs stands firm irrespective of the representation of his friend.68

Moreover, Bethge never understood his role as an innovator. He was everand always the faithful custodian and interpreter of Bonhoeffers legacy

even when he went beyond him. He sought above all else to pass onBonhoeffers legacy to future generations in a way that would have its ownintegrity and so allow Bonhoeffer to continue to speak to them. Bethge didnot create the legacy; he interpreted it. Yet, in doing so he inevitably left hisown distinct impression upon it. Can an interpreter do otherwise withoutreducing the legacy to something static?

Bethges is not the only interpretation of Bonhoeffers life and work.There have been other biographies and a very large number of disserta-tions, papers, and books written about his theology. Not all of these have

agreed with Bethges interpretation, though virtually all have acknowl-edged their indebtedness to him. While he did not approve of all, he didt b li B h ff th ht h ld b l d i t i htj k t B t



17/21

Bonhoeffer, in none other had Bonhoeffer placed his confidence to the samedegree, recognising Bethges skills as pre-eminently suited to the task. Evenbefore Bonhoeffers death, Bethge made an important contribution to the

development of Bonhoeffers thought, and he probably would have con-tinued to do so if Bonhoeffer had lived. But the fact is, Bonhoeffer did notsurvive the war and, as Schnherr said on the occasion of Bethgesninetieth birthday, those teaching theology would know little about Bon-hoeffer if it were not for Bethges lifes work.69 Coming from Schnherr,who knew Bonhoeffer before Bethge, and who did so much to further hislegacy, these words carry considerable weight.

As much as he was a protg of Bonhoeffers, Bethge was himself aremarkable person, pastor and theologian. Devoted as he was to Bonho-

effer, he was never slavishly so; deeply influenced by Bonhoeffers theology,he was never uncritical where criticism was warranted. This had been thecase during the years of their friendship; it remained the case during theyears in which he fulfilled his commitment to Bonhoeffers memory. Buthis personality was also different, more ebullient, more outgoing, moreembracing, and therefore inevitably influencing and shaping the way inwhich the legacy would be heard and received. And, of course, Bethge,though only a few years younger than Bonhoeffer, lived much longer(19092000). As such he had the hindsight of life-long experience necessary

for mature reflection on Bonhoeffers friendship and legacyand on lifemore generally. At age sixty-seven, as he told his audience in Geneva in1976, Bethge had difficulty in imagining

Bonhoeffer amongst us today as a seventy year old man. What if,perhaps, he could not agree with us or we with himthat I couldimagine. But he certainly would understand us if we honestlystruggled for that for which he also cared.70

Looking back to the 1960s, those years of theological ferment when the

name of Bonhoeffer came to the forefront of debate alongside the giants oftwentieth-century Protestant theology, Barth, Bultmann, Tillich, it is strikinghow Bonhoeffers legacy has endured and even waxed stronger whilst thatof some others has waned. One reason for this is undoubtedly Bonhoeffersstature as a theologian and the witness of his life; but another is undoubt-edly the result of Bethges remarkable, tireless and devoted labour onbehalf of his friend, and especially his extraordinary role as Bonhoeffersconfidant during the last ten years of his life, and interpreter of his legacyfor virtually the rest of the twentieth century.

NOTES

Eberhard Bethge 365


18/21

2 Eberhard Bethge, Friendship and Resistance: Essays on Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Geneva: WorldCouncil of Churches, 1995), p. 1.

3 Bethge, Friendship and Resistance, p. 4.4 So ist es Gewesen, in So ist Est Gewesen: Briefe Im Kirchenkampf 19331942 von Gerhard

Vibrans Aus Seinem Familien-und Freundeskreis und von Dietrich Bonhoeffer, edited byGerhard Andersen, Dorothea Andersen, Eberhard Bethge and Elfriede Vibrans (Gtersloh:Chr. Kaiser/Gtersloher, 1995), p. 178.

5 Eberhard Bethge,Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000),pp. 467468.

6 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Illegale Theologen-Ausbildung Finkenwalde 19351937, Dietrich Bonho-effer Werke, vol. 14 (Gtersloh: Chr. Kaiser/Gtersloher Verlagshaus, 1996), p. 209, ftn. 16.

7 Dietrich Bonhoeffer,Letters and Papers from Prison(London: SCM Press, 1971), pp. 437, 129;see Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, p. 833.

8 Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, p. 506.9 Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 129.

10 Letter to Bethge 28.11.43. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 148.

11 Bonhoeffer, Illegale Theologen-Ausbildung Finkenwalde 19351937, pp. 188222.12 See the letters of Bethge to Bonhoeffer of 12.6.39 and 23.6.39. Dietrich Bonhoeffer,IllegaleTheologenausbildung: Sammelvikariate 19371940, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Werke, vol. 15(Mnchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1998), pp. 183185, 195198.

13 Eberhard Bethge interviewed by Keith Clements, Villiprott, Germany, 1985: Tape record-ing (no. 2) in the possession of the author.

14 Keith W. Clements, What Freedom? The Persistent Challenge of Dietrich Bonhoeffer(Bristol,UK: Bristol Baptist College, 1990), p. 46.

15 Eberhard Bethge, In Zitz Gab es Kein Juden: Erinnerungen Aus Meinen Ersten Vierzig Jahren(Mnchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1989), pp. 120121.

16 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Conspiracy and Imprisonment: 19401945, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works,ed. Mark S. Brocker, vol. 16 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006), p. 131.

17 See, for example, Bonhoeffers letter from Ettal on 27.11.40, in which he discussed therelationship between the ultimate and the penultimate. Bonhoeffer, Conspiracy andImprisonment: 19401945, p. 91. Or see Bethges letter to Bonhoeffer of 14.2.41 when hecommented on Bonhoeffers thoughts on suicide. Bonhoeffer,Conspiracy and Imprisonment:19401945, p. 152.

18 Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 130.19 Heinz Eduard Tdt, Eberhard Bethge Als Theologe und Zeitgeschichtsforseher,

Evangelische Theologie, Vol. 49, no. 5 (1989), pp. 398399.20 Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 144.21 Ibid., p. 145.22 Ibid., p. 160.23 16 December 1943. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, pp. 177178.

24 1 February 1944. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 202.25 Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 283.26 Ibid.27 3 June 1944. Bethge to Bonhoeffer from Sakrow. Bonhoeffer,Letters and Papers from Prison,

p. 316.28 Bonhoeffer to Bethge 5.6.44. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 320.29 Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 339.30 8 July 1944. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 346.31 23 August 1944. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 392.32 Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 393.33 Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, pp. 853892.34 Bethge to Bonhoeffer 30 September 1944. Bonhoeffer,Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 398.

35 Auf dem Wege zur Freiheit, later translated as Stations on the Road to Freedom.Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, pp. 370371.36 Die Mdige Welt: Dem Andenken Dietrich Bonhoeffers, edited by Eberhard Bethge (Munich:



19/21

37 Die Mndige Welt II, ed. Eberhard Bethge (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1955).38 John Godsey, The Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (London: SCM Press, 1960);

Hanfried Mller, Von der Kirche Zur Welt (Hamberg-Bergstedt: Herbert Reich Evang.Verlag, 1956).

39 Eberhard Bethge,Bonhoeffer: Exile & Martyr, edited and translated by John W. de Gruchy,(London: Collins, 1975), p. 23.40 Though it could be argued, with Andreas Pangritz, that in the way in which Eberhard

Bethge presents it in his superb Bonhoeffer biography, the theological closeness betweenBonhoeffer and Barth is minimized more than it is overstated. Andreas Pangritz, KarlBarth in the Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer(Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans PublishingCompany, 2000), p. 70.

41 This is made clear in Ronald Gregor Smith, Bonhoeffer and This-Worldly Transcen-dence. See Keith Clements, The Theology of Ronald Gregor Smith(Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986),p. 183.

42 Notably Clifford Green, see Clifford Green,Bonhoeffer: Theology of Sociality(Grand Rapids,MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999).

43 Ernst Feil, The Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press,1985).44 Eberhard Bethge, Paul Lehmanns Initiative,Union Seminary Quarterly Review, Vol. 29,

no. 34 (1974), pp. 151152.45 Eberhard Bethge, The Editing and Publishing of the Bonhoeffer Papers,Andover Newton

Quarterly, Vol. 52, no. 2 (1959), pp. 124.46 Ibid., pp. 78.47 The Dietrich Bonhoeffer Werkein 16 volumes published by Chr. Kaiser Verlag in Munich

(19861999). The Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works in English, published by Fortress Press inMinneapolis (1996-), is nearing completion.

48 See, for example, Bonhoeffers letter of 5.6.44. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison,p. 320.

49 The Honest to God Debate, ed. John A. T. Robinson and David L. Edwards (London: SCMPress), p. 7.50 Ibid., p. 274.51 First published in English in an abridged edition by SCM Press, London, 1948. The new

critical edition, entitled Discipleship is vol. 4 in the Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works in English,2001.

52 Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, p. 891.53 John A. T. Robinson,Honest to God(Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1963), p. 36, ftn.

1.54 Bethge, Bonhoeffer: Exile & Martyr, p. 24.55 Bethges monumental biography of Bonhoeffer was first published in English in an

abridged version in 1970. The full text, revised and edited by Victoria J. Barnett, was

published by Fortress Press in 2000.56 Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Maria von Wedemeyer,Love Letters from Cell 92: the correspondencebetween Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Maria von Wedemeyer, 194345, edited by Ruth-Alice vonBismarck and Ulrich Kabitz; postscript by Eberhard Bethge; translated by John Brown-john, (London: HarperCollins, 1994).

57 In his opening remarks at an event to celebrate Bonhoeffers seventieth birthday held atthe headquarters of the World Council of Churches. See Eberhard Bethge, Genf 76: EinBonhoeffer-Symposion, edited by Hans Pfeifer, (Mnchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1976), p. 17.Authors translation.

58 Genf 76: Ein Bonhoeffer-Symposion, p. 17. Authors translation.59 The invitation was from the South African Council of Churches following a visit by the

author to the Bethges in 1971. At the time the author was Director of Studies and

Communications at the SACC.60 See John W. de Gruchy, Bonhoeffer in South Africa: An Exploratory Essay, in Bethge,Bonhoeffer: Exile & Martyr, pp. 2642.

Eberhard Bethge 367


20/21

63 See Eberhard Bethge, The Holocaust and Christian Anti-Semitism: Perspectives of aChristian Survivor, Union Seminary Quarterly Review, Vol. 32, no. 34, (Spring-Summer,1977), p. 148.

64 Wer ist Jesus von Nazaret fr mich? in Eberhard Bethge,Am Gegebenen Ort: Afsatze und

Reden 19701979 (Mnchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1973), p. 289.65 Eberhard Bethge,Ohnmacht und Mndigkeit: Beitrge Zur Zeitgeschichte und Theologie NachDietrich Bonhoeffer (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1969); Bethge Eberhard, Am Gegebenen Ort(Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1979); Eberhard Bethge, Die Erfahrungen Vom WiderspruchZwischen in UnsererGegenrtigen Situation, in Christen Im Widerstand: Die Diskussion Um das SdafrikanischeKAIROS Dokument, ed. Rudolf Hinz und Frank Krschner-Pelkmann (Stuttgart: VerlagDieste in bersee, 1987), pp. 254265; Eberhard Bethge, Erstes Gebot und Zeitgeschichte:

Afsatze und Reden, 19801990 (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1991).66 Christian Gremmels, Eulogy for Eberhard Bethge. Delivered at the Memorial Service,

March 25, 2000, published in International Bonhoeffer Society Newsletter: English LanguageSection, no. 73 (June, 2000), p. 10. Translated by Nancy Lukens.

67 Introduction toWie eine Flaschenpost: kumenische Briefe und Beitrge Fr Eberhard Bethge,ed. Heinz Eduard Tdt (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag), p. 14.68 On 9 July 1998, a statue of Dietrich Bonhoeffer was unveiled over the portal of the West

Door of Westminster Abbey in London, along with statues of nine other representativeChristian martyrs of the twentieth-century.

69 Albrecht Schnherr, Ein gutter Freund: Rede zu Eberhard Bethges 90. Berburtstag, 11September 1999, Eisenach, published in Bonhoeffer Rundbrief, no. 60, October 1999,pp. 1112.

70 Bethge, Genf 76: Ein Bonhoeffer-Symposion, p. 16.



21/21

Documents

Eberhard Bethge- Interpreter of Bonhoeffer