Talk:Dietrich Bonhoeffer/Archive 1

Pacifism
It would be helpful to study Bonhoeffer's pacifism and see whether or not it is sufficient to write: "After he realized that diplomatic means to stop Hitler were impossible, he decided that assassination was the only solution. He joined a hidden group of high-ranking officers who were trying to have Hitler killed." The situation was far too complex to assume that he believed diplomatic means were no longer available. And to say that Bonheoffer thought it was the only way to stop Hitler is possibly not to have understood him correctly. In summary, the words "After he realized that diplomatic means to stop Hitler were impossible, he decided that assassination was the only solution" is not a neutral statement regarding his own thoughts and theology. Marco Funk marco_funk@yahoo.com

Certainly. It is in fact debatable whether we can state that Bonhoeffer regarded tyrannicide as a "solution" at all: the term might imply that he had resolved the ethical problem presented by the matter. This point may seem pedantic but the point at which the personal decision is made by the agent does not imply that there has been, in any real sense, a "resolved" argument. Open to further discussion on this difficult point.

HELP- someone was editing the Bonhoeffer article and it got left in a mess of French and computer symbols. (I was on here 20 minutes ago and it was fine; now it's illegible.) Callie Lowenstein

Opposition to Hitler
I disagree with the sentence: "While the confessing church was not large, it represented the only Christian church in Germany that was in opposition to Hitler's practices." It suggests (imh incorrecly) that all other Churches agreed with Hitler. The Catholic Church condemned the Nazi ideology in 1937 with the Encyclical Mit brennender Sorge. Also, the article should describe the schism in the Lutheran Church between Deutche Christen (filo - nazist9 and the confessing Church

--- Agreed. I had a go at incorporating the comments above, though without adding much detail; also at tidying up the description of events in the 1930s. New to all this, may try to do more later. --Rachel

I have done a lot of research on D. Bonhoeffer, and I believe that a lot of this report is false! For example, he was not part of a group of people that tried to assasinate Hitler. --Jon

Are you kidding? Of course Bonhoeffer was part of the July 20 conspiracy. This is well documented in Bethge's biography among other places. Mfhiller (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

Formality
Is there a reason, why the article refers to "Dietrich" (first name) instead of "Bonhoeffer" (last name) I think it's too informal and will change it if nobody oppposes. -- Fuffzsch 11:30, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re-wording

 * For humiliation, and for the edification of the SS-staff present, all four men were forced to strip down completely in their cells before walking totally naked to the gallows.

Could this passage be re-worded for the sake for slightly more objective language...namely the phrase "for the edification of the SS-staff present"? Could we say, "to set an example before the SS-staff present" or something to that effect? ~ Dpr 00:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe Hans von Dohnanyi was hanged at Sachsenhausen KZ; Klaus Bonhoeffer and Ruediger Schleicher were shot outside a Gestapo prison in Berlin. Dietrich was hanged with Admiral Canaris, General Hans Oster, Karl Sack, and Ludwig Gehre at Flossenbuerg. Disrobing was used routinely for those condemned in relation to the July 20 plot when they were hanged at Ploetzensee prison in Berlin. Refer to other listings in Wikipedia for more information.205.188.116.196 07:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Nyoreg

Isn't "Martyrdom" a little too strong in this context. In a Christian context a martyr is someone who chooses to die rather than renounce their faith. In the wider context "martyr" has emotive overtones that don't, I believe, suit the objective style of an encyclopaedia.Thecopybook (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's too strong; it's the case. We are talking here about the Christian context, after all. If it's ok for Saint Lawrence to say he's a martyr, there isn't any reason not to say the same here.  Tb (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Early studies/Harlem
Can we insert a statement regarding his visits to the African-American churches and community in New York stating that this was relatively novel, that cross-racial activity was relatively rare at the time, and even more novel for a European (as opposed to a Caucasian/White American)? ~ Dpr 00:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Confessing Church
The article states: During World War II, Bonhoeffer played a key leadership role in the Confessing Church. I'm not certain that the timeline is accurate. He certainly played a key role in the mid-1930s, but I don't think he was a leader in the church during the war. -JohnRDaily 05:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the reference to Bonhoeffer traveling to India to study with Gandhi needs to be verified. As I recall, Bonhoeffer was influenced by Gandhi's nonviolent methods and intended to visit Gandhi but was arrested before he was able to go. Jim5of7 30 December 2008

This article contradicts itself
The beginning of the article says that Bonhoeffer was arrested in March, but later in his bio it says April. Which is it? J.J. Bustamante 10:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ethics -- when published, when developed
Somewhere back in the Seminary Course I took on Bonhoeffer some 8 years ago, I remember that Ethics was on his desk when he was arrested in 1943. I do not think he had any of it with him in prison. I would urge a check on the detail that suggests this was finished by DB while in Prison. I do not think that is so ... only memory, not fact for sure ...

I do also remember that it was published after his death. Bethge arranged it in several different orders as he only had the typed manuscript and couldn't quite figure out precisely how it fit together best ... again, memory of a class with a man who wrote first book in English on Bonhoeffer's life: John Godsey.

Mantuan 00:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Mantuan

wrongfully convicted people
Bonhoeffer is a member of the category of "wrongfully convicted people". On what basis is this added? Was he not guilty? Did he not participate in a conspiracy to overthrow the government by assassinating the head of state? Is that not illegal in most places? I think he was pretty rightfully convicted... even if his crime was trying to do a good thing. Lordjeff06 (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Of course people may have political differences, but treason is a serious crime. Assassinating the head of state during war is not only high treason it is also a crime against the nation as such. And don't be fooled, criminals ofthen have "moral arguments" for their deeds. Given the crimes of mass murder and rape committed against the Germans at the end and after the war, there is no doubt in my mind that the traitors were rightfully convicted--196.2.124.254 (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC).

Link to the EKD
The Link which links to the site of the EKD (Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland) is named wrong. In Germany we make a different between "evangelisch" and "evangelical". The EKD is lutheran. In Germany we see "evangelical" as a extreme part of the protestant mostly reformed churches in the USA. So "Evangelisch" and evangelical is not the same for us. "Evangelisch" means more like Protestants and not evangelical. Sorry for my bad english. This here is what I found in the Article about the EKD here in the english wiki: Note on the term Evangelical in German usage

The German term evangelisch more accurately corresponds to the broad English term Protestant rather than to the narrower Evangelical (in German called evangelikal), although the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada use the term in the same way as the German church. Literally, evangelisch means "of the Gospel", denoting a Reformation emphasis on sola scriptura, "scripture alone". The church described in this article is a federation of different, mostly mainstream Protestant churches, rather than one evangelical church. It can thus be considered a united church.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.110.200 (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The EKD is not lutheran at all. The VELKD may be. However, Bonhoeffer was not Lutheran but united/uniting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.9.104.206 (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Social Christianity
I would very strongly recommend removing the image of "San Precario" from the series on Christianity titled "Social Christianity". There are two possibilities concerning this image of a kneeling man: either the group perpetrating "San Precario" is not a serious group at all, or else it is inconspicuouly small. If the latter, it is certainly not representative of those who propagate a social gospel. Jajafe 14:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Barth's view of Liberal Theology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.98.90 (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to take issue with the word "political" in the sentence below: "Barth believed that 'liberal theology' (understood as a movement emphasizing personal experience and societal development, not necessarily carrying a political orientation) minimized Scripture, reducing it in many ways to a mere textbook of metaphysics while sanctioning the deification of human culture."

Politics are an essential way that many Christians attempt to influence their society. However, I would not agree that, by definition, politics are essential to orthodox theology. The difference between the two is that liberal theologians do not believe the Bible to be the inerrant, inspired word of God, whereas orthodox theologians do. Please edit the definition of "liberal theology". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.98.90 (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your statement regarding the distinction between liberal and "orthodox" theologians (a false dichotomy if ever there was one) is simply not true. The belief in the inerrant and inspired Bible is much newer than any orthodox interpretation of Christianity. By this standard Barth was a liberal theologian; perhaps this is what you are trying to convey? Why must a liberal theologian be excluded from the standard of orthodoxy? Is a Christian necessarily heterodox if they do not make these affirmations about the veracity of the scriptures? Cmcenroe (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite right. Inerrancy is not a word used by orthodox or neo-orthodox theologians, because it is in fact non-Biblical, and in that sense self-contradictory. Theology and Christian witness alike have usually spoken of the inspiration of Scripture, which is not the same thing at all. I'm not at all sure that most, or any, liberal theologians would depart from orthodoxy on this. For example, Tillich (generally regarded as about as liberal as you can get) grounds all his sermons in Scripture. Barth (along with Bonhoeffer at first) was suspicious of attempts to explain Christianity in terms of modern philosophies because he saw them as transitory and insubstantial, and because too many theologians who did so caved in and supported Germany's war effort in 1914. However, by the time he wrote the material collected in his Christology, Bonhoeffer himself was arguably moving in a liberal direction.Sjwells53 (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Date discrepancy
One sentence says he was imprisoned in April 1943 for a year and a half (thus through approximately October 1944). Another says he was arrested and imprisoned in July 1944, when, according to the first sentence, he was already incarcerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.186.32 (talk) 06:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Execution
Is the mode of his execution given in this article correct? Many of the conspirators suffered death by slow strangulation. However, in I knew Dietrich Bonhoeffer edited by Wolf-Deiter Zimmermann and Ronald Gregor Smith, H. Fischer-Hullstrung, one-time camp doctor at Flossenburg states: "Through the half-open door in one room of the huts I saw Pastor Bonhoeffer, before taking off his prison garb, kneeling on the floor praying fervently to his God. I was most deeply moved by the way this lovable man prayed, so devout and so certain that God heard his prayer.  At the place of execution, he again said a short prayer and then climbed the steps to the gallows, brave and composed.  His death ensued after a few seconds." Do we have any other eye witness account? PWBishop (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a more detailed description of what happened in the Gerichtsprotokoll against Thorbruck, but I think it is to devasting and to humilating to put here. Another fact should be correct and that is the hanging of von Rabenau. This was according to a deciphering of the enigma messages sent from Flossenbuerg on the 15th of April. According to one of the relatives Rabenau was against the killing of Hitler. Actually I do not know what Bonhoeffers position was on this issue.

Schneider —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.163.197.56 (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any solid references as to the method of execution. It seems that the use of strangling wire isn't mentioned in any reports detailing these executions and I think the sentence should simply say he was hanged and the quote by Flossenburg should be used. Anything more seems subjective and unnecessary. 68.102.24.197 (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

And yet, the wire story remains. Would there in fact be a gallows if wire were used? Would death ensue after a few seconds? I would mention that Tolands Last 100 Days says nothing about wire.--Jrm2007 (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article, as such, seems to contradict itself and argue that both have happened. It is not Wikipedia's job to adjudicate between conflicting sources, so may it be best to leave the description of his execution to direct quotations from eyewitnesses, perhaps leaving the question of what exactly happened open? Kansan (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Legacy Area
The Legacy seems to have quite a bit of space between it and the actual information...could something be done about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.34.23 (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. NJGW (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This section needs to be thoroughly revised. Before speaking about B's legacy there should be a section directly addressing his theology. Some of the material under "Legacy" should be moved here. Can I be so bold as to start this? Also, I completely disagree with the use of the terms "martyr," "martyrdom," etc. and would like to remove all such references. The concept of martyrdom is tied to religious belief and inappropriate in critical writing, unless of course one is writing a critical article about the concept of martyrdom. 70.26.91.81 (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

just a note on in-text mistake
Verührer(mis-leader). [ref Bonhoeffer's radio address in 1933]

This should presumably read 'Verführer' (meaning: seducer, someone who leads astray). Maybe whoever is responsible for this page wants to change that?

86.143.34.248 (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"recent research"
I have tagged the following sentence in the lead:


 * "However, recent research now challenges the assumption that he was directly involved in the assassination attempts."

We need a source. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Eric Metaxas Book
Just recently, Eric Metaxas had a book signing in Augusta, Ga. for his book on Deitrich Bonhoeffer. I was unable to attend, but a friend of mine was able to get me an autographed copy of the book. I wasalready reading more of Bonhoeffer's works and was taken back by the contnts of this book. It gave me a better insight into the person behind all the great sermons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crabco54 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Metaxas's book is just terrible. It has been categorically rejected by Bonhoeffer scholars such as Victoria Barnett and Clifford Greene. Metaxas is geographically, historically, and theologically incompetent. Just a right-wing U.S. Christian propagandist who has nothing whatsoever of value to contribute to Bonhoeffer studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfhiller (talk • contribs) 19:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have citations? I'm not looking to argue, I'm honestly curious what they have to say about the book.  Andrew327 20:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Bonhöffer not Bonhoeffer as this is a proper name
The spelling of Bohöffer's name in the article should be corrected, as it is currently incorrect, where this is a proper name, and not an anglicised word borrowed from another language, it should be spelled as it is in the language of origin. Proper names in English are generally spelled the same way they are in their own languages (assuming the arabic/latin alphabet) and includes all the accents, inflections, umlauts, etc that exist in those languages. As such it should be no different with Dietrich Bonhöffer, in order to properly respect the origin of the name and the man himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.237.80 (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The 'oe' substitution is allowed in German for mediums which to not allow for the ö typographically, but since we are capable we should be using it. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You should also contact Fortress Press so that they can change the spelling of "Bonhoeffer". My copy of Bethge's biography must have several thousand incorrect spellings of Bonhoeffer's name. Mfhiller (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)mfhiller — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfhiller (talk • contribs) 08:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, I probably should have checked this. You are right, Bonhoeffer is also the German spellin. He did not seem to use the umlaut, it's just a coincidence that 'oe' is often a substitution for 'ö'. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

major errors
There are at least two major errors in the first paragraph. For one it's not even clear Bonhoeffer, if Bonhoeffer did know of any genocide of the Jews. And of course it's "not the Nazis" that did surrender, but the Army (Wehrmacht). Please change this based on accuracy. --41.151.95.45 (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? What on earth, first, are you trying to say with the nonsense "For one it's not even clear Bonhoeffer, if Bonhoeffer did know of any genocide of the Jews"? WTF, not even a sentence. Second, what a load of BS to suggest that it was the Wehrmacht that lost the war. By the end of 1943 even the Nazi elite had realised that Germany was going to lose the war. Himmler, Goering, Speer, etc. tried to convince Hitler. Don't even try to suggest the peculiar revisionist position that somehow it was the army's fault. Absolutely bizarre and without any historical evidence whatsoever. Mfhiller (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

Universality of Church
In the section titled 'Academic training' there is a note saying that a citation is needed for the following statement:

"Bonhoeffer attended Tübingen University for a year and visited Rome, where he began to believe in the universality of the church[citation needed]"

There is a whole chapter of Eric Metaxas's book dedicated to his time in Rome, and this sentence is consistent with the text of the book. I don't have an exact page number but I think one could reasonably cite the text in support of this sentence.

Edit to lead
I am removing the reference to "religionless Christianity" from the lead. It's important to discuss the concept in the article's body, but stripped of context it doesn't help readers understand Bonhoeffer. Andrew327 20:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sentence fragment re: Schmidhuber
The section on Arrest ends in a sentence fragment: "One of the informers of Abwehr, Wilhelm Schmidhuber, was arrested by the"

Was this unfinished or partially deleted? Can anyone finish the sentence, or should it be removed for now?

Berashith (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

"German Christians" or "Deutsche Christen"
As I read the article, I found the term German Christians a bit confusing, despite the explanation that this referred to the Deutsche Christen movement, because the term could also be used to describe Germans who are Christian, in a generic sense, so I changed it to "Deutsche Christen" throughout the article. In my edit summary, I stated that the German Christians article also used the untranslated term throughout, but on more careful reading, I see that this is not completely true. Anyway, I am leaving it as "Deutsche Christen" here. If we change it back, I would suggest using terminology like "members of the German Christian movement" or "German Christian faction", if we can do this without the text becoming too cumbersome. Or am I just imagining a problem where there is none? Peter Chastain  [habla, por favor]  14:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)