Bonhoeffer’s life and theology have been misused or used in different ways. The most helpful scholarly treatment of the various “Bonhoeffers” is arguably Stephen Haynes’ 2004 The Bonhoeffer Phenomenon: Portraits of a Protestant Saint (Fortress) which categorizes popular and scholarly appreciations ranging from the radical, to the liberal, to the conservative, and to the universal Bonhoeffers. The presence of scholarly or abstract disagreements about who Bonhoeffer was or proper use is not overly problematic, as those debates happen in print. Mostly what appears are snippets or catch phrases from his theology, or church or political actions, removed from several possible contexts (theology, life, German situation, etc.) and taken to define his abiding or overall political stances or theology. However, when Bonhoeffer is used to promote what are arguably radical political positions which play out in real life in the public or political arena, where people or parties take actions as inspired by their particular interpretations of some aspect of his thought or life, it can have serious implications.
This paper will argue that movie depictions of Bonhoeffer, and in particular the recent 2024 film Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spy. Assassin., are especially problematic as they exacerbate the tendency to select moments or phrases for dramatic effect due to significant time limitations or forms of bias; these biopics have a few hours and therefore choose those events or snippets of dialog that lend themselves to drama, viewer excitement, or reveal editorial biases. Additionally, visual depictions onscreen are arguably more compelling and simplistic than books, especially scholarly books. The danger, then, is that ideas like the so-called “Bonhoeffer Moment” - where a person must make a dramatic decision at a crucial defining moment of life-changing and momentous consequence – get exaggerated or highlighted in film. In the most recent film, Bonhoeffer’s involvement in the conspiracy is embellished with historical inaccuracies and over-exaggeration. Thereby, and because of its portrayal of a Bonhoeffer enthusiastic about violence, it is potentially dangerous for those individuals or groups who might be inclined to employ violent tactics as they selectively assign their “Bonhoeffer Moment” to any number of present-day conflicts. These can include groups with diametrically opposed political positions like those on the religious right or Christian nationalists who find in Bonhoeffer’s resistance to Hitler inspiration for combatting what they see as non- or anti-Christian challenges, or those on the left who might see shades of Hitler in Donald Trump. A more responsible portrait of Bonhoeffer both challenges the very existence of any “Bonhoeffer Moment,” and responsibly tries to understand his conspiratorial activities more accurately by contextualizing or framing them in terms the thought or theology-action dyad as that progressed throughout his life. Ultimately, Bonhoeffer’s heroism lies in the fact that his actions were consistent with his thought.
Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spy. Assassin. suffers from two major weaknesses. First, it is very light on theology (and thus the mutually-informing theology-action connection). Second, there are scenes which overplay his enthusiasm for violent resistance or his inspiring others to violence. These include, in order, a scene wherein Clementine Churchill uses Bonhoeffer’s words to tell her husband, Winston Churchill, that these words suggest that Britian declare war on Germany; a scene where Martin Niemoller, in a conversation with Bonhoeffer at the seminary, refers to their plan in Germany as an “attack”; a scene set in the seminary wherein Bonhoeffer tells Eberhard Bethge he is going back to Berlin because “we cannot keep pretending that praying and teaching is enough”; a scene where Bonhoeffer exclaims “Here I am Hans, send me” when Hans von Dohnanyi reveals the plan to assassinate Hitler and Bethge reminds Bonhoeffer that he is an avowed pacifist (Bonhoeffer then disavows his previous pacifist position and tells Bethge he can “stop” Hitler); a scene wherein Bonhoeffer prays in approval of a planned assassination attempt; scenes juxtaposing Bonhoeffer’s famous “when Christ calls a man he calls him to die” with an assassination attempt; a scene where Bonhoeffer asks Bishop Bell passionately for England to supply a bomb designed for assassination; and a scene where, during his arrest, the officer indicates that Bonhoeffer is an “assassin” (when, in fact, he was arrested for his role in Operation 7). These scenes, in addition to being embellishments or outright inaccuracies, portray several dramatic “Bonhoeffer Moments” that show a man associated with, or actively ready for, violence, and ignore Bonhoeffer’s strained internal moral struggle with his involvement in the conspiracy. These scenes distort the nature of his resistance activities. Two opposing ways of contextualizing his political activity mitigate the dangers of such a portrayal. One way, Micheal DeJonge’s 2018 Bonhoeffer on Resistance: The Word Against the Wheel (Oxford), highlights the career long consistency in Bonhoeffer’s resistance activities by rooting them in his consistent connection to Lutheran understandings the Law-Gospel distinction, Two Kingdoms thinking, Church-State relations, orders of preservation and redemption, and other ideas. Another way, my own in 2012’s Pacifism, Just War, and Tyrannicide: Bonhoeffer’s Church-World Theology and His Changing Forms of Political Thinking and Involvement (Wipf and Stock), does highlight discontinuities in his thought-action dyad. However, by connecting his action to a facet of his theology throughout his career (Church-World), any decisions he made appear not as extemporaneous but rather as justified as the expression of a grounded vision. Both ways, while different, explain his resistance activities in terms of their connection to his theology and thus highlight the consistency between Bonhoeffer’s theology and political action, and de-emphasize any dramatic moments.
An abortion clinic bomber named Paul Hill, in July 1993, admitted to being inspired by Bonhoeffer’s conspiratorial involvement as justification for murdering those who provide abortions – a situation Hill considered commensurate with the Holocaust. Is it realistic to think that violence might erupt in response to a movie? It is perhaps much less likely if Bonhoeffer’s heroism is carefully and respectfully reframed in terms of the very complex connection between his thought and his action; a consistent connection throughout his life and this, rather than any Bonhoeffer moments, is the true source of his credibility and heroism.
Movie depictions of Bonhoeffer, like 2024’s Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spy. Assassin. are problematic as they recreate certain events or snippets of dialog lending themselves to drama, excitement, or promotion of editorial biases. A “Bonhoeffer Moment” - where someone makes a decision at a crucial defining moment of life-changing and momentous importance – gets exaggerated. In the newest film, Bonhoeffer’s conspiratorial involvement is embellished with historical inaccuracies and exaggeration. The film portrays a Bonhoeffer enthusiastic about violence. It is thus potentially dangerous as individuals or groups might be inclined to employ violence as they assign their “Bonhoeffer Moment” to present-day conflicts. A responsible portrait challenges the existence of any “Bonhoeffer Moment,” and tries to understand his conspiratorial activities more accurately by contextualizing them in terms of the theology-action dyad as his life progressed. Ultimately, Bonhoeffer’s heroism lies in the fact that his actions were consistent with his thought, not in any particular moment.