What do you think?
Rate this book
Bonhoeffer on Resistance: The Word Against the Wheel
Bonhoeffer thought and wrote a great deal about political life, but he did so neither as a political theorist nor a political activist but rather as a Christian pastor and theologian. Most of what he said about political resistance was said as a theologian, as one speaking on behalf of the church. For this reason, his thinking about political resistance can only be understood in the broader context of his theology. Bonhoeffer on Resistance provides an account of Bonhoeffer's resistance thinking as a whole. This involves placing his thinking about violent political resistance in the context of his thinking about resistance of all kinds; placing his thinking about political resistance of all kinds into the context of his thinking about political life in general; and, ultimately, placing his thinking about political life in the broader context of his theology, his thinking about the whole world and God's relationship to it.
To establish the conceptual background necessary for understanding Bonhoeffer's resistance thinking, Michael P. DeJonge begins with a brief account of the theological story in which Bonhoeffer imbeds his account of political the story of God's creation of the world, the fall of that world into sin, and the redemption of that world in Christ. He introduces some specifically Lutheran accents to Bonhoeffer's theology that are essential for understanding his political vision, such as the doctrine of justification and the distinction between law and gospel. DeJonge then transitions from Bonhoeffer's theology into his political thinking by presenting the basic conceptual structures he employs when thinking through most political issues. Two important agents or institutions in political life are church and state, and DeJonge presents Bonhoeffer's account of these in light of the material presented in the previous chapters. The volume then presents Bonhoeffer's resistance thinking and
activity, which can be considered from two overlapping perspectives, one chronological and the other systematic. This study shows that Bonhoeffer has a systematic, differentiated, and well-developed vision of political activity and resistance.
To establish the conceptual background necessary for understanding Bonhoeffer's resistance thinking, Michael P. DeJonge begins with a brief account of the theological story in which Bonhoeffer imbeds his account of political the story of God's creation of the world, the fall of that world into sin, and the redemption of that world in Christ. He introduces some specifically Lutheran accents to Bonhoeffer's theology that are essential for understanding his political vision, such as the doctrine of justification and the distinction between law and gospel. DeJonge then transitions from Bonhoeffer's theology into his political thinking by presenting the basic conceptual structures he employs when thinking through most political issues. Two important agents or institutions in political life are church and state, and DeJonge presents Bonhoeffer's account of these in light of the material presented in the previous chapters. The volume then presents Bonhoeffer's resistance thinking and
activity, which can be considered from two overlapping perspectives, one chronological and the other systematic. This study shows that Bonhoeffer has a systematic, differentiated, and well-developed vision of political activity and resistance.
- GenresTheology
184 pages, Hardcover
Published October 30, 2018
13 people are currently reading
32 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
February 26, 2019
For what Bonhoeffer did in the resistance to Hitler, any biography will do (I strongly recommend Strange Glory). For what he wrote about resistance to injustice, by churches and individuals, DeJonge's little volume is clear, timely, and enlightening. Church readers who have read Life Together or Letters and Papers from Prison and want to know more should find this readable and helpful. It is not likely to become a devotional classic like those, but it could become an essential companion for those who have turned to Bonhoeffer in dark times.
For specialists, my further thoughts:
As we might expect from his prior work, DeJonge uses the whole DBWE corpus here. He adduces a systematic account of resistance by interpreting the best-known texts through more obscure ones. The result is the most coherent reading of "The Church and the Jewish Question" I have seen, grounded in Bonhoeffer's high ecclesiology and his fairly traditional reception of the Lutheran "two kingdoms". In general, I find DeJonge persuasive on the continuities of Bonhoeffer's thought, both internally and with previous Lutheran dogmatics. I don't find that approach works as well for "After Ten Years" or the prison writings, which show considerable spiritual if not dogmatic change, and are tellingly peripheral to DeJonge's argument here.
The strength of this approach is to produce a more coherent system. Its weakness is to sideline readers who would connect Bonhoeffer's resistance either with his imprisonment or with concrete struggles beyond the church's preaching office. The absence of the phrase "underside of history", for instance, speaks volumes. Is the "we" of "After Ten Years" only the conspirators as responsible individuals, or is it also the Church? DeJonge would say the former, while liberation theology has appropriated it for the poor people of God. DeJonge has the stronger textual claim, given the text's limited circulation. Whether that is the whole story is a theological rather than a historical question.
For specialists, my further thoughts:
As we might expect from his prior work, DeJonge uses the whole DBWE corpus here. He adduces a systematic account of resistance by interpreting the best-known texts through more obscure ones. The result is the most coherent reading of "The Church and the Jewish Question" I have seen, grounded in Bonhoeffer's high ecclesiology and his fairly traditional reception of the Lutheran "two kingdoms". In general, I find DeJonge persuasive on the continuities of Bonhoeffer's thought, both internally and with previous Lutheran dogmatics. I don't find that approach works as well for "After Ten Years" or the prison writings, which show considerable spiritual if not dogmatic change, and are tellingly peripheral to DeJonge's argument here.
The strength of this approach is to produce a more coherent system. Its weakness is to sideline readers who would connect Bonhoeffer's resistance either with his imprisonment or with concrete struggles beyond the church's preaching office. The absence of the phrase "underside of history", for instance, speaks volumes. Is the "we" of "After Ten Years" only the conspirators as responsible individuals, or is it also the Church? DeJonge would say the former, while liberation theology has appropriated it for the poor people of God. DeJonge has the stronger textual claim, given the text's limited circulation. Whether that is the whole story is a theological rather than a historical question.
March 20, 2019
DeJonge is a top Bonhoeffer scholar here in the states and tackles the concept of resistance in Bonhoeffer's works in this book. It's fairly surprising how much he finds. I guess one thinks of Bonhoeffer's biography and would guess that throughout his work there would be tons on individual responsibility in resistance, but really the majority of his work, and this book is about the role of the church in ethical/political resistance mainly through ministry of the Word and being the body of Christ in the world. It was fairly fascinating.
The book outlines 6 different types of resistance detailed in Bonhoeffer's work and only one of them directly address the individual outside of the church-community. The book could've used more outlines for easier to remember types of resistance. DeJonge would be like this 1 type of resistance plays out in 3 ways...a,b,c, by the end of the book I couldn't remember it all.
Worth a read when considering political resistance, especially for church leaders.
The book outlines 6 different types of resistance detailed in Bonhoeffer's work and only one of them directly address the individual outside of the church-community. The book could've used more outlines for easier to remember types of resistance. DeJonge would be like this 1 type of resistance plays out in 3 ways...a,b,c, by the end of the book I couldn't remember it all.
Worth a read when considering political resistance, especially for church leaders.
January 19, 2023
As with anything Bonhoeffer related, I’m tempted to write way more than I ought to here. But it’s enough to know that the popular assumptions about how Bonhoeffer reasoned out his resistance to Nazism, including “justifying” (ill-advised word) his role in the conspiracy to kill Hitler, are woefully lacking. DeJonge’s short book clears this up in a helpfully accessible way.
Bonhoeffer has rightly inspired and animated countless Christians and social justice activists with his bravery, his devotion to cause, and his ultimate martyrdom. Recent years have seen a spate of Bonhoeffer references used in American political discourse, from Huffington Post to Tucker Carlson. Memes abound, extracting the dramatic quotation: “We are not simply to bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheel of injustice, we are to drive a spoke into the wheel itself.” Comparisons to Bonhoeffer are a dime a dozen. But what nearly all of them have in common, right, left, and center, is a failure to grasp important underpinnings to DB’s willingness to resist. As such, DeJonge warns that if we’re not careful, we will “gather with Bonhoeffer under the banner of ‘driving a spoke into the wheel itself’ only to part ways, he in the direction of an ecumenical proclamation, and we in the direction of blocking traffic.”
Critical to understanding DB’s design for resistance is his theology of justification, two kingdoms, and the divine “mandates” into which the world is divided, principally church and state. The church in his context found itself in status confessionis, or in a state where the church’s gospel proclamation is required as a rebuke of the state, and prompts an ultimatum to all churches: confess the gospel to this end, or else apostasize. This is the state in which Bonhoeffer argued that the Confessing Church existed vis a vis the Nazified churches, especially concerning the Aryan paragraph. We can’t understand how Bonhoeffer comes to the eventual assassination plot without this “state of confession” precipitated by political events. Likewise DB’s very high view of the state prevents the sort of casual revolutionarism toward which many would invoke him. He believes that God’s Word spoken by the church is, far from being merely a teaching tool or inspirational method, an objectively effective act, in fact THE most significant effective action available to humans. So while one typical refrain you might hear today sounds something like “this Bible study is great and all, but when are we gonna get out there and DO something?” Bonhoeffer would respond that the primary ‘something’ the church can DO is precisely to speak God’s word of the gospel.
Perhaps most surprisingly, DeJonge challenges the notion that Bonhoeffer’s resistance was motivated primarily by social/ethnic injustice and the suffering it caused. Rather it was the church’s obligation to stand against the state’s encroachment upon its divine mandate in the gospel, in this case the mandate to define its membership by Christian faith alone, contrary to the Aryan paragraph which dictated that ethnic Jews must be expelled from Germans churches.* Whereas we (right or left) typically jump directly from witnessing social injustice to our divine moral obligation to oppose it, Bonhoeffer refuses to skip over the mandate of the church and the confession of the gospel, even going so far as saying the church has no moral authority not derived from the gospel, that such an authority would be grasping at forbidden knowledge (e.g. natural law arguments). The quick and dirty reality is, as I’ve often realized, Bonhoeffer is far more gospel- and church-centered than we generally ever dream of being. (If this sounds disappointing, you should read the details, I can’t possibly be as nuanced as is necessary here)
While Bonhoeffer is a rightly admired figure in post-Holocaust justice work and thinking, his priorities and reasoning are significantly different than we assume, and confounds a lot the ways in which we seek solidarity with him. DeJonge carefully summarizes that thinking, drawing it out from across the breadth of DB’s corpus. The book offers a caution to us all, including many scholars of the man, even surprisingly contradicting Eberhard Bethge, DB’s best friend and authorized biographer. I'd recommend this as a starting point for anyone interested in Bonhoeffer studies, not only to understand his resistance, but his theology and thought in general.
*This is, maybe not so remarkably, a pre-1970’s rumbling of an element of what is now called the New Perspective on Paul, which perhaps shouldn’t be considered so “new” after all.
Bonhoeffer has rightly inspired and animated countless Christians and social justice activists with his bravery, his devotion to cause, and his ultimate martyrdom. Recent years have seen a spate of Bonhoeffer references used in American political discourse, from Huffington Post to Tucker Carlson. Memes abound, extracting the dramatic quotation: “We are not simply to bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheel of injustice, we are to drive a spoke into the wheel itself.” Comparisons to Bonhoeffer are a dime a dozen. But what nearly all of them have in common, right, left, and center, is a failure to grasp important underpinnings to DB’s willingness to resist. As such, DeJonge warns that if we’re not careful, we will “gather with Bonhoeffer under the banner of ‘driving a spoke into the wheel itself’ only to part ways, he in the direction of an ecumenical proclamation, and we in the direction of blocking traffic.”
Critical to understanding DB’s design for resistance is his theology of justification, two kingdoms, and the divine “mandates” into which the world is divided, principally church and state. The church in his context found itself in status confessionis, or in a state where the church’s gospel proclamation is required as a rebuke of the state, and prompts an ultimatum to all churches: confess the gospel to this end, or else apostasize. This is the state in which Bonhoeffer argued that the Confessing Church existed vis a vis the Nazified churches, especially concerning the Aryan paragraph. We can’t understand how Bonhoeffer comes to the eventual assassination plot without this “state of confession” precipitated by political events. Likewise DB’s very high view of the state prevents the sort of casual revolutionarism toward which many would invoke him. He believes that God’s Word spoken by the church is, far from being merely a teaching tool or inspirational method, an objectively effective act, in fact THE most significant effective action available to humans. So while one typical refrain you might hear today sounds something like “this Bible study is great and all, but when are we gonna get out there and DO something?” Bonhoeffer would respond that the primary ‘something’ the church can DO is precisely to speak God’s word of the gospel.
Perhaps most surprisingly, DeJonge challenges the notion that Bonhoeffer’s resistance was motivated primarily by social/ethnic injustice and the suffering it caused. Rather it was the church’s obligation to stand against the state’s encroachment upon its divine mandate in the gospel, in this case the mandate to define its membership by Christian faith alone, contrary to the Aryan paragraph which dictated that ethnic Jews must be expelled from Germans churches.* Whereas we (right or left) typically jump directly from witnessing social injustice to our divine moral obligation to oppose it, Bonhoeffer refuses to skip over the mandate of the church and the confession of the gospel, even going so far as saying the church has no moral authority not derived from the gospel, that such an authority would be grasping at forbidden knowledge (e.g. natural law arguments). The quick and dirty reality is, as I’ve often realized, Bonhoeffer is far more gospel- and church-centered than we generally ever dream of being. (If this sounds disappointing, you should read the details, I can’t possibly be as nuanced as is necessary here)
While Bonhoeffer is a rightly admired figure in post-Holocaust justice work and thinking, his priorities and reasoning are significantly different than we assume, and confounds a lot the ways in which we seek solidarity with him. DeJonge carefully summarizes that thinking, drawing it out from across the breadth of DB’s corpus. The book offers a caution to us all, including many scholars of the man, even surprisingly contradicting Eberhard Bethge, DB’s best friend and authorized biographer. I'd recommend this as a starting point for anyone interested in Bonhoeffer studies, not only to understand his resistance, but his theology and thought in general.
*This is, maybe not so remarkably, a pre-1970’s rumbling of an element of what is now called the New Perspective on Paul, which perhaps shouldn’t be considered so “new” after all.
December 13, 2024
This 2018 analysis of vital Christian social ethics topics such as Church versus State conflicts was meant to be timely during the culture-wars and face-offs between the Trump-Pence administration and Christian advocates and influencers. Some had been using the "Bonhoeffer Moment" meme to describe what they planned to invoke during social protest / confrontations about the place of same-sex marriage and family rights during the late 2010s. Just as Dietrich Bonhoeffer offered specific and varying stages of resistance to the NAZI regime and genocidal arms of mass warehousing and death/extermination camps, some points need to be made as far as 21st century application of that kind of faith/theological resistance. Is it putting a "spoke through the wheel" or is it "grabbing the wheel"? Is Bonhoeffer's exegesis and systematic theology understandable outside of a European context? a Lutheran heritage set of terms and creedal formulations? These questions and more background for the DBWE (Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works in English corpus) and its applications during the past and upcoming Trump administrations in the U.S. Government and Civic Life are in dire need. This book gives some timely observations and a well-organized bibliographical appendix to those seeking to choose life over death. 5 *s out of 5.
June 24, 2025
This is really quite a book. My score of three reflects on me more than the book. I learned more about Lutheran theology than I ever could imagine! I read it as part of a Bonhoeffer study group in which I believe I am one of only a couple of non-Lutherans. This limited my understanding of it. Still I was able to understand at least a bit of it. I look forward to our discussion.
April 20, 2021
This is a very helpful presentation of the theology underlying Dietrich Bonhoeffer's writing and actions in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. Michael DeJonge does an excellent job of connecting Bonhoeffer's writing to the underlying Lutheran theological constructs which he operates within.
July 22, 2021
A persuasive reading of Bonhoeffer that emphasizes his theologically-Lutheran outlook
December 26, 2023
Difficult to follow and a little too academic in nature, although I think it succeeds in showing that Bonhoeffer’s views were more nuanced and complex than how others might portray them today.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews