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

EBERHARD BETHGE: INTERPRETER EXTRAORDINAIRE OF DIETRICH BONHOEFFER

JOHN W. de GRUCHY
Eberhard Bethge was undoubtedly Dietrich Bonhoeffers special friend as Bonhoeffer himself called him.1 He was also the person Bonhoeffer appointed as the executor of his literary estate, a task that Bethge undertook with immense energy and commitment over more than forty years after 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 his legacy, an interpreter extraordinaire. In this essay I will explore this role, already evident during Bonhoeffers life, and developed in a remarkable way after his death. Questions abound. Why was it that of all Bonhoeffers other friends (Franz Hildebrandt, for example) and his many students, Bethge became the internationally recognised chief interpreter? How did Bethge understand this role in terms of his commitment to Bonhoeffer as friend and literary executor? In what ways did Bethge undertake his task? How much was he inuenced by post-war debates and issues in which he himself became involved? To what extent is the Bonhoeffer we know the Bonhoeffer we have received through Bethges experience and reection? How did Bethges interpretation change over the years? In what ways has Bethge become the paradigmatic interpreter of Bonhoeffer, inuencing the way in which others have interpreted him? And, does our knowledge of Bethge as interpreter of Bonhoeffer shed light on the task of theological interpretation as such?

John W. de Gruchy Dept. of Religious Studies, University of Cope Town, Rondebosch, 7700 South Africa
2007 The Author Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

350 John W. de Gruchy Preparation for the Task Well before he rst met Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Eberhard Bethge, had embarked 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 fathers footsteps at an early age and regarded himself as primarily a pastor to the end of his life.2 But he was not a particularly conscientious student, and had no ambitions to become a professor of theology. Nonetheless, in pursuit of his calling between 19291933 he studied at the universities of Knigsberg, Berlin, Vienna, and Tbingen, and at Wittenberg seminary from where Martin Luther had launched the Protestant Reformation. It was there that Bethge took his rst examinations as a theological candidate for the Magdeburg consistory of the Evangelical church of Saxony. But there, too, he took a fateful step that brought him under Bonhoeffers inuence. After a brief involvement in the Young Reformation Movement, Bethge and several of his fellow students joined the Confessing Church following the Barmen Synod. Having informed the secretary of the Reich bishop of their actions, they were immediately expelled from the seminary, forfeiting their second theological examination necessary for ordination. Nevertheless, in October 1934, Bethge started his ministry as vicar in the confessing congregation at Lagendorf (Altmark), and the following April the Council of Brethren of the Confessing Church in Sachsen-Anhalt sent him to complete his training at the recently established Confessing Seminary at Finkenwalde directed by the youthful yet aristocratic theologian Bonhoeffer, just four years Bethges senior.

Formation at Finkenwalde Unlike those ordinands who knew Bonhoeffer from their student days in Berlin, Bethge and his companions had never heard of him.3 In company and comparison with them Bethge felt his country boy status acutely, and was initially treated by some of the insiders with condescension. But by virtue of his genial yet solid personality, the stand he had already taken in identifying with the Confessing Church at considerable cost along with his innate theological acumen, he soon stood out as one of the real theologians at the seminary according to his cousin and fellow ordinand Gerhard Vibrans.4 Undoubtedly this in itself brought Bethge and Bonhoeffer together, but their relationship was also nurtured on other levels, not least a mutual love of music, Dietrich playing the piano to accompany Eberhards singing. Bethge attended the majority of Bonhoeffers lectures and homilies during the ve sessions he was a student at Finkenwalde, absorbing all that his friend could offer. Bonhoeffer soon recognised Bethges gifts and encouraged him to develop them in new directions that combined exegeti 2007 The Author Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Eberhard Bethge 351 cal, systematic and historical insight with pastoral commitment and political awareness. He began to engage critically with the Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms, and, with Bonhoeffer, became critical of the inability of the Confessing Church to resist Nazism and speak out on behalf of the Jews. As one of the few to remain with the House of Brethren at Finkenwalde throughout its existence, Bethge was put in charge of the seminarys nancial accounts, given responsibility for tutorials, homilies and lectures, and acting on behalf of Bonhoeffer during his frequent absences.5 He was especially regarded as the resident expert in liturgy, church music, and the interpretation of hymns.6 The later interpreter of Bonhoeffer was already within his rst year at Finkenwalde becoming well practiced in that art, mentored by Bonhoeffer himself. The relationship was by no means one-way. Bonhoeffer quickly sensed that Bethge had much to offer him. Bethges steady personality stood in contrast to his own moodiness. The situation was particularly bad for Bonhoeffer in early 1936. There were days, Bethge writes, when Bonhoeffer was overcome by what he later called his accidie, tristia, with all its menacing consequences. 7 Only Bethge, who became Bonhoeffers confessor in the House of Brethren, knew about these bouts of depression. They were not occasioned by feelings of deprivation or desire, but beset Bonhoeffer precisely when he realized how strongly others believed in the success of his path and placed great faith in his leadership. This led his intellect, as Bethge observed, to gain an evil ascendancy over faith. Then, in private confession, he would seek and nd a renewed innocence and sense of vocation.8 Some years later, when in prison, Bonhoeffer would acknowledge that he had sometimes made life hard for Bethge,9 referring specically to his tyrannical nature that, he says, Bethge knew so well!10 The correspondence and frequent telephone calls between Bethge and Bonhoeffer, the one in Sakrow the other in Berlin, at the time of the Olympic Games in 1936, well illustrates the intimate relationship that had developed between the two friends, and the extent to which Bonhoeffer relied on Bethge and sought his advice on important matters.11 The two friends now spent their holidays together, and Bethge began to visit the Bonhoeffer family home in Berlin. In entering this circle, the provincial boy discovered an aristocratic cultural and intellectual life, and became privy to discussions about the growing resistance. He was present, for example, when Bonhoeffer and Hans von Dohnanyi rst discussed participation in the resistance. In March 1939, he was with Bonhoeffer in London, meeting Bishop George Bell of Chichester and other key people in politics and the ecumenical movement. He also assumed Bonhoeffers mantle during his frequent periods of absence, as in 1939 when he briey went into exile in New York. Bethge was not only responsible for the collective pastorates and related concerns, but also in dealing with the leadership of the Confessing Church and Bonhoeffers
2007 The Author Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

352 John W. de Gruchy own personal affairs.12 But over and above this, the two friends continually discussed theological and church concerns. Bethge undoubtedly provided a sounding board for Bonhoeffer during the four weeks when, in the Leibholz home in Gttingen, he wrote Life Together. These are but some examples of Bethges growing insider knowledge of the man he would later interpret to the world. The closing of the illegal seminary at Sigurdshof, the successor to Finkenwalde, by the Gestapo in March 1940 brought to an end the rst ve years of Bethges relationship with Bonhoeffer. A pattern had now been established that would continue, develop and deepen over the next ve fateful years. Each had already contributed to the relationship out of their variant personalities, backgrounds and skills. But in the mix something remarkable had emerged that linked them together in a way that was to endure even beyond Bonhoeffers early death. There were only ve more years ahead of them when they left the collective pastorates, but these would determine Bethges life in ways that he could not have anticipated, ensuring that he alone of all Bonhoeffers later interpreters would be the best prepared for that task. Sounding Board, Condant and Clarier Bethge had little sense of what the conspiracy might eventually mean for Bonhoeffer or himself.13 That awareness grew over the ensuing months as they discussed events together, and as Bethge entered ever deeper into the family circle and that of the conspirators. Even though he often described himself later as a marginal gure in the whole thing,14 he was in fact a participant-witness. He also soon discovered that much of what he had learned from Bonhoeffer at Finkenwalde about confessing the faith and standing rmly and openly for the truth had to be re-thought as they moved more deeply into the shadowy underworld of conspiracy. At this time Bonhoeffer was already an undercover agent of the resistance working for the Abwehr. But the constant threat of conscription confronted Bethge with the same dilemmas Bonhoeffer had faced, prompting the Confessing Church leaders to appoint him as an inspector of missions for the Gossner Mission Society in Berlin. Most of his time and energy there was spent in enabling confessing congregations to continue their ministry, using the insights and lessons learnt from his experience at Finkenwalde, and caring for the scattered community of pastors who had trained at the seminary. The two major themes of his teaching and preaching were the need to confess Christ concretely within the life of the church and costly discipleship as the presupposition of mission whether at home or abroad.15 Both themes he had learnt from Bonhoeffer, but he was now taking initiatives and developing insights that were characteristically his own.
2007 The Author Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Eberhard Bethge 353 Throughout this period, the two friends made every effort to keep in touch, meeting when they could, but writing to each other regularly when they were separated. Although theological, political, and church matters were of paramount importance, much of the Bethge-Bonhoeffer correspondence focussed on more mundane and intimate matters so important for their friendship. They discussed books they were reading or music they enjoyed. And in a letter in January 1941 Bonhoeffer expressed his delight that Bethge could write such intelligent and helpful letters in the midst of human difficulties, adding that it hardly surprised him given the fact that Bethge had such special talents. That which you have to say in these sorts 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 condant for Bonhoeffers ideas.17 But he also helped to clarify Bonhoeffers thought. In the rst letter Bonhoeffer wrote to him from prison, he told Bethge: I wish I could talk it over with you everyday, indeed, I miss that now more than you think. I may often have originated ideas, but the clarication of them was completely on your side.18 The more famous letters written later to Bethge from prison were part of an ongoing conversation about theological issues that had been in process for some time in which Bethge played a role that anticipated his post-War vocation. Years later Albrecht Schnherr wrote of Bethges remarkable ability to generate catalysing thoughts in Bonhoeffer.19 During the rst few months of Bonhoeffers imprisonment, Bethge, having been conscripted in July 1943, was in the military training camp in Lissa, Poland. Nonetheless he was able to visit Bonhoeffer in prison on 26 November 1943, together with Bonhoeffers parents and his ance Maria, the four people, Bonhoeffer wrote, who are nearest and dearest to me.20 Bonhoeffer was delighted that their separation had not in any way affected their relationship. Thats the advantage, he wrote after the visit, of having spent almost every day and having experienced almost every event and discussed every thought together for eight years.21 A few weeks later, on Christmas Day 1943, he wrote: I had become so used to talking everything over with you that the sudden and prolonged interruption meant 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 of questions and clear them up. This ability to keep on the same wavelength, to play to each other, took years to cultivate, not always without friction, and we must never lose it.23 But perhaps the chief reason why he wrote at such length and so frequently, so he told Bethge, was because no one knows how much longer things
2007 The Author Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

354 John W. de Gruchy are likely to last. And since one day you will be called to write my biography!24 In January 1944 Bethge was sent to the Italian front, an experience that undoubtedly inuenced his reception of Bonhoeffers letters and his own response to them. But even though he had been privy to the development of Bonhoeffers post-Finkenwalde thinking, the theological reections on Christianity in a world come of age that began with the letter of 30 April 1944 came as something of a surprise. He was especially excited by what he read because his own thought was moving along a parallel track. But he was never quite sure of what was to come in the next letter. So digesting each 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 and thinking is now really concentrated on personal experience, and that excitement over church affairs, love for its cause, has been caught up in a degree of stagnation? My conscious missionary impulse, which in earlier years was there perhaps more or less navely, has given way to the attempt to understand things, people and circumstances and to grasp them in a human way.25 After receiving Bonhoeffers groundbreaking letter, he immediately responded: I got your letter of 30 April today. It came very quickly. I am delighted about the things which, I must say, excite me very much. Some of it is echoed in the questions I have written above, though put more navely and primitively.26 During Bethges visit to Bonhoeffer in Tegel prison at the time of his sons baptism, the two friends found time to discuss some of Bonhoeffers new theological ideas. These questions and observations, Bethge wrote to tell him on his return to Italy, struck him afterwards in an electrifying way . . .27 Their discussion also led Bonhoeffer to write: Ive again seen from our conversation recently that no one can interpret my thoughts better than you can. That is always a great satisfaction to me.28 But now Bethge began to feel that he could not keep Bonhoeffers new ideas to himself. So he asked for permission to share them with some of their former Finkenwaldian colleagues.29 To this request Bonhoeffer soon replied that he had no objection, though he himself would not do it because youre the only person 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 specically theological letters just in case he might want to read them again later. With this in mind, Bethge made excerpts when he received them. In the last letter from prison that survived the war, Bonhoeffer refers to these selections from his very provisional thoughts, commenting:
2007 The Author Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Eberhard Bethge 355 You can imagine how pleased I am that youre bothering about them. How indispensable I would now nd a matter-of-fact talk to clarify this whole 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 printed yet, and it will have to go through the purier later on.32 Who else, but Bethge, could full such a role! Bethge destroyed all of Bonhoeffers September 1944 letters for security reasons. The last thing he received and kept was Bonhoeffers Outline for a Book, which provided the framework Bethge used when he later interpreted Bonhoeffers prison theology.33 Bethge, in turn, wrote his last letter to his friend on 30 September 1944 in which he said: I nd your thoughts about the future bold and perhaps even comforting.34 So the second ve years of the relationship began to reach its fateful climax. Marked by periods of enforced separation relieved by almost daily contact through correspondence and phone calls when possible, the two friends had shared anxieties and joys even while they explored theological issues on the boundaries. While some of Bonhoeffers other colleagues and students had a good grasp of his theology prior to this period, no one other than Bethge shared his personal life at such a deep level, or was party to his thoughts as they developed in the underworld of the resistance, and found expression in his essays on ethics and his correspondence from prison.

I. Custodian and Interpreter Bethges post-war role as custodian of Bonhoeffer legacy may be considered in 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 the growing importance of the legacy not only in Germany but also in the Anglo-Saxon world. Bethges ability to straddle these cultural and theological divides profoundly inuenced the way in which he would engage in Bonhoeffer interpretation, and how Bonhoeffers legacy would be received. He was not only well prepared for his task, but also strategically placed to take it forward with maximum effect. On the one hand, living in Germany meant that Bethge was close to the sources and the resources that made his work possible. It also meant that he was well placed to interpret Bonhoeffers legacy in discussions about the reconstruction of the church, the Holocaust and Jewish-Christian relations. On the other hand, much of the creative stimulation in Bonhoeffer interpretation came from circles beyond Germany, and his legacy had increasing ecumenical signicance both in understanding Christian faith and in the
2007 The Author Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

356 John W. de Gruchy global struggle for justice and peace. Living in these two worlds did not detract from Bethges task, but made it possible in ways that would not have otherwise been so. The First Wave of Interpretation Bethges rst major step as custodian and interpreter of Bonhoeffers legacy came with his publication of the Ethik in 1949. For Bethge this was a priority as he, with Bonhoeffer, regarded the work as his most important. The fact that scant attention was given to this rst edition was, to say the least, disappointing for him. But that did not deter him from proceeding with the next volume of Bonhoeffers writings, namely Widerstand und Ergebung, in 1951, which included a poem he had published as early as 1946.35 While collecting and editing the prison letters was his primary concern, Bethges choice of which letters to publish and how to introduce them was, of course, a signicant step in the task of interpretation. The result was, some might say, as earth shattering as the publication of Barths commentary on Romans twenty years previously. Bethge, it must be recalled, began what became his life-long task at a time when theology was in a state of considerable post-war ferment in both Germany and the United States. Many of the new generation of theologians had moved beyond Barth and were engaged with Rudolf Bultmanns programme of demythologisation, Paul Tillichs reinterpretation of Christian 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 seminal theologians despite considerable opposition or caution on the part of those for whom Barth, Emil Brunner, and Bultmann remained pre-eminent. Bonhoeffer, it must be remembered, had hitherto been a largely unknown, youthful gure during the Kirchenkampf, he was a controversial gure in the post-war German churches because of his role in the political resistance, and he had left no comprehensive systematic theology. These factors led more established German theologians to discount the radical elements in his prison writings, and ignore much of his earlier theology. Yet former Bonhoeffer students and colleagues who had survived the war, but who only knew his theology from earlier times, were keen to nd out more about the Bonhoeffer they did not know. In August 1954, largely through the efforts of Bethge, former Finkenwaldians gathered together at Bethel to discuss Bonhoeffers new theology. The papers from that occasion were published soon after as Die Mndige Welt the rst volume in what became a series under the same title.36 The Bethel conference was followed a year later by a second conference at Weissensee in East Berlin.37 But by now the issues were of wider theological interest extending beyond the Bonhoeffer circle of former students and friends.
2007 The Author Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Eberhard Bethge 357 Bethge was the major, and in some respects, the only resource for these discussions. He did not, however, produce the rst comprehensive interpretation of Bonhoeffers theology. These came from the American scholar John Godsey and the German Hanfried Mller38 whose pioneering studies helped set the parameters for the debate about Bonhoeffer interpretation at the end of what Bethge described as the rst wave of interest in Bonhoeffer.39 They also contributed to the way in which Bethge constructed his own approach. In response to Mller, Bethge argued that he had failed to do justice to the continuity between Bonhoeffers earlier theology and that of the prison letters, and in response to Godsey, with whom he had greater affinity, Bethge stressed more the discontinuities.40 Another interpreter who helped shaped Bethges own approach was that of his Scottish friend, Ronald Gregor Smith, who saw connections between Bonhoeffer and Bultmann rather than Barth, but who also recognized the importance of Bonhoeffers earlier theology, insisting that the revolution in his thought had to be seen in relation to his earlier life and writings.41 Smith was so determined to see Bonhoeffers dissertation Sanctorum Communio published in English that he translated it himself. As it turned out, this was a very signicant event in the second phase of Bonhoeffer interpretation. For it was becoming evident, through Bethges work and that of others,42 that Bonhoeffers later theology could only be understood as a development that, for all its radical newness, already had its foundations in Sanctorum Communio and his Habilitation Act and Being. There was a further, critical issue in interpreting Bonhoeffer that emerged during the rst wave, namely the relationship between his theology and his historical context. Bethge recognized the danger of linking these in such a way that Bonhoeffers life and martyrdom were misused in giving uncritical approval to his theology. He had no truck with attempts at creating a Bonhoeffer cultus, and he had great respect for theologians, such as the Roman Catholic scholar Ernst Feil, who treated Bonhoeffers theology strictly on its intrinsic merits.43 Nonetheless, for Bethge it was impossible to interpret Bonhoeffers theology without constant reference to his life and context. So Bethge set about developing a coherent overview of Bonhoeffers life and theology, partly to clarify the issues and partly in preparation for the biography he knew he would have to write. Developing a Coherent Framework By the late nineteen-fties, Bethges reputation as the close condant of Bonhoeffer, the editor of his writings, and the key interpreter of his life and theology, was established. But as the minister of a London parish there was little time for him to pursue the tasks he had set himself. Fortunately through the intervention of Paul Lehmann, then teaching at Harvard University, Bethge was invited to be a visiting professor at Harvard in
2007 The Author Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

358 John W. de Gruchy 19571958.44 There, he gave a lecture to the theological faculty on the editing and publishing of Bonhoeffers papers in which he set out what had been accomplished thus far, and what he was now planning to do.45 Bethge was convinced that Bonhoeffers theology could not be properly understood if only some of his writings were available, or if he was studied in a piecemeal way. Hence his commitment not only to edit and publish or republish all of Bonhoeffers books, especially those previously neglected, but also to gather together, edit and publish everything that could be recoveredsermons, lectures, exegetical studies, seminar presentations, notes, conference papers, as well as letters both from and to Bonhoeffer. His overall aim was vefold: to make a contribution to the history of the German church, to the ecumenical movement, to the history of National Socialism, to the question of opposition to tyranny, and to theology.46 This led eventually to the publication of Bonhoeffers collected writings (Gesammelte Schriften), the forerunner of the Dietrich Bonhoeffer Werke.47 At the same time he was gathering material for the monumental biography that would eventually be based on this archival recovery. The Bethges revisited the United States in January 1961 when Eberhard gave the Alden-Tuthill Lectures at Chicago Theological Seminary. This provided an opportunity to develop his interpretation of Bonhoeffers life and theology in a more structured and coherent way. Anyone familiar with these lectures, entitled The Challenge of Dietrich Bonhoeffers Life and Theology, knows that they provide the framework within which Bethge interpreted Bonhoeffer. Although systematic in character, Bethge did not try to force Bonhoeffers thought into a system of his own devising. However much of Bonhoeffers theology was founded on key insights that informed his thought throughout its development, the challenge of Bonhoeffers theology lay in its provisional character and his ongoing attempt to reect on the probing question Who is Jesus Christ, for us, today? Christ was at the centre of Bonhoeffers theology, but the way in which he dealt with his Christological question changed in shape and intensity as his life unfolded. In the process it became ever more concrete, ever more related to the reality of God and the world, ever more costly, and led inexorably towards its nale in the prison writings and martyrdom. Bonhoeffers condence in Bethge as the one who was most gifted to interpret and clarify his thoughts,48 was fully justied by the Chicago lectures, which, from now on were frequently used and quoted by those intent on understanding Bonhoeffers theology in relation to his life and historical context. But the lectures also demonstrated Bethges consummate skill in giving structure and form to Bonhoeffers theology; in showing its relationship to contemporary debates; in discerning the most appropriate phrase or word in Bonhoeffers varied writings to highlight key moments in his theological development; and in weaving together a complex life story and an intellectual journey in a narrative that is both compelling and
2007 The Author Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Eberhard Bethge 359 convincing. Yet developments were on the horizon that would wrench that legacy out of the domain of theologians, pastors and seminarians, and thrust it into a larger public domain. These would make Bethges contribution even more necessary and signicant for understanding Bonhoeffer. In the Public Domain The publication of John Robinsons Honest to God in 1963, was a major media event.49 Suddenly what Bultmann, Tillich, and Bonhoeffer had said about God in a secular world had become newsworthy, not least because an Anglican bishop had attempted to popularise much of what they were about. The ensuing honest to God debate showed that Robinson had not only touched a raw nerve within the church establishment, but also that he had gained the attention of many on the periphery of the church. Some theological reviewers even regarded his book as a means of evangelism in a new key. Robinson agreed with this viewwas this not precisely what Bonhoeffer was hoping to achieve through his prison theology?50 Whether Robinson achieved what he had hoped or not, the name Bonhoeffer had become a household word. Whereas previously he had been known amongst some clergy and informed lay people through the publication of the 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 acknowledging that his book had unleashed a new search for the specic nature of Bonhoeffers contribution beyond the continental borders of Europe, in the English-speaking world, and beyond denominational barriers as well, among Roman Catholics.52 He also appreciated the fact that Robinson himself had made it clear that he had not attempted to give a balanced picture of Bonhoeffers theology as a whole, and that he had referred readers to the Alden-Tuthill lectures for such an introduction to Bonhoeffers theology.53 Yet, for Bethge, Robinsons interpretation remained unbalanced, and showed the extent to which the German and Anglo-Saxon reception of the prison letters differed so markedly. But what bothered Bethge far more than Robinsons eclectic treatment of Bonhoeffer, or the disjunction between German and Anglo-Saxon interpretations of the prison theology and its implications, was the creative misuse that was being made of Bonhoeffer in the wake of the honest to God debate by some North American secular and death of God theologians.54 While he was never one to disparage the interpretations of others, and was always open to learning from them, Bethge now saw that his role in interpreting Bonhoeffers legacy was even more important than he had previously recognised. As a German who had already spent some of the crucial early post-war period abroad, Bethge was far more sensitive than most of his colleagues
2007 The Author Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

360 John W. de Gruchy back in Germanyincluding former students of Bonhoefferto the critical questions people were raising about the Nazi era and the response of the churches, especially to the Holocaust. In the decades that followed, Bethge would receive hundreds of letters from younger colleagues and students seeking answers to the larger questions about resistance and complicity. Not only did he answer many of them at length, but his papers also show how he wove their concerns into new essays and reviews. And how these, in turn, at least in the nineteen-sixties, became embodied in the biography in which he so masterfully integrated the development of Bonhoeffers theology in the unfolding of Bonhoeffers life in a way that spoke to both the 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 interpretations of others. Given the controversies about the resistance in Germany, the different factions in the German church, and the diversity of early interpretations of Bonhoeffers work both within Germany and the Anglo-Saxon world, this was imperative. Thus a major section of the biography focused upon Bonhoeffers theological training, down to the details of the seminars and lectures he attended and the papers he had written. And such detailed attention to the development of his thought at each stage of his life in its various historical moments continued throughout the volume. Although he was in possession of his friends papers and certainly knew the family history, Bethge began several years of intensive correspondence with Bishop Bell, Visser t Hooft, and others to close the gaps in his own knowledge and clarify the open questions. In his careful methodical fashion, he was also checking stories. A number of early memoirs had already appeared, including books by Otto Dibelius, Bishop Wrm of Wrttemberg, Bonhoeffers fellow conspirator Josef Mller, and Hans Bernd Gisevius account of his role in the resistance. But, of course, as the custodian of Bonhoeffers papers, his friend and condant, Bethge was better placed than any other to undertake this task even if his closeness to his subject precluded a degree of critical distance. But the biography certainly, even if inadvertently, placed Bonhoeffer in the foreground of the German church struggle and the resistance in a way that he had not been during the actual history. Thus, although Bethge later decried the Bonhoeffer mythology that developed in some circles, the sheer scope of the biography placed Bonhoeffer in the centre of his times. Yet, by todays standards, the biography is remarkably reticent. There are few truly personal glimpses of Bonhoeffer the man. These would emerge only much later with the complete publication of his letters and other writings, and most particularly with the publication of his correspondence with Maria von Wedemeyer.56 As custodian and interpreter of Bonhoeffers legacy, Bethge recognised that his task could not be conned to archival retrieval or theological
2007 The Author Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Eberhard Bethge 361 interpretation. To be true to the legacy also meant, as Bonhoeffer would have expected, engaging in the ongoing church and political struggles that followed 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 not simply in terms of what he did say and do, but in terms of what faithfulness to 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 his innate ability to see things differently, enabled him to gain fresh perspectives on Bonhoeffers legacy. At the Second International Bonhoeffer Congress in 1976 in Geneva, Bethge referred to the wholly different contextual interests in the study of Bonhoeffer that brought the participants from around the world together, interests that were not only varied in terms of context but also in terms of discipline: systematic-theological, ethicalpolitical, sociological-psychological, biographical and historical.57 These different interests, he went on to say, will dene our questions . . . giving different shape to our critique and our tentative answers.58 His visit to South Africa in 1973, and the way in which this inuenced his interpretation of Bonhoeffers legacy, provides a good example of the way in which he went about interpreting Bonhoeffer in a context different to his own. It was one that brought back to mind the many discussions and debates that he had had with Bonhoeffer around the themes of confession, resistance, military conscription, and solidarity with the victims of totalitarian power. The plight of black South Africans under apartheid was a salutary reminder of the plight of the Jews in the Third Reich. Indeed, the debate at that time in Germany on the Holocaust, on the one hand, and the controversial World Council of Churches Programme to Combat Racism on the other, were, for Bethge, related to each other and demanded his attention. Bethge could easily have decided that his ongoing responsibility as editor and archivist of Bonhoeffers legacy demanded his full attention and therefore that he should refrain from becoming involved. Yet he could do no other both out of his personal pastoral concern and on the basis of his understanding of what faithfulness to Bonhoeffers legacy and its interpretation 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 growing ecumenical opposition to apartheid especially after the Sharpeville Massacre in 1960, and the Cottesloe Consultation the following year convened by member churches of the World Council of Churches in South Africa to address the issues. Thus, he readily accepted the invitation to visit the
2007 The Author Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

362 John W. de Gruchy country in 1973 and see things for himself.59 From the outset of his visit he was made acutely aware of both the plight of black people and of the church struggle against apartheid. Staying not far from the headquarters of the anti-apartheid South African Council of Churches and the Christian Institute, he was introduced to the heated debates on the Programme to Combat Racism that were then, as in Germany, dividing the churches, and of the discussion about the need for a confessing church in South Africa that would directly address the political situation. In his lectures given around the country, later to be published as Bonhoeffer: Exile & Martyr, Bethge avoided speaking directly to the South African situation, or overtly trying to make Bonhoeffer relevant. But his audiences immediately sensed a correspondence between Bonhoeffers theology and witness within the Kirchenkampf and their own experience. Though anticipating that this might be the case, Bethge himself was in turn surprised at the extent to which it was so.60 But he was ambivalent about whether or not the Confessing Church model in Nazi Germany was appropriate for the South African context. The German experience certainly resonated with the thinking of those engaged in the church struggle against apartheid, but there were too many variables to equate it with the German context. Nevertheless, Bethge sensed that Bonhoeffer provided a bridge between confession and resistance, between confessing theology as expressed in The Message to the People of South Africa in 1968, and later, in 1982, the Belhar Confession, and black theology and the 1986 Kairos Document, both expressions of liberation theology.61 When Bethge came to South Africa the question was what could South Africans learn from the German Kirchenkampf and from the legacy of Bonhoeffer? But over the years the question had become for him, what could and should Germans learn from the church struggle in South Africa, from the testimony of black theologians, the Belhar Confession, and the Kairos 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 regarding thinking of the theology of the church struggle as only an interlude.62 His South African experience had conrmed his conviction to the contrary and provided grist for the mill in his interpreting Bonhoeffer against prevailing opinion in much of the German church. In addressing the South African situation, Bethge reminded his audiences that Bonhoeffers legacy was to remember rightly the past in which he struggled to witness to the true meaning of Jesus Christ. In addressing the German situation back home he constantly spoke of the need to connect confession and resistance, and to recognise the prophetic voice that came from those who spoke from below, from the perspective of oppression and suffering. Nowhere was this more important than in Germany itself as it tried to come to terms with its own past and especially the Holocaust.
2007 The Author Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Eberhard Bethge 363 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 German church to deal with its past failure and guilt and to engage with Jews in a dialogue that would begin to heal the wounds. There was also the need to overcome a theological legacy that had both encouraged anti-Judaism and prevented engagement in political resistance. This led him to embark on an intensive study of the issues and a campaign to get his own church of the Rhineland to reconsider its attitude towards Jews and Judaism. It also led him into conversation with many Jews and Holocaust survivors, and to participation in seminars and conferences on the Holocaust and JewishChristian relations. Nothing challenged him more in retrieving Bonhoeffers legacy and in thinking about his own faith in Christ and his membership of the church. In entering this emotionally charged and controversial arena, Bethge not only recognised the need to honestly reconsider what Bonhoeffer had said and done with regard to the Jews, but also moved beyond him into unfamiliar territory, tackling head-on the question whether Bonhoeffer had failed to confront the issues directly. Bethge came into conversation not only with Christians working on the Holocaust, but also with Jewish scholars who forced him to reread German church historyand Bonhoeffers own writingsmore critically.63 It was a painful process, and one that brought him into conict with his church. But as a result of his tireless work, his church in the Rhineland approved a statement in 1980 on the relationship of Christians and Jews. While not entirely satisfactory from Bethges perspective, it signalled the fact that Bethge had now come into his own as a theologian. Although he continued to refer to Bonhoeffers writings and wrestle with their post-Holocaust implications, Bethge went beyond him on the basis of his own experience, his historical study and theological reection. This required a new way of living as a Christian and a German in ongoing dialogue with the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Only in this way was it possible to begin to remember rightly. But it also required rethinking classical Christology, a subject that was particularly perplexing and difficult for Bethge, but which eventually led him beyond Bonhoeffer, but always on the basis of what he had learnt from Bonhoeffer. What did it mean to confess Christ here and now, and to do so in a way that corresponded to reality? Whether this had to do with confessing Christ in a secular world, against apartheid, against militarism in Asia, or in dialogue with Jews in the light of the Shoah, Bethge repeatedly wrestled with the existential question: Who is Christ for me? In a postscript to Am gegeben Ort, in one of the few places where Bethge ever wrote of his own personal commitment, he addressed the question. Jesus of Nazareth, he confessed, remained the basis, the measure, and the goal of his life.64
2007 The Author Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

364 John W. de Gruchy In sum: Bethges ability as a theologian faithful to Bonhoeffer yet going beyond him can be judged from his many lectures published in four volumes 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 own right. As Christian Gremmels would later say at his funeral: His voice was loud and clear in the theological debates of these past decadesagainst racism, against apartheid, against forgetting; the unwritten seventh thesis of the Barmen Declaration; the Rhineland Synod Resolution on Renewal of Christian-Jewish Relations; theology after the Holocaust. Whenever future generations 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 publicly known 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? Can we unravel the strands that have been woven by their respective lives? Would Bonhoeffer, a young pastor, relatively unknown except within his circle of friends, colleagues and the emerging ecumenical movement, have become so well known around the world if it were not for Bethges labour of friendship? And would Bonhoeffers theology have been received and interpreted in the way that it has been if Bethge had not provided the direction that he did? Bethge would have been the rst to say that Bonhoeffers witness to Christ and the truth was not dependent upon him or anyone else. The integrity of Bonhoeffers testimony as one of the twentieth-century Christian martyrs stands rm irrespective of the representation of his friend.68 Moreover, Bethge never understood his role as an innovator. He was ever and always the faithful custodian and interpreter of Bonhoeffers legacy even when he went beyond him. He sought above all else to pass on Bonhoeffers legacy to future generations in a way that would have its own integrity and so allow Bonhoeffer to continue to speak to them. Bethge did not create the legacy; he interpreted it. Yet, in doing so he inevitably left his own distinct impression upon it. Can an interpreter do otherwise without reducing 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 dissertations, papers, and books written about his theology. Not all of these have agreed with Bethges interpretation, though virtually all have acknowledged their indebtedness to him. While he did not approve of all, he did not believe Bonhoeffers thought should be placed in a straightjacket. But Bethge towered above all others in his retrieving the legacy and shaping the way in which it has been received. No one better knew the mind of
2007 The Author Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Eberhard Bethge 365 Bonhoeffer, in none other had Bonhoeffer placed his condence to the same degree, recognising Bethges skills as pre-eminently suited to the task. Even before Bonhoeffers death, Bethge made an important contribution to the development of Bonhoeffers thought, and he probably would have continued to do so if Bonhoeffer had lived. But the fact is, Bonhoeffer did not survive the war and, as Schnherr said on the occasion of Bethges ninetieth birthday, those teaching theology would know little about Bonhoeffer if it were not for Bethges lifes work.69 Coming from Schnherr, who knew Bonhoeffer before Bethge, and who did so much to further his legacy, these words carry considerable weight. As much as he was a protg of Bonhoeffers, Bethge was himself a remarkable person, pastor and theologian. Devoted as he was to Bonhoeffer, he was never slavishly so; deeply inuenced by Bonhoeffers theology, he was never uncritical where criticism was warranted. This had been the case during the years of their friendship; it remained the case during the years in which he fullled his commitment to Bonhoeffers memory. But his personality was also different, more ebullient, more outgoing, more embracing, and therefore inevitably inuencing and shaping the way in which 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 reection on Bonhoeffers friendship and legacyand on life more generally. At age sixty-seven, as he told his audience in Geneva in 1976, 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 could imagine. But he certainly would understand us if we honestly struggled 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 of twentieth-century Protestant theology, Barth, Bultmann, Tillich, it is striking how Bonhoeffers legacy has endured and even waxed stronger whilst that of some others has waned. One reason for this is undoubtedly Bonhoeffers stature as a theologian and the witness of his life; but another is undoubtedly the result of Bethges remarkable, tireless and devoted labour on behalf of his friend, and especially his extraordinary role as Bonhoeffers condant during the last ten years of his life, and interpreter of his legacy for virtually the rest of the twentieth century.
NOTES 1 For a comprehensive study of the relationship between Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Eberhard Bethge, see John W. de Gruchy, Daring, Trusting Spirit: Bonhoeffers Friend Eberhard Bethge (London: SCM Press, 2005).

2007 The Author Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

366 John W. de Gruchy

2 3 4 Eberhard Bethge, Friendship and Resistance: Essays on Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1995), p. 1. Bethge, Friendship and Resistance, p. 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 by Gerhard Andersen, Dorothea Andersen, Eberhard Bethge and Elfriede Vibrans (Gtersloh: Chr. Kaiser/Gtersloher, 1995), p. 178. Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000), pp. 467468. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Illegale Theologen-Ausbildung Finkenwalde 19351937, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Werke, vol. 14 (Gtersloh: Chr. Kaiser/Gtersloher Verlagshaus, 1996), p. 209, ftn. 16. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison (London: SCM Press, 1971), pp. 437, 129; see Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, p. 833. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, p. 506. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 129. Letter to Bethge 28.11.43. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 148. Bonhoeffer, Illegale Theologen-Ausbildung Finkenwalde 19351937, pp. 188222. See the letters of Bethge to Bonhoeffer of 12.6.39 and 23.6.39. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Illegale Theologenausbildung: Sammelvikariate 19371940, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Werke, vol. 15 (Mnchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1998), pp. 183185, 195198. Eberhard Bethge interviewed by Keith Clements, Villiprott, Germany, 1985: Tape recording (no. 2) in the possession of the author. Keith W. Clements, What Freedom? The Persistent Challenge of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Bristol, UK: Bristol Baptist College, 1990), p. 46. Eberhard Bethge, In Zitz Gab es Kein Juden: Erinnerungen Aus Meinen Ersten Vierzig Jahren (Mnchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1989), pp. 120121. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Conspiracy and Imprisonment: 19401945, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, ed. Mark S. Brocker, vol. 16 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006), p. 131. See, for example, Bonhoeffers letter from Ettal on 27.11.40, in which he discussed the relationship between the ultimate and the penultimate. Bonhoeffer, Conspiracy and Imprisonment: 19401945, p. 91. Or see Bethges letter to Bonhoeffer of 14.2.41 when he commented on Bonhoeffers thoughts on suicide. Bonhoeffer, Conspiracy and Imprisonment: 19401945, p. 152. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 130. Heinz Eduard Tdt, Eberhard Bethge Als Theologe und Zeitgeschichtsforseher, Evangelische Theologie, Vol. 49, no. 5 (1989), pp. 398399. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 144. Ibid., p. 145. Ibid., p. 160. 16 December 1943. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, pp. 177178. 1 February 1944. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 202. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 283. Ibid. 3 June 1944. Bethge to Bonhoeffer from Sakrow. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 316. Bonhoeffer to Bethge 5.6.44. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 320. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 339. 8 July 1944. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 346. 23 August 1944. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 392. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 393. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, pp. 853892. Bethge to Bonhoeffer 30 September 1944. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 398. Auf dem Wege zur Freiheit, later translated as Stations on the Road to Freedom. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, pp. 370371. Die Mdige Welt: Dem Andenken Dietrich Bonhoeffers, edited by Eberhard Bethge (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1955). A selection of these essays was included in English translation in World Come of Age: A Symposium on Dietrich Bonhoeffer, ed. Ronald Gregor Smith, (London: Collins, 1967).

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

2007 The Author Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Eberhard Bethge 367

37 38 39 40 Die Mndige Welt II, ed. Eberhard Bethge (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1955). 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). Eberhard Bethge, Bonhoeffer: Exile & Martyr, edited and translated by John W. de Gruchy, (London: Collins, 1975), p. 23. 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 between Bonhoeffer and Barth is minimized more than it is overstated. Andreas Pangritz, Karl Barth in the Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), p. 70. This is made clear in Ronald Gregor Smith, Bonhoeffer and This-Worldly Transcendence. See Keith Clements, The Theology of Ronald Gregor Smith (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986), p. 183. Notably Clifford Green, see Clifford Green, Bonhoeffer: Theology of Sociality (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999). Ernst Feil, The Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1985). Eberhard Bethge, Paul Lehmanns Initiative, Union Seminary Quarterly Review, Vol. 29, no. 34 (1974), pp. 151152. Eberhard Bethge, The Editing and Publishing of the Bonhoeffer Papers, Andover Newton Quarterly, Vol. 52, no. 2 (1959), pp. 124. Ibid., pp. 78. The Dietrich Bonhoeffer Werke in 16 volumes published by Chr. Kaiser Verlag in Munich (19861999). The Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works in English, published by Fortress Press in Minneapolis (1996-), is nearing completion. See, for example, Bonhoeffers letter of 5.6.44. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 320. The Honest to God Debate, ed. John A. T. Robinson and David L. Edwards (London: SCM Press), p. 7. Ibid., p. 274. 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. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, p. 891. John A. T. Robinson, Honest to God (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1963), p. 36, ftn. 1. Bethge, Bonhoeffer: Exile & Martyr, p. 24. Bethges monumental biography of Bonhoeffer was rst 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. Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Maria von Wedemeyer, Love Letters from Cell 92: the correspondence between Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Maria von Wedemeyer, 194345, edited by Ruth-Alice von Bismarck and Ulrich Kabitz; postscript by Eberhard Bethge; translated by John Brownjohn, (London: HarperCollins, 1994). In his opening remarks at an event to celebrate Bonhoeffers seventieth birthday held at the headquarters of the World Council of Churches. See Eberhard Bethge, Genf 76: Ein Bonhoeffer-Symposion, edited by Hans Pfeifer, (Mnchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1976), p. 17. Authors translation. Genf 76: Ein Bonhoeffer-Symposion, p. 17. Authors translation. 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. See John W. de Gruchy, Bonhoeffer in South Africa: An Exploratory Essay, in Bethge, Bonhoeffer: Exile & Martyr, pp. 2642. See John W. de Gruchy with Steve de Gruchy, The Church Struggle in South Africa: 25th Anniversary Edition (London: SCM, 2004), pp. 101222. Bethge, The Editing and Publishing of the Bonhoeffer Papers, p. 16.

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

57

58 59 60 61 62

2007 The Author Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

368 John W. de Gruchy

63 64 65 See Eberhard Bethge, The Holocaust and Christian Anti-Semitism: Perspectives of a Christian Survivor, Union Seminary Quarterly Review, Vol. 32, no. 34, (Spring-Summer, 1977), p. 148. Wer ist Jesus von Nazaret fr mich? in Eberhard Bethge, Am Gegebenen Ort: Afsatze und Reden 19701979 (Mnchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1973), p. 289. Eberhard Bethge, Ohnmacht und Mndigkeit: Beitrge Zur Zeitgeschichte und Theologie Nach Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1969); Bethge Eberhard, Am Gegebenen Ort (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1979); Eberhard Bethge, Die Erfahrungen Vom Widerspruch Zwischen <StaatstheologieKirchentheologieProphetischer Theologie> in Unserer Gegenrtigen Situation, in Christen Im Widerstand: Die Diskussion Um das Sdafrikanische KAIROS Dokument, ed. Rudolf Hinz und Frank Krschner-Pelkmann (Stuttgart: Verlag Dieste in bersee, 1987), pp. 254265; Eberhard Bethge, Erstes Gebot und Zeitgeschichte: Afsatze und Reden, 19801990 (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1991). Christian Gremmels, Eulogy for Eberhard Bethge. Delivered at the Memorial Service, March 25, 2000, published in International Bonhoeffer Society Newsletter: English Language Section, no. 73 (June, 2000), p. 10. Translated by Nancy Lukens. Introduction to Wie eine Flaschenpost: kumenische Briefe und Beitrge Fr Eberhard Bethge, ed. Heinz Eduard Tdt (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag), p. 14. 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 representative Christian martyrs of the twentieth-century. Albrecht Schnherr, Ein gutter Freund: Rede zu Eberhard Bethges 90. Berburtstag, 11 September 1999, Eisenach, published in Bonhoeffer Rundbrief, no. 60, October 1999, pp. 1112. Bethge, Genf 76: Ein Bonhoeffer-Symposion, p. 16.

66 67 68 69 70

2007 The Author Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd