Die lutherische „Zweireichelehre“ und der Widerstand im Dritten Reich: Zu D. Bonhoeffers Aufsatz „Die Kirche vor der Judenfrage“, 15. April 1933
It is a historical and theological question of high actual interest, in which sense the Kirchenkampf can or must be understood as a kind of political resistance against the Nazis. There is the example of D. Bonhoeffer and on the other side the thesis of K. Barth and his scholars since 1938: the Luth...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | German |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
1988
|
| In: |
Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte
Year: 1988, Volume: 1, Issue: 2, Pages: 215-244 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | It is a historical and theological question of high actual interest, in which sense the Kirchenkampf can or must be understood as a kind of political resistance against the Nazis. There is the example of D. Bonhoeffer and on the other side the thesis of K. Barth and his scholars since 1938: the Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms has made it impossible to the Lutheran church to go the same way and to risk the conflict, which Bonhoeffer had seen in the Jewish question, April 1933. But a more detailed interpretation of Bonhoeffer's speech and a reexamination of his manuscripts leed to another view. In the beginning of the Third Reich Bonhoeffer's thinking is based on Lutheran traditions, especially the doctrine of the two kingdoms and associated with ideas of M. Weber. Law and rights are seen as a product of historical circumstances in accordance to the positivistic school of law like f. e. Hans Kelsen. The emphasis of responsibility seems as a link to the neo-conservatism of the late Weimar period, which also is represented by G. Leibholz, Bonhoeffer's brother-in-law. But Bonhoeffer helt a critical distance to all forms of a metaphysical foundation of justice, equal in the nation or in the human being. There is no principle but Jesus Christ (cf. the Barmen confession, 1934). But the problem of the relation of church and state is not only a question of the political duty of churches but also of the secular state in modern times. How can the church protest against political movements without return to the Middle Ages? That's the question of H. B. von Haeften and the Kreisauer Kreis. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2196-808X |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte
|