Dietrich Bonhoeffer a discussion of the film Bonhoeffer: Agent of ...

The image of the resistance attracted to Jesus Christ must have suggested a parallel with
the attraction of gentiles to the early Church. The Apostle Paul had analyzed this situation by
examining for the people of Israel the relationship between the promises of the Father and the
ceremonial law, especially circumcision. They were a “guardian” for Israel in her youth until she
actually received what was already hers by promise. With the advent of Jesus Christ, Israel had
reached maturity and the “guardian” of circumcision and the ceremonial law were set aside.
Though the analogy is imperfect, Bonhoeffer cited the Apostle Paul’s understanding of circumcision
as his model. He began to look for evidence of a coming of maturity in the Western
world, which he described as “a world come of age.” He also looked for aspects of Christianity
that had served as “guardians” of the West during its immature stages. These he categorized as
“religion.” Just as Paul had announced the replacement of the “religious” rite of circumcision
with “real circumcision [which] is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal” (Romans 2:29),
Bonhoeffer began to look for “nonreligious interpretations” for Christian concepts. Having begun
this task only at the end of April 1944, however, Bonhoeffer had not been able to get very far, at
least in any of his writings that survive, as he himself acknowledged.
“While Bonhoeffer developed his ideas on the nonreligious interpretation of Christianity in
a world come of age, he never considered abandoning his connection with the traditional words
and customs of the church.” This statement by Bethge is confirmed in Bonhoeffer’s writings by
the continued use of traditional scriptural language, especially after the failure of the assassination
attempt. These last writings are, in my opinion, among his clearest. Here is one of several
statements from that last period, formulated in traditional Christian language.
I am so sure of God’s guiding hand that I hope I shall always be kept in that certainty. You
must never doubt that I’m traveling with gratitude and cheerfulness along the road where I’m
being led. My past life is brim-full of God’s goodness and my sins are covered by the forgiving
love of Christ crucified. I’m most thankful for the people I have met, and I only hope that
they never have to grieve about me, but that they, too, will always be certain of, and thankful
for, God’s mercy and forgiveness.
It is language like this that made a powerful impact on the people who knew Bonhoeffer,
and on the many who have read his writings. Jones and Till have included very little of this language
in their screenplay. As a result, the film fails to portray of the power of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s
Christian witness and martyrdom.
Conclusion
Although they were important to him in the early 1930s, in Bonhoeffer’s collected works
there are fewer than 10 references to Frank Fisher and the Harlem church and fewer than 20 to
Gandhi. At the other end of the scale are the two people with the greatest number of references
in Bonhoeffer’s writings, with more than 600 each – Eberhard Bethge and Martin Luther. One
plays little, the other no role in the film. Frank Fisher, whom Dietrich knew as a seminarian in
the USA in 1930-1931, is the only theological figure in the film with whom Dietrich converses.
The film presents no theological interaction with Eberhard Bethge, the individual who was personally
the most important figure in Dietrich’s theological life. Dietrich is presented as making
almost as many references to Gandhi as to Jesus Christ. No other theological figure is even mentioned.
In particular, the film makes no mention of Martin Luther, the theologian who had the
greatest impact on Bonhoeffer.
12