How does a theologian murdered in a concentration camp become a holy pillar of right-wing American Christians? The film “Bonhoeffer: Shepherd. Spying. Assassin” is just the tip of the iceberg. The strip is not dangerous for a reason.
That Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the deeply religious anti-fascist executed by the Nazis, could become the idol of right-wing Christian radicals in America must surprise observers (especially if he comes from Germany). Yet it is so: in the infamous “Project 2025”, the Trumpists’ project to transform the United States into an authoritarian dictatorship, Bonhoeffer is mentioned several times.
There he turns into a key witness against left-wing environmental activism, against young left-wing Christians who support illegal immigrants, and against people who lack militancy against the Chinese dictatorship. Now there is a film with the wonderfully lurid title “Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spying. “Assassin” arrived in American theaters because it simply wants to ride this wave. More on that in a bit; First, we should address the question of where the right-wing enthusiasm for Bonhoeffer in America actually comes from.
One man is essentially responsible for it: Eric Metaxas. Metaxas is a right-wing radio host from New York with a Greek father and German mother who specializes in writing heroic biographies about German Protestants. In 2010 he published a book on Bonhoeffer, panned by experts but voraciously devoured by the public. A book about Luther followed in 2017, in which the German reformer appears as a brilliant blameless hero who single-handedly ended the Middle Ages.
Metaxas is also a fanatical disciple of Trump: he has written two children’s books (“Donald Duck Builds the Wall” and “Donald Duck Drains the Swamp”) in which he praises the man with blow-dried blond hair in such a way that even the most little ones understand. In 2020, Metaxas spread the lie that Trump had won the election, declared his willingness to fight “to the last drop of blood” for his candidate, and announced that Jesus was personally at his side in this fight. For him, Democrats are something like witches and demons. And this explains Eric Metaxas’ enthusiasm for Bonhoeffer: he sees himself as a resistance fighter against the forces of evil. Democrats are essentially Nazis, against whom any means is acceptable, including violence.
Where would Bonhoeffer be today?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s family and Protestant theologians familiar with Bonhoeffer’s work have stated that they will not tolerate this abuse: You should not use the name Bonhoeffer in vain. And of course they are right. The real Bonhoeffer spent a year in New York in 1930, became terribly bored at theological seminaries, but then befriended a black seminarian named Frank Fisher, attended services at the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem, and conversed with the famous preacher Adam Clayton Powell Sr., was greatly impressed by the piety of black Americans, their gospel singing, their passion and wrote an expert essay about it.
Returning to his homeland, Germany, Bonhoeffer immediately became a bitter enemy of the Nazis and the German churches that had aligned themselves; As early as April 1933 he campaigned on behalf of the persecuted German Jews, which was highly unusual in an era when most Protestants were still reflexive anti-Semites. Where would Bonhoeffer be today? He is likely to view immigrants from Guatemala and Mexico – whom the newly elected US government wants to send to internment camps – as the last of his brothers. He would probably have spat in front of Christian supporters of Donald Trump with the same contempt that he did in front of “German Christians” in the Third Reich
“Bonhoeffer” is a film directed by Todd Komarnicki, who became famous for writing the screenplay for “Sully”: a biopic in which Tom Hanks (directed by Clint Eastwood) played the pilot Chesley Sullenberger. After an accident, he crashed his plane Hudson so that no one got hurt. As is known, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was not granted a happy ending.
Komarnicki stages his life story in flashbacks: Bonhoeffer is in the camp under the control of the Nazis, remembering his childhood, his beloved older brother, who died in the First World War, and the jazz concerts where he played the keys. In the film’s poster, Bonhoeffer can be seen holding a gun. The film advertises itself with the slogan: “How far would you go for what’s right?” Some critics say Todd Kormanicki’s film is dangerous.
Some German film stars have objected to the film becoming a propaganda tool for right-wing Christian radicals. However, there are scenes in “Bonhoeffer” that Trump supporters absolutely cannot appreciate: American racism is shown without any veneer, and Bonhoeffer describes it as blasphemy when the church kneels before a person and not before God. It is It’s hard not to think of the cult of Trump among American evangelicals.
Strong dose of kitsch
No, this film is not dangerous. It’s worse: it’s just bad. The fact that the German actors (Jonas Dassler, August Diehl, Moritz Bleibtreu) all speak with harsh accents and often use charades: a gift. The fact that women only appear as uninteresting side characters: well. And the fact that a film about this man can sometimes be so tension-free that you can’t help but glance at the clock: that’s stupid.
In fact, Yad Vashem, Israel’s main Holocaust memorial, has always denied Bonhoeffer the honor of “Righteous Among the Nations.” Why? Because even though he strongly condemned the persecution of the Jews, there is not the slightest indication that he ever saved the lives of the Jews by a courageous act. The truth is often complicated; This film makes everything easier.
There was one scene, only one, that emotionally touched this viewer: Bonhoeffer breaks a loaf of bread and celebrates the Last Supper with his fellow prisoners. Unfortunately this scene is immediately ruined by the one that follows. It shows Bonhoeffer’s execution – contrary to all historical reality – as a stylized crucifixion. So: three hangman’s nooses on a gallows, Bonhoeffer forgiving his enemies, looking at the sky, a ray of light breaking the clouds; oh God. Unfortunately in cinema, especially in American cinema, Christianity is only served with a strong dose of kitsch. And poor Bonhoeffer really doesn’t deserve it.
How has Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s message been misinterpreted by contemporary political groups?
Interview between Time.news Editor and Theologian Expert on Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Editor: Welcome to Time.news! Today, we’re delving into a fascinating yet troubling phenomenon—the embrace of Dietrich Bonhoeffer by right-wing Christian radicals in America. Joining us is Dr. Emily Hartman, a theologian and expert on Bonhoeffer’s life and work. Thank you for being here, Dr. Hartman!
Dr. Hartman: Thank you for having me! It’s a critical conversation we need to have.
Editor: Absolutely. To start, can you explain how someone like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a deeply engaged anti-fascist who opposed the Nazis, has been co-opted as an icon by right-wing groups?
Dr. Hartman: It’s quite surreal when you think about it. Bonhoeffer was a man of action who believed in standing up against oppression. However, today, figures like Eric Metaxas portray him out of context, attempting to align his legacy with hyper-partisan agendas. This significantly distorts Bonhoeffer’s message.
Editor: Metaxas published a biography that has seemingly fueled this movement. Can you discuss the impact of his work on public perception of Bonhoeffer?
Dr. Hartman: Metaxas positioned Bonhoeffer as a kind of martyr for the right, which is problematic. His interpretation reduces Bonhoeffer’s nuanced theological insights into a simplistic binary of good versus evil, entirely overlooking the complexities of his resistance against the Nazis—both as a theologian and as an activist.
Editor: There’s a new film titled “Bonhoeffer: Shepherd. Spying. Assassin,” which tries to cash in on this wave. What do you think its implications might be?
Dr. Hartman: The film, while cinematic, risks propagating an ideological perspective that was never part of Bonhoeffer’s belief system. His commitment was to justice, inclusion, and compassion, which starkly contrasts with the exclusionary rhetoric found in some contemporary right-wing discourse. Critics worry that it will become a tool for justifying extremist views.
Editor: You mentioned that Bonhoeffer campaigned for persecuted Jews early in his life. How does that align with today’s discussions on immigration and social justice?
Dr. Hartman: Exactly—Bonhoeffer’s legacy emphasizes the church’s duty to stand with the marginalized. He would likely be an outspoken advocate for today’s immigrants, viewing them as brothers and sisters in need. This stands in direct contradiction to how some factions of the church use his name today.
Editor: It seems like Bonhoeffer’s message is being selectively edited. How do his family and scholars react to this distortion?
Dr. Hartman: Many in his family, as well as reputable theologians, have been vocal against this misuse. They argue that using Bonhoeffer’s name in this way is a betrayal of his principles. After all, the real Bonhoeffer would have been appalled at any rhetoric that promotes division instead of unity.
Editor: if Bonhoeffer were alive today, what do you think his stance would be on contemporary social issues?
Dr. Hartman: I believe he would be very critical of any movement that prioritizes nationalism over compassion. Bonhoeffer saw Christ in the suffering and the oppressed, which leads me to think he would challenge those who mingle faith with political power in a way that excludes others. He’d likely advocate for a faith that seeks justice, love, and dignity for all.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Hartman, for shedding light on this important topic. It’s a crucial reminder that history—and the figures we admire—shouldn’t be manipulated for present agendas.
Dr. Hartman: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss Bonhoeffer’s real legacy. It’s vital to honor his memory accurately, as a guide towards a more just and compassionate society.
