REVIEW: WHAT ABOUT HITLER?

On the very long flight to Europe I finished reading WHAT ABOUT HITLER?: Wrestling with Jesus's Call to Nonviolence in an Evil World.

Here's a little about it.

Now, I usually read books twice: Once to get the basic gist of it and the second time with a pen in hand underlining, writing questions in the margins, writing disagreements in between lines, circling things I'd like to learn more about. I've only read this book once so far, just enough to know what I like and don't like about it in very general terms.

WHAT I LIKE:
My favorite section is on our tendency as nations to "Hitlerize" our enemies. No one in their right mind, it's presumed, would argue against fighting Hitler, the personification of evil if there ever was one. So many nations since WWII have cast their enemies in his image. The author cites numerous examples. The US has done this to BinLaden and Hussein. And they've done it to us. Yea, they make the same claim - that the US is just like WWII era Germany.

The author includes a letter written by Osama in which he makes his case. And, it's a good sounding case. The author also cites US writings making the case that Osama is a Hitler. And it's a good sounding case as well. The point? If Hitler - or a Hitler-like enemy - is the only enemy we're justified to kill then watch out, because any enemy can be spun to resemble Hitler in some way. No one's safe. In a sense the US, then, is reaping what it has sown in that our enemy is now doing to us (casting us as a Hitler justifiably destroyed by any means necessary) what we have done to so many enemies since WWII.

DeVitoria was right. It's possible for both sides of an armed conflict to be "just" using the same criteria but having two different perspectives.

I also like that this book is written differently than any other I've read before. The form is different. The author, Robert W. Brimlow, writes a "meditation" before every chapter. Each meditation begins with a passage of scripture and is then followed by a ruthlessly honest conversation with God about it. It's as if the pastor's turned his microphone on too early, when he's still at home having breakfast with his wife, pouring out all his doubts and confusions to her before donning his Sunday best and stepping into the pulpit to deliver a much more confident and questionless sermon.

"You see, Lord," he writes in the first meditation," you have me very annoyed here. First you tell me I shouldn't pursue the power of the world but should serve you. Then, when serving you puts me out on a limb with nowhere to go, you tell me I shouldn't put you to the test. You are driving me crazy with this. I didn't want to be stuck there in the first place, and you expect to take your sweet time doing whatever else you have to do while I wait, afraid out of my wits, and eventually fall off. My faith is not that string that I can take this easily."

Then these mediations are followed by full fledged chapters that are much more academic and thought out, but still very accessible. Each begins with a "prologue" which is a short story that stands alone but makes more sense when the entire chapter is read.

The chapters didn't tell me anything I hadn't heard before, but put the information in new and better ways most of the time. One exception though was chapter one, which argues against Augustine's theology, which greatly influenced his contributions to the philosophy called Just War. I hadn't seen this dissected so well before and I learned a lot from it. Basically, Augustine's Just War theory is based on his very Catholic theology regarding what good and evil is, and it is not theology I agree with. This helped me understand some more of what I don't agree with in Just War theology. I couldn't pinpoint it before.

WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE:
The author says there are alternatives to war but fails to detail all that many. He discusses prayer. He discusses forgiveness. But what about mercy and peace making in the biblical sense? What about the importance of the worldwide church being attached to itself and mobilized to aid itself? He hints at these solutions and preventative measures but fails to detail an ideal worth striving for.

He does a poor job answering the question "If we're not to kill Hitler, what are we to do about him?"

He alludes to, and I'm looking into it more on my own, the rise of Hitler being made possible by the German Church, for instance. Lutherans, mostly but not exclusively, supported Hitler in the beginning because he was a great leader doing great things for the nation. It's Reagan's "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" They answered, "Yes." With Hitler in power all citizens, including Christian Germans, got better schools, the first highway system in the world, a tax break, etc. Then he promised he could do even more for them if it wasn't for the pesky immigrants taking up all the jobs and putting such a burden on the economy and the government and the infrastructure and...you get the idea. (This is already more detail than the book gives actually and I was hoping for more information than this.)

The Church supported Hitler. Maybe some of their motivation was fear. Maybe it was greed. Maybe it was pride. We don't know for sure. But the Church was so large that had it decided - every member of every church - that it would not support Hitler, would not fight for Hitler, would not rat out government enemies, would shop at Jewish stores, would flee the country if he remained in office - well, Hitler would have had a tiny population left to lead, a miniscule army with which to fight. Europe would have been safe. Of course many many Christians would have left the life they'd always known and struggled to find a new nation willing to accept them as citizens...unless the Church in the nations surrounding Germany demanded their brothers and sisters be welcomed etc.

Again, the author only alludes to this reality - the power of the Church. And this is too bad. Because this is the best answer in my opinion - the center of every answer I think. What about Hitler? Non-violently prevent him from coming to power in the first place. If he's in power, refuse to follow when he leads away from God's law, no matter what goodies he offers. If he fights, refuse to fight with him. Love his enemies. Shelter them in your home. Give your life to save theirs. If the worst happens, if it seems he can't be stopped, flee. He'll have no one to lead, no one to use in battle. Hitler existed because the Church did not. The church became obsessed with material gain, self-preservation, and conformity. It became Hitler's voice and eyes and hands, not Jesus'.

The biggest problem with Hitler then, I think, is the question we ask regarding him. If the question we ask is "What SHOULD we have done to stop Hitler from killing the jews?" then we've started asking too late. And that's our problem - the real problem. We had our heads up our proverbial backsides and only started asking questions about his madman AFTER we put him in office, and fought in his army, and escorted Jews into the gas chambers for him. And I wonder how much of that is human nature: We tend, I tend, to ask questions when the threat is big enough, when there are imminent consequences to not asking them. I wonder how the church and parents and friends can help us all be more discerning and careful (not fearful) and critical (not mean) and allegiant to Christ ALL THE TIME so another mad man doesn't dupe us into being his goons. That's a book I'd like to read. How to prevent Hitler.

This book is a good primer on Christian non-violence, offers loads of food for thought, but fails miserably at detailing any real alternative to violence.