GIP Library icon

LOG IN TO REVIEW
About the Book


"By Their Blood" by James and Marti Hefley provides a compelling and powerful account of Christian martyrs from the twentieth century and beyond. The book highlights the stories of individuals who sacrificed their lives for their faith and serves as a poignant reminder of the persecution faced by Christians around the world. Through vivid storytelling and thorough research, the authors honor the memory of these brave individuals and inspire readers to stand firm in their own beliefs.

Sophie Scholl

Sophie Scholl Sophia Scholl was a German student, active in the White Rose – a non-violent resistance group to Hitler and the Nazi party. In 1943, she was caught delivering anti-war propaganda and, with her brother Hans Scholl, was executed for high treason. Sophie Scholl has become an important symbol of anti-Nazi resistance in Germany. Sophie Scholl was born in Forchtenberg, Germany on 9 May 1921. She was the fourth out of six children. Her father Robert was the Burgermeister (Mayor) of Forchtenberg am Kocher, in Baden-Württemberg. She was brought up as a Lutheran Christian, and her childhood was relatively happy and carefree. However, in 1933, Hitler came to power and began controlling all aspects of German society. Initially, Sophie was unaffected, but her father and brothers were critical of the Nazi regime and this political criticism filtered through to leave a strong impression on the young Sophie. At the age of twelve, she joined a pseudo-Nazi organisation, the League of German Girls. Initially, Sophie enjoyed the activities of the group, and she was promoted to Squad Leader. However, after her initial enthusiasm with the activities of the group, Sophie became uneasy about the conflict between her conscience and the creeping Nazi ideology of the organisation. In 1935, Nuremberg Laws were passed which increased the discrimination against Jews, banning them from many public places. Sophie complained when two of her young Jewish friends were barred from joining the League of German Girls. She was also reprimanded for reading from the ‘Book of Songs’ by the banned Jewish writer Heinrich Heine. Scholl indicated her rebelliousness by replying, that Heine was essential for understanding German literature. These incidents and the bans against Jews led to Sophie taking a much more critical attitude to the Nazi regime. She began choosing friends more carefully – people who were politically sympathetic to her viewpoint. In 1937, her brothers and some of her friends were arrested for participating in the German Youth Movement. This incident left a strong impression on Sophie and helped to crystallise her opposition to the Nazi regime. In 1942, her father was later sent to prison for making a critical remark about Hitler. He referred to Hitler as “God’s Scourge.” Sophie was an avid reader and developed an interest in philosophy and theology. She developed a strong Christian faith which emphasised the underlying dignity of every human being. This religious faith proved an important cornerstone of her opposition to the increasingly all-pervading Nazi ideology of German society. Sophie also developed a talent for art – drawing and painting, and she became acquainted with artistic circles which, in Nazi terms, were labelled degenerate. In 1940, after the start of the Second World War, she graduated from her Secondary School and became a kindergarten teacher at the Frobel Institute. However, in 1941, she was conscripted into the auxiliary war service working as a nursery teacher in Blumberg. Sophie disliked the military regime of war service and started to become involved in passive resistance to the war effort. After six months in the National Labour Service, in May 1942, she enrolled in the University of Munich as a student of biology and philosophy. With her brother Hans, she became associated with a group of friends who shared similar artistic and cultural interests but also developed shared political views, which increasingly opposed the Nazi regime they lived in. She came into contact with philosophers such as Theodor Haecker, who posed questions of how individuals should behave under a dictatorship. The White Rose Movement The White Rose was an informal group who sought to oppose the war and Nazi regime. It was founded in early 1942 by Hans Scholl, Willia Graf and Christoph Probst. They wrote six anti-Nazi resistance leaflets and distributed them across Munich. Initially, Sophie was not aware of the group, but when she found out her brother’s activities, she was keen to take part. Sophie participated in distributing leaflets and carrying messages. As a woman, she was less likely to be stopped by the SS. The leaflets of the White Rose contained messages, such as “Nothing is so unworthy of a nation as allowing itself to be governed without opposition by a clique that has yielded to base instinct…Western civilization must defend itself against fascism and offer passive resistance, before the nation’s last young man has given his blood on some battlefield.” However, there was a pervasive police state which kept a high degree of surveillance on any resistance activity. After leaflets had been found at the University of Munich, the local Gestapo stepped up its efforts to catch the resistors. Hans, Willi and Alex also began painting anti-Nazi slogans on buildings in Munich. On 18 February 1943, Sophie and other members of the White Rose were arrested for distributing anti-war leaflets. The leaflets were seen by Jakob Schmidt, a local Nazi party member. Sophie and Hans were interrogated by Nazi officials and, despite trying to protect each other, just four days later were sent to court. The trial was presided over by Roland Freisler, chief justice of the People’s Court of the Greater German Reich. Freisler was an ardent Nazi; with great vigour and a manic intensity, he frequently roared denunciations at the accused. Despite the hostility and appearing in court with a broken leg after her interrogation. Sophie replied to the court: “Somebody, after all, had to make a start. What we wrote and said is also believed by many others. They just don’t dare express themselves as we did.” She also said: “You know the war is lost. Why don’t you have the courage to face it?” No defence witnesses were called and, after a very short trial, the judge passed a guilty verdict, with a sentence of death. The sentence was to be carried out early the next morning by guillotine. Walter Roemer, the chief of the Munich district court, supervised the execution, he later described Sophie’s courage in facing her execution. He reports that Sophie’s last words were: “How can we expect righteousness to prevail when there is hardly anyone willing to give himself up individually to a righteous cause. Such a fine, sunny day, and I have to go, but what does my death matter, if through us, thousands of people are awakened and stirred to action?” The guards were impressed with the courage of the resistors and relaxed the rules to allow Hans, Christoph and Sophie to meet before their execution. After the execution of Sophie, Hans and Christoph, the Gestapo continued their relentless investigation. Other members of the White Rose were caught and executed. Many students from the University of Hamburg were either executed or sent to concentration camps. Legacy of Sophie Scholl In a poll to find the greatest German, Sophie and her brother were voted to be fourth. Amongst the young generation, under 40, they were the most popular. On February 22, 2003, a bust of Sophie Scholl was unveiled by the government of Bavaria in the Walhalla temple. In 2005, a movie about Sophie Scholl’s last days was made featuring Julia Jentsch (Sophie Scholl: The Final Days) Motivations of Sophie Scholl Several factors inspired Sophie Scholl to take part in this highly dangerous resistance. Firstly, her family shared a dislike of the Nazi regime. Both her brothers and father had been arrested for making critical comments. Her father said to the family: “What I want for you is to live in uprightness and freedom of spirit, no matter how difficult that proves to be,” (link) She lived in a family environment which encouraged opposition to Hitler. Sophie had a strong Christian faith and was motivated after hearing speeches by anti-Nazi pastors. She read two volumes of Cardinal John Henry Newman’s sermons which made a strong impression on Sophie, especially his sermon on the ‘theology of conscience.’ During her interrogation, she referred to this ideology as a defence. “I am, now as before, of the opinion that I did the best that I could do for my nation. I, therefore, do not regret my conduct and will bear the consequences that result from my conduct.” Official examination transcripts (February 1943); Bundesarchiv Berlin, ZC 13267, Bd. 3 Her boyfriend Fritz Hartnagel was on the Eastern Front; he reported to Sophie the dreadful conditions of war, the German failure at Stalingrad and also witnessing war crimes undertaken by German and SS forces. Reports of mass killings of Jews were also widely shared amongst members of the White Rose. This features in the second White Rose pamphlet. “Since the conquest of Poland 300,000 Jews have been murdered, a crime against human dignity…Germans encourage fascist criminals if no chord within them cries out at the sight of such deeds. An end in terror is preferable to terror without end.” Sophie Scholl and other members of the White Rose remain a potent symbol of how people can take a courageous action to resist, even the most brutal totalitarian regime. Citation: Pettinger, Tejvan. “Biography of Sophie Scholl”, Oxford, UK – www.biographyonline.net. Published 12th Aug 2014. Last updated 8th March 2017.

books don’t change people, paragraphs do

I have often said, “Books don’t change people, paragraphs do — sometimes sentences.” This may not be fair to books, since paragraphs find their way to us through books, and they often gain their peculiar power because of the context they have in the book. But the point remains: One sentence or paragraph may lodge itself so powerfully in our mind that its effect is enormous when all else is forgotten. It might be useful to illustrate this with two books by Jonathan Edwards that have influenced me most. Here are the key paragraphs and lessons from these books. Most of the rest of their content I have long forgotten (but who knows what remains in the subconscious and has profound impact?). 1.  The End for Which God Created the World Outside the Bible this may be the most influential book I have ever read. Its influence was inseparable from its transposition into the syllabus on Unity of the Bible in a course by that name with Daniel Fuller in seminary. There are two massive truths that were settled for me. First: All that is ever spoken of in the Scripture as an ultimate end of God’s works is included in that one phrase, the glory of God. (Yale, Vol. 8, p. 526) The book was an avalanche of Scripture demonstrating one of the most influential convictions in my life: God does everything for his glory. Then came its life-changing corollary: In the creature’s knowing, esteeming, loving, rejoicing in, and praising God, the glory of God is both exhibited and acknowledged; his fullness is received and returned. Here is both an  emanation  and  remanation . The refulgence shines upon and into the creature, and is reflected back to the luminary. The beams of glory come from God, and are something of God, and are refunded back again to their original. So that the whole is  of God , and  in  God, and  to  God; and God is the beginning, middle and end in this affair. (Yale, Vol. 8, p. 531) To me this was simply beautiful. It was overwhelming as a picture of the greatness of God. The impact was heighted by the fact that the last line is a manifest echo of Romans 11:36: “From him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.” But the central, life-shaping impact was the sentence: “In the creature’s knowing, esteeming, loving, rejoicing in, and praising God, the glory of God is both exhibited and acknowledged.” And even more specifically: “In the creature’s rejoicing in God, the glory of God is exhibited.” God’s glory is exhibited in my being happy in him. Or as Edwards says earlier: “The happiness of the creature consists in rejoicing in God, by which also God is magnified and exalted” (Yale, Vol. 8, p. 442.) If not being supremely happy in God means robbing him of his glory, everything changes. That has been the unifying message of my life:  God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him. 2.  The Freedom of the Will This was a breathtaking book. The scope and rigor of its argument made it one of the most demanding books I have ever read. David Wells calls it a watershed book: How you judge this argument decides where all waters of your life will flow. My judgment was:  irresistibly compelling . Here’s the unforgettable summary sentence: God’s moral government over mankind, his treating them as moral agents, making them the objects of his commands, counsels, calls, warnings, expostulations, promises, threatenings, rewards and punishments, is not inconsistent with a determining disposal of all events, of every kind, throughout the universe, in his providence; either by positive efficiency, or permission. (Yale, Vol. 1, p. 431) God governs all events of every kind, including my acts of will, yet in such a way that I am still liable to rewards and punishments. His sovereignty and my accountability are compatible. The implications of this are vast. One of the most important insights for me in working this out was Edwards’s distinction between  natural  inability to do something and  moral  inability to do something. Here’s the key paragraph: We are said to be  naturally  unable to do a thing, when we can’t do it if we will, because what is most commonly called nature don’t allow of it, or because of some impeding defect or obstacle that is extrinsic to the will; either in the faculty of understanding, constitution of body, or external objects.  Moral  inability consists not in any of these things; but either in the want of inclination; or the strength of a contrary inclination; or the want of sufficient motives in view, to induce and excite the act of the will, or the strength of apparent motives to the contrary. (Yale, Vol. 1, p. 159) If we are  naturally  unable to do something, we are not accountable to do it (like trying to get out of a chair if we truly want to but are chained in it), but if we are  morally  unable to do something, we are still accountable to do it (like trying to keep the law of God, though we can’t because we hate it). This insight was crucial in understanding Romans 8:7 (“the mind of the flesh  cannot  submit to God”), and 1 Corinthians 2:14 (“the natural man  cannot  understand the things of the Spirit”). As I look back over my life and what I have been able to see and savor in God’s word, I give thanks for momentous sentences and paragraphs, and for the God-besotted people who wrote them. In this case, I thank God for Jonathan Edwards.

Feedback
Suggestionsuggestion box
x