The Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Part 2

Stan Moody:

In a 1968 article in Christianity Today, Carl Henry noted that neo-Protestant religious theory had collapsed for the 3^rd time in the 20^th Century.1 Classic Modernism, the theology of divine immanence, gave way to Barth’s neo-orthodoxy about 1930. Neo-orthodoxy, the theology of divine transcendence, gave way to existentialism about 1950. Existentialism, the theology subjectivity (“do something; anything”), died about 1960. 

In asking where modern theology was going, Henry noted that the new radicals, especially those of the God-is-dead venue, had “…misappropriated and distorted the Letters from Prison, which Bonhoeffer never intended as a prolegomenon to religious positivism.”2 I suspect that  Henry's defense of Bonhoeffer’s letters may have been typical of a number of evangelical theologians who found something fresh and exciting in Bonhoeffer’s testimony and theology of grace. It is unlikely that Henry, in 1968, however, would have had the insight as to where modern theology was to go or could have seen, without the benefit of hindsight, what role the words of Bonhoeffer would play in that development.

As we examine the language peculiar to Bonhoeffer’s thought, I shall attempt to demonstrate how the imperative to re-state the terms and conditions of the Christian faith can easily lead one outside the envelope of orthodoxy. When one ignores the historical record, one leaves oneself open to the kind of misinterpretation of which Henry speaks.

Bonhoeffer, I believe, yielded to write a new chapter in Christian history and, in so doing, effected great damage to the church he so dearly loved. The orthodoxy of which I speak begins with the creeds, in which the three persons of the Trinity hold equal and co-terminus power that follows through the Reformation, from which the theology of salvation is re-affirmed. A complete salvation theology demands that we deal with such bedrock doctrines as election, the nature of sin and man, the person and work of Christ and the Holy Spirit, grace, faith, atonement, regeneration and reconciliation, the sacraments, perseverance and glorification. These are more than mere terms unfamiliar to the ears of modern man. These are words that are given life by the revelation that Bonhoeffer rejected. They are the “power of God unto salvation” – the Gospel.

Sin:

It seems to me that an understanding of the nature of God begins an understanding of the condition and nature of man. The notion of man as irrevocably fallen and in need of redemption is pivotal to an appropriate Christology. Without that sense of the fallenness of man, one cannot build a doctrine consistent with the teachings of Christ, for one cannot appreciate His role in human history. Therefore, the first doctrine that one looks for in evaluating the words of any theologian is that of sin.

David Wells states clearly that doctrine is a summary of biblical teaching on any subject and cannot be divorced from theology, which is an elaboration of that subject.3 What we see in Bonhoeffer, and what we shall explore later, is the building of theology without doctrine. It is sufficient, I suppose, to say that Bonhoeffer rebelled against the notion that man of today is essentially the same as the ancient man of scripture.4

Bonhoeffer’s friend and biographer, Eberhard Bethge, divides Bonhoeffer into two periods, one of which emerges from his imprisonment. He refers to that generally as the “real” Bonhoeffer, however theologically distinct the two Bonhoeffers may have been or whether, in fact, the distinction is valid. In our treatment of Bonhoeffer’s theology, I deal largely with that “later” Bonhoeffer.

Bonhoeffer somehow felt it an abdication of responsibility to require of man today the same repentance and belief delineated in the Gospel.5 He envisioned man as “come of age” in the sense that he had reached maturity in the ability to conduct his affairs independently of revelation, a thought not unlike that of Deism. In the tradition of theologians of his day, Bonhoeffer saw the matters of science and technology progressing very nicely without God’s apparent involvement and drew similar conclusions as to other aspects of culture. Thus, he ridiculed the notion of repentance for personal sins. In his words:

It is weakness, rather than wickedness, that perverts a man and drags him down. It needs a profound sympathy to put up with that.6

As with nearly all Bonhoeffer’s doctrines, there is widespread difference over whether or not he held to this idea of mature man at the end of his life.7 It is important, however, to remember when studying Bonhoeffer that his outbursts were likely the result of a Hegelian process in perpetual search for synthesis.8 Bonhoeffer sees in this “world come of age,” a time when questions about death and guilt have lost their urgency.9 We have already noted that he was raised with no personal sense of sin. This inability to fully see his own need for redemption undoubtedly carried over into a revulsion against the preaching of personal repentance. We see in him, therefore, a rejection of the biblical definition of man as a sinner in need of repentance in favor of a celebration of secularism as God’s process for educating man and bringing him to adulthood.10 Sin, therefore, becomes merely a way of describing a learning process by which God has taught man to live as able to get along without Him.11 

Without a proper doctrine of sin, Bonhoeffer contributes to the autonomy of man without recourse to God as a working hypothesis.12 Modern man’s coming of age is his fundamental way of understanding himself in a world come of age. What, then, is this “world come of age”?13

World Come of Age:

Once we leave the bedrock principle of sin and repentance, we descend the slippery slope of attempting to define the kind of world that would justify this new dialectic. 

There are, of course, three ways of looking at culture. The first is to view culture as progressively worsening and pointed toward self. The second is to view culture as progressively improving in an existential sense of evolving into the sum total of its experiences. Bonhoeffer takes a look at the epochs of history and the philosophical concepts and finds refuge. For him, the Enlightenment is the point of departure of man from his self-inflicted immaturity.14 He accepts and embraces Kant’s assertion of the subconscious awareness of God manifested in the event of the cross.15 He opens the Christian up to listen to Feuerbach and Nietzsche and acknowledge their contributions.16 The notion of progress is very much present in Bonhoeffer’s view of culture. Indeed, the very phrase, “World come of age” denotes progress.

The third way of looking at culture is to see it as a series of cycles much the same as experienced by individuals – rebellion, punishment, brokenness, repentance and forgiveness, restoration, rebellion. That is the pattern of the Old Testament and would fail to fulfill the requirements of a “world come of age”, unless culture were at the peak of its rebellion.

Bonhoeffer sees God as allowing Himself to be edged out of and onto the cross. In that world, God simply suffers.17 This attempt at objectifying God is equivalent to the admission that the sovereign claim of God cannot be realized and that the church can only be the church through its suffering in that God-forsaken world.18

Paul Lehmann is distressed that Bonhoeffer’s thoughts are misunderstood and that theologians are “playing games” with his language to suit their agendas. He argues that a closer look Bonhoeffer’s dialectic might reveal a creative relationship between faith and worldliness – that the radical interpretation placed on his work as heralding the death of God in a world come of age is a twisting of intent. Bonhoeffer’s dialectic, he points out, was “…faith collapsing into love; love collapsing into neighbor; neighbor collapsing into Christ; Christ collapsing into man and man into optimistic worldliness.”20

Such a “concrete” model requires a search for a new language that ultimately calls into question the tenets of orthodox faith. “World come of age” is part of the dialectic that merely throws out competing terms at will and then is surprised by their misuse. In a “world come of age”, should it surprise anyone, least of all Bonhoeffer, that God has painfully brought man to maturity and is now quite content to permit man to take His place in the world?

Sovereignty of God:

It might be said of Bonhoeffer that God becomes increasingly remote and irrelevant in the “world come of age.” By caveat, then, the Christian faith becomes associated with those areas in which men feel most weak, vulnerable, lost and helpless.21 He scorns such dependence on a sovereignty that has been voluntarily set aside. He sees such attempts to hold onto outdated notions of God as a clever means of persuading men of the necessity for God. This, he feels, relegates God to the edges of reality; the gospel, however, must for Bonhoeffer speak to men where they are strong.22 With little sense of personal sin and no sense of the transcendence of God, Bonhoeffer leaves us to minister in our own strength and wisdom to the strength and wisdom he so appreciates in man come of age.

Scottish theologian, Alasdair Heron has this to say:

Bonhoeffer’s description of man today as “come of age” and his concern to move beyond religion lead on naturally to the second leading theme of the new ferment of the 60’s – secularization (a turning of attention to the things and affairs of this present world and a refusal to subordinate it to the sacred)…the God of religion whom Bonhoeffer rejected, was the God whom religion conceives in terms of supreme authority, power and control. This God, Bonhoeffer believed, did not exist; but more than that was not the living God of the Bible. Life without God – the God of religion – is at the same time life with and before the living God.23

Thus, we see an unfamiliar God who has simply relinquished His power. This opens a wide difference between Bonhoeffer and Barth. Barth saw progress as a system of goals that bespeak man’s refusal to acknowledge the sovereignty of God.24 Bonhoeffer, on the other hand, saw progress as a God-ordained system for diminishing man’s need for Him. For Barth, culture stands under the judgment of God, and our relative measures of good and evil make little difference.25 Yes, they are in agreement that the key to Christian faith is the establishment of God’s Kingdom “on earth as it is in Heaven”, but for Barth it is God, not we, who brings forth that Kingdom.

1 Berkouwer “The Theology of Hope”, Christianity Today, (Mar 1968): 11:3.

2 Ibid., 11:4.

3 Wells, The Search for Salvation, IVP, Downers Grove, 1978, p. 39.

4 Ibid., 102

5 Ibid

6 Hopper, p.142

7 Ibid., p.143

8 Day, Dietrich Bonhoeffer on Christian Community and Common Sense, Edwin Mellon Press, Toronto, 1982, p. 205.

9 Hopper, p.94

10 Wells, p.102

11 Smith et al, World Come of Age: A Symposium on Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Collins, London, 1967, p. 150.

12  Ibid. p. 16

13  Ibid. p. 151

14  Ibid. p. 77

15  Ibid.

16  Ibid. p. 78

17  Ibid. p. 135

18  Ibid. p. 253

19 Vorkink et al, Bonhoeffer in a World Come of Age, Fortress, Philadelphia, 1968, p. 35.

20 Ibid.

21  Heron A Century of Protestant Theology, Westminster, Philadelphia, 1980, p. 154.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid., p. 156

24 Levin, p. 8.

25 Ibid.