What's the connection between the Sermon on the Mount and religionless Christianity?

This weekend I will be presenting a paper at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion in San Francisco to the Bonhoeffer: Theology and Social Analysis section.  I have time to present just the final section of an almost 50 page paper that traces the development of the Sermon on the Mount throughout the entirety of his writings.  My presentation will focus on how the Sermon on the Mount is a key to understanding Bonhoeffer's concept of religionless Christianity in a world come of age.  The full version of the paper will be archived in the Bonhoeffer Collection at Union Theological Seminary in New York.

I've included a paragraph from the paper below.

... The previous sections of the paper demonstrate that the Sermon on the Mount occupies a prominent place throughout much of Bonhoeffer’s theological thought.  It forms the foundation of his peace ethic, helps him describe the life of discipleship, and nuances his understanding of a Christian ethic.  Moreover, the Sermon continues to influence and shape Bonhoeffer’s emerging theological direction, especially as it is worked out in Letters and Papers from Prison.  To be sure, in Bonhoeffer’s later writings, the Sermon on the Mount itself is not nearly as dominant and pressing an issue as, say, the implication of religionless Christianity.  At this stage in Bonhoeffer’s thought, the application of the Sermon may not have remained of much concern to him.  At times, Bonhoeffer himself wonders at his own previous understanding and interpretation of the Sermon.  In a letter to Eberhard Bethge, for example, he admits that he cannot learn to have faith simply by living a saintly life, and “I suppose I wrote Discipleship at the end of that path.”[1]  Has Bonhoeffer, then, finally found it necessary to move beyond the Sermon in order to articulate his new theological direction?  On the contrary, the Sermon retains a vital position in his writings both leading up to and during his time in prison.[2]  It is the fact that Bonhoeffer’s theology is founded on the Sermon on the Mount that allows him to press for the emerging concept of religionless Christianity in a world come of age.

---

[1] Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, 486.

[2] Cf. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Conspiracy and Imprisonment: 1940-1945, vol. 16 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, English edition, ed. Mark S. Brocker (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006).

Almost Christian

As I continue to reflect on the urgent task of discipleship formation, I am taking some time to revisit the work of Kenda Creasy Dean, one of my professors from Princeton Seminary.  I appreciate her research, writing, and teaching because it focuses on youth ministry as a vital indicator of the wider church's faith practice.  She rightly understands the too-often mediocre faith of our youth not as a symptom of teenage apathy and indifference, but as the reflection of our own faith communities.  Basically, she says that a hip youth pastor is not the most important factor in the development of faith obedience in our youth; rather, the faith of the particular church community as a whole is a reflection of the adults' and parents' faith, and this often low-commitment faith is reflected in the low-commitment faith of the youth.  But the tragedy is not just that this faith is apathetic; what is happening instead is that a new form of spirituality is replacing traditional and orthodox Christianity in our youth ministries and churches.  The Christian Faith is rapidly disintegrating into Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.

In her book Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers is Telling the American Church, Dean summarizes the five guiding beliefs of Moralistic Therapeutic Diesm: (Note that this entire book is based on the ground-breaking National Study of Youth and Religion)
1. A god exists who created and orders the world and watches over life on earth.
2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
4. God is not involved in my life except when I need God to resolve a problem.
5. Good people go to heaven when they die. (See page 14).

Does any of this sound familiar?  More and more youth in more and more churches are defining their "Christian" faith in these terms.  And, with Dean, I believe that this trend must be stopped with a clear and deep theology and practice of discipleship.  At the center of this change will be the distinct affirmation of the mission of God.  To participate in God's ways means to love others as God loves; it means a turning away from self and a turning towards the world.  This is an easy thing to say and write, but it will take an immense paradigm shift in the culture of our churches. 

I am full of hope - because of the promise and power of God's Spirit to move among us.  My prayer is that as God's Spirit moves, we will learn to listen, and we will learn to believe and obey - not only understanding but also living in the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  When we take seriously the call of following-after Jesus Christ, the life and witness of our churches will shine the bright light of hope and redemption.  God will continue to pour out his Spirit, and "Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams" (Acts 2:17). 

Discipleship needs the raw reality of friendship

One of my dilemmas in thinking about a theology of discipleship is the very practical "what" question.  What does this actually look like in the life of a church, for a small group ministry, even within an academic institution like a seminary or college?  This often ultimately comes down to a question of curriculum - a group after all needs something to do when tackling issues of discipleship.  However, I am often quite dissatisfied with the standard "discipleship" curriculum that is in current use.  Now, I believe that such curriculum has its place, and I am sure that it has played a crucial role for people in establishing key components of the Christian life.  But most discipleship curriculum also runs the grave risk of perpetuating a very narrow and limited view of discipleship, often just schooling people in the basic spiritual disciplines of Bible reading, prayer, worship, and fellowship.  These disciplines certainly must never be neglected, but they can also never be simply the end of our "discipleship" training.  And my fear is that when we lead people through these types of discipleship workbooks, we perpetuate a tragically limited practice and theology of discipleship.

The argument of course is that people need to start somewhere, and so they need to start by building good spiritual habits.  Again, you won't hear me saying that there is anything wrong with personal spiritual disciplines - but when we talk about discipleship, we are talking about something much greater, something that encompasses the entirety of our lives.  We are, after all, talking about what it means to follow-after Jesus Christ.  And I certainly hope that a life of following Jesus Christ means more than reading my Bible everyday. 

But what do we teach people to do in their following Jesus?

Here we come to the heart of the issue - that is the wrong question.  Discipleship is not a task; it is how we live life.  It is a worldview.  It is a set of beliefs that so permeate our lives that every decision we make is a part of our discipleship.  After all, if discipleship is following-after Jesus Christ, how could our every move and every relationship be anything but another unique aspect of the life of discipleship?

I want, then, to propose that discipleship requires much more than a curriculum and workbook.  It needs relationships; and more, discipleship needs dear friendships.

This hit me the other night talking with - who else - some friends.  There we were, informally hanging out, but I would say quite formally talking about the real hardships, joys, and questions of life.  As friends, we could be honest and share hurts and struggles.  As friends, we could laugh and relax.  As friends, we offer prayers and encouragement.  And I want to say that as friends we were in that moment growing in the life of discipleship.  We were not only learning from each other, but experiencing quite tangibly what it means to live life following-after Jesus Christ.

I went home that evening with a renewed energy to read and meditate on scripture and pray - and I had this desire not because of a curriculum workbook, but because I had, through my friends, pressing issues to pray and think on.

So, what I want to say is that when we are teaching people about discipleship, we really need to teach them how to be a good friend.  As disciples, we are called to journey with each other and be with and for each other.  Bonhoeffer describes Jesus as the man-for-others, and so we as Christians are called to be ultimately for-others - for our friends, our neighbors, and ultimately for all the world.  This is the "loving more" theme that I wrote about last time.

I wonder if discipleship can be separated from friendship?  It's curious - Bonhoeffer participated in the conspiracy against Hitler in large part because his close family and friends were deeply involved in the plot.  So, Bonhoeffer's discipleship was intricately linked to his relationships/friendships.

I guess I am trying to get at the fact that discipleship is most potent when it rubs up against others in our life.  And life is not a series of habits.  Life is the journey of discipleship, best experienced in the raw reality of friendship.

The "what" question of teaching people about discipleship just got a lot more complicated and nuanced.  And more fulfilling.

Turning away from loving less

I'm constantly amazed with the people that God puts in my path.  We've moved quite a bit in the last few years, but God always blesses us with special and unique friendships.  Last night I was out late with a couple of these friends, just sitting out in the warm evening talking about life and, in this case, the difficult joy of trying to follow God's call on our lives.  We inevitably end up talking about the church when we get together, and we are all burdened with a longing for the church to be something more - or, to put it a better way, to live into what it really is.

So when I got home late last night, I felt I should meditate a little on John's letters to the seven churches in Revelation.  I only had to read about the church in Ephesus in chapter 2 before coming upon my prayer, in verse 4: "Nevertheless, I have this complaint to make: you have less love now than formerly."  That stings.  Less love now than before.  How true is that, in my own life, in all our lives, and so subsequently in the churches.  Now, I'm not trying to be a downer on the church.  The church is real, it is alive, but God certainly weighs in a complaint every now and then.  And so, I'm praying first that I can repent of my less love, and I'm praying that the church will repent of less love.

But what does this mean?  Less love than what?  Than when?  The text says less love than before...  Perhaps, before, when I was more zealous, or more trusting, or more willing.  Perhaps before, when the church reached out to those in need, when it believed in and was laser focused on its mission to be the gospel in every nook and cranny of society.  Before, when the church did not exist to subsist as an institution, but as a living witness to the very reality of God's revelation in Jesus Christ.

So, this has been my prayer today.  That I would repent of loving less, and that the church would repent of loving less.  And I meditate on the promise in Revelation 2:7: "Let anyone who can hear, listen to what the Spirit is saying: those who prove victorious I will feed from the tree of life set in God's paradise."  Certainly the fruit from the tree of life will be bursting with the fullness of love.

And I'm finally struck because one of my friends from this late night hang out is preparing to set off for Santa Cruz to plant a church.  And he's picked up on this - that the Christian life is about loving more.  I think he's on to something.  New City Church Santa Cruz is about loving God, loving people, and loving more; and that is the truth and reality that we all need to bear witness to and experience.

Leadership Development and Discipleship

I just had a few quick thoughts I wanted to get down...

I'm starting to think more about the relationship between discipleship and leadership development, especially in the context of ministry and church planting.  What is the difference between them?  Can one take place without the other?  At the moment, I feel like the questions of discipleship need to be addressed prior to the issues of leadership development, because I think that leadership development will come naturally out of discipleship.  Maybe focusing on leadership development without first establishing a clear sense of discipleship among potential leaders is like putting the cart before the horse.  But I'm thinking that a first step of discipleship formation is learning how to listen both individually and collectively to God's call.  Leadership development can have a sense of go-go-go (at least, that's how I can feel about it).  And there's certainly nothing wrong with urgency and leadership growth.  However, the urgency can sometimes overwhelm us, and we can lose sight of (or even never really grasp) the work and will of God in our unique situation.  I believe that starting with discipleship serves as a sort of guard against just developing leaders for the sake of having leaders.  More importantly, I think, is the issue of discernment.  How do we learn, and how do we teach our leaders a posture of listening and of the subsequent readiness to respond to God's unique call.  When we talk about leadership development in ministry - and especially in church planting - I want to talk first about discipleship.  Because I sense that all too often we can develop leaders apart from disciples; but I think it would be difficult to develop disciples apart from leaders.

Revelation as the Foundation of Discipleship in the Theology of Barth and Bonhoeffer

Here's the introduction to my recent seminar paper...

            It is a fascinating theological exercise to investigate the places of contention, disagreement, and misunderstanding between the two theological giants Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  While belonging to the same dialectical-theological camp, and united in their opposition to the National Socialists as leaders in the Confessing Church, there are striking theological differences.  A natural place to start to investigate this question is at the end of Bonhoeffer’s career, when he accuses Barth, his mentor, of “positivism of revelation.”[1]  Barth is aghast, and perhaps rightly so, for he feels misunderstood and misinterpreted; he then offers his own less-than-enthusiastic critique of the mysterious direction of Bonhoeffer’s “worldly” theology in Letters and Papers from Prison.[2]  Further divergences can be traced to different emphases within their respective Reformed and Lutheran traditions, as in their differing explanations of the dictum, finitum non capax infiniti – the finite cannot comprehend the infinite.  As a Lutheran, Bonhoeffer feels he can challenge the Reformed interpretation, and Barth makes his own defense of it in his Church Dogmatics.[3] 

Most of these issues have already been thoroughly explored in Barth and Bonhoeffer studies.  Scholars such as Charles Marsh, Andreas Pangritz, and Heinz Tödt offer valuable in-depth analysis and evaluation of these and other issues.[4]  What is more, while Barth and Bonhoeffer clearly have their differences, these differences seem to be a matter of nuance and emphasis, rather than points of major theological divergence.  Most of the seemingly glaring disagreements can be settled as nothing more than misinterpretations or misunderstandings.  In fact, both men are, in large part, pursuing similar theological projects, and their differences are often not much more than matters of focus.[5]  The German theologian Heinz Tödt suggests that a way forward in the Barth and Bonhoeffer discussion is instead to focus on the meeting and merging of their understanding of revelation and the world and its impact for today.[6]  This paper builds upon Tödt’s suggestion by exploring the convergence of the concept of revelation as it relates to a theology of contemporary discipleship in the thought of Barth and Bonhoeffer.

Barth introduces his concept of revelation in a lengthy chapter entitled, “The Revelation of God” in Church Dogmatics I/1 and I/2, and he continues to treat the concept throughout the entirety of this work.  Bonhoeffer’s approach is quite different.  Never having produced a systematic theology, his explanations of revelation are scattered throughout his books, papers, and letters, building and working off of each other.  It is admittedly difficult, therefore, and at worst inaccurate, to organize the convergence of Barth and Bonhoeffer’s understanding of revelation into three over-arching movements, as in this paper.  However, the purpose here is not only to describe the similarities and unique nuances of Barth and Bonhoeffer’s respective concepts of revelation, but to explore these understandings in terms of setting a foundation for a contemporary theology of discipleship.  With this goal in mind, it is appropriate and necessary to propose three aspects of revelation that are readily present in both Barth and Bonhoeffer: revelation is first and foremost Trinitarian; revelation is then Christological-ecclesial; and revelation is finally ethical, in its existence as faith and obedience.  These are certainly not comprehensive categories for describing the concept of revelation in Barth and Bonhoeffer.  What they attempt to offer, however, is a clear framework for understanding a theological foundation for a life of following Jesus Christ.

---

[1] Cf. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, vol. 8 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, English edition, ed. John de Gruchy (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), 364, 373, 429.

[2] Cf. Charles Marsh, Reclaiming Dietrich Bonhoeffer: The Promise of His Theology (Oxford: University Press, 1994), 25f.

[3] Cf. Joachim von Soosten, “Editor’s Afterword to the German Edition,” in Sanctorum Communio, vol. 1 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, English edition, ed. Clifford Green (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 302.  Cf. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Act and Being, vol. 2 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, English edition, ed. Wayne Whitson Floyd, Jr. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 84 and editor’s note 7.  Cf., for example, Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (CD) I/1 (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010), 407f.

[4] Marsh, Reclaiming Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 3-33; Andreas Pangritz, Karl Barth in the Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000); Pangritz, “Dietrich Bonhoeffer: ‘Within, not Outside, the Barthian Movement’,” in Bonhoeffer’s Intellectual Formation: Theology and Philosophy in His Thought, ed. Peter Frick (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 245-282; Heinz Eduard Tödt, “Belief in a Non-Religious World: Must One Choose Between Barth and Bonhoeffer?” in Authentic Faith: Bonhoeffer’s Theological Ethics in Context, English edition, ed. Glen Stassen (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2007), 30-39.  Additionally, see Ernst Feil, The Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 175-177; Ralf Wüstenberg, A Theology of Life: Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Religionless Christianity (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1998), 60-65.

[5] Marsh, for example, suggests that “the way to make sense of Bonhoeffer’s theological relationship to Barth is to distinguish, as Barth does, between the primary and secondary objectivity of God.”  Barth stresses the primary objectivity of God’s aseity while Bonhoeffer focuses his attention on God’s promeity.  Cf. Marsh, Reclaiming Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 31.

[6] Tödt, “Belief in a Non-Religious World: Must One Choose Between Barth and Bonhoeffer?” 39.

Not surprised: Barth calls Bonhoeffer brilliant

As I make my way through portions of Barth's Church Dogmatics, it's been fun to see Barth refer to Bonhoeffer.  There were several references in my seminar reading for this week - selections from volume III, The Doctrine of Creation.  I'll set up the scene here for one of my favorite Bonhoeffer shout outs...

In Church Dogmatics III/4 Barth takes up the issue of ethics and identifies it as a task of the doctrine of creation.  Here, he describes how ethics cannot be detached from dogmatics.  He explains: "In books and lectures ethics can be treated independently, that is, in external separation from dogmatics, so long as it is presupposed that this separation is understood and treated as purely technical and therefore that dogmatics is not detached from its ethical content and direction and that the question of dogmatics remains paramount and decisive in ethics" (p. 3).

Basically, Barth is saying that how we think about ethical actions cannot be separated from what we think and believe about God.  I was reminded of Bonhoeffer here, and so was Barth.  Take a look at what Barth now says in the notes: "And the same attitude to the link with dogmatics is a commendable feature of the brilliant Ethik of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, which unfortunately exists only in a fragmentary and provisional form" (because Bonhoeffer was arrested by the Gestapo while he was still working on the project).

That's right - the brilliant Ethics of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  And here's one reason why I gather Barth thinks so.

Barth: "The task of theological ethics is to understand the Word of God as the command of God" (p. 4).
Bonhoeffer: "Those who wish to focus on the problem of a Christian ethic are faced with an outrageous demand - from the outset they must give up, as inappropriate to this topic, the very two questions that led them to deal with the ethical problem: "How can I be good?" and "How can I do something good?"  Instead they must ask the wholly other, completely different question: what is the will of God?" (Ethics, 47).

Brilliant.  Ethics - for Barth and Bonhoeffer - does not and can not exist apart from the Word and will of God.  Now, certainly there is a distinction between the Word and will of God; but the point is that for both of these theologians the ethical question is ultimately a matter of theological orientation which finds its starting point in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.  Ethics is not a question of doing something good.  Ethics is obedience to the command of God.  What does that mean?  Well, more than I am going to get into now...  I recommend reading - you guessed it - Barth and Bonhoeffer.

I'm writing this quarter on Barth, Bonhoeffer, and revelation... but this ethics connection is tugging at me as well...  I guess I'll have to put it in the hopper for another paper.

Encounters at the 2011 Kuyper Conference on Calvinism and Culture

The 2011 Kuyper Conference on Calvinism and Culture at Princeton Seminary is not over yet, but I wanted to make note of a couple of interesting sessions and resources that I had the chance to be part of today.

First off, I have to say I've been quite impressed especially with the work of my Fuller colleagues so far.  There are eight of us students from Fuller here together at the conference, and five are presenting papers!  It's great to be further building friendships and connections with people that are not directly in my narrow Bonhoeffer field of study.  The Neo-Calvinist crowd is gracious and welcoming, and we have a good time drawing connections between Bonhoeffer, Neo-Calvinism, and the rest of life.  Look for some of their work in "The Kuyper Center Review," volume 2, and, in the forthcoming volume 3.

Several of the papers I heard today had to do with the arts and the biblical text.  David Koyzis from Redeemer University College is working on re-setting all of the psalms to traditional Genevan melodies.  His project aims to make the psalms singable again, and he creatively works to match the words with the appropriate musical patterns.  His website currently provides music and downloadable .pdf files for almost half of the psalms, and he's adding more all of the time.

The other artist I wanted to bring to your attention was a plenary speaker, John Harvey, the Director of the Centre for Studies in the Visual Culture of Religion in Aberystwyth University, Wales.  He's doing fascinating work providing visual and aural approaches to imaging the Bible.  As an artist, he's concerned with providing a stark image of the biblical text itself.  As such, he takes an austere, abstract approach, and the outcomes are striking.  I wish his website provided more of the background and explanation to his art -  it was incredibly interesting to hear about his method and approach to crafting a piece of art work or music.  Basically, he works from a grid system, where each letter of a verse is assigned a specific number and then color value.  It's much more complicated and thoughtful than that, but at least you can begin to get some perspective to what he is doing when you look through the gallery.  Meditating on the scripture in this way visually - as opposed to a traditional pictorial representation of a biblical event - really does draw you into each letter of the text.  He also does similarly fascinating work imaging scripture aurally.

I also wanted to make note of a comment that Prof Harvey made during the question and answer time.  A gentleman identified himself as a pastor, and asked how he thought that the art work could be used in a congregational setting.  I myself thought this was an interesting question, and was already forming ideas of how special services of mediation could be set up.  But then Harvey answered in a way I wasn't expecting - he said that as an artist, he has a knee jerk reaction to that kind of comment.  He explained that he doesn't create the art to be utilitarian - that is, he doesn't make it to be in the service of the church.  The art stands on its own, and can't rely on the church to bring it meaning and value.  I soon realized that this was a perfect Neo-Calvinist response, because it affirms the inherent truth, meaning, and value of the distinct sphere of art.  Now, certainly, his art work has Christian foundations which inform the creation of the work, but he explained that his work is for the gallery, not for the church.  It is in the gallery, in the realm that is separate and unique from the church, that the art is allowed to be true.  What is exciting, is that the art, hanging on a gallery wall, witnesses to the truth and sovereignty of Jesus Christ as much if not more so than it would in a church.

These are just two of the many interesting projects that I am encountering here.  I share these with you in part because of the ability to link to their work on the web.  I'd also encourage you to look at the program for this year's conference, if even just to see the kind of work that is currently being done, thanks to the Neo-Calvinist perspective of engagement with the world.

Barth, Bonhoeffer, and a theology of revelation

This quarter I'm taking a Karl Barth seminar and am focusing my research on the influence of Barth on Bonhoeffer's theology of revelation.  'Revelation' is the foundation for the theology of discipleship that I am working on, so this should be a very fruitful and exciting opportunity to further my understanding of Bonhoeffer in this area.

I'm starting by getting a thorough overview of Barth's influence on Bonhoeffer by reading Andreas Pangritz's Karl Barth in the Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  Pangritz focuses his research by honing in on Bonhoeffer's critique of Barth's "positivism of revelation," in Letters and Papers from Prison.  I'm still working through the book, but so far am pleased with the depth and insight that Pangritz is offering.  One of the big questions that Barth and Bonhoeffer scholars have is what Bonhoeffer could have meant in this accusation of "positivism of revelation" in Barth - even Barth himself was not sure what to make of Bonhoeffer's comments.  Pangritz treats the whole question and context quite well and so is proving to be a very valuable resource.

I think my research may focus more on Bonhoeffer's earlier work.  I'm particularly interested in seeing where I can find Barth's influence in Creation and Fall, for example.  Since Bonhoeffer's theology is always developing throughout his career, I think it's important to see where he begins in his understanding of revelation.  I will also be curious to see if I can trace nuanced developments of revelation as Bonhoeffer progresses through his middle and later period.

Theological method is the basis, the presuppositions, that someone has when they begin to address theological questions.  Barth's work challenged the prevailing theological method of his time by insisting that theology must begin with God's revelation of himself toward humanity, and not with the human pursuit of the knowledge of God.  Bonhoeffer was one of the early adopters of Barth's method, though certainly did not just accept all of the implications or outworkings (as we see in Letters and Papers).

It is important, then, to have a starting point when we talk about a theology of discipleship.  I'm going to take Barth and Bonhoeffer's lead as I put forth the conviction that only because God freely chooses to reveal himself to us through Jesus Christ can we live and move in a life of discipleship.  We'll have to give it a few weeks (for starters) of research and writing to see how this all comes together.

Kuyper and Bonhoeffer on Faith in Public Life

My research this quarter led me to explore the intersection of the Neo-Calvinist Abraham Kuyper with Bonhoeffer.  Here’s the beginning of my paper…

            Abraham Kuyper and Dietrich Bonhoeffer are two very different historical and theological figures.  Kuyper (1837-1920) was the son of a Dutch Reformed minister and spent his lifetime building and advocating a Calvinistic worldview in the Netherlands.  Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) was born into the old Prussian aristocracy and chose the life of a Lutheran pastor, theologian, and resistance fighter against the Nazi regime.  Kuyper died after a long and successful career; he founded several institutions, including the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland, the Free University, the Anti-Revolutionary Party (the first modern, organized popular political party in the Netherlands), and the daily and weekly newspapers De Standaard and De Heraut, and at the height of his career he was elected the Prime Minister of the Netherlands.  Bonhoeffer died at the young age of 39; he was killed in a Nazi concentration camp for his role in the Valkyrie assassination attempt on Hitler.  His short life was incredibly productive, though, and some of his theological writings on discipleship, ethics, and the nature of the church have become spiritual classics.  Kuyper would have never known of Bonhoeffer, and Bonhoeffer’s interaction with Reformed writings seem to lack any direct connection to Kuyper.[1]

            For all their differences, however, Kuyper and Bonhoeffer hold striking similarities, especially in their commitment to Christian engagement with the world.  While they employed different methods, emphasized different dogmas, and advocated for different outcomes, Kuyper and Bonhoeffer were really after the same thing.  They both were convinced that the nature of the Christian faith demanded clear and direct action in and with the public arena.  As a result, they both sought to build a theology that could make sense of and meaningfully engage with the pressing issues in their respective historical circumstances.  Kuyper looked to the roots of the Reformed faith in Calvin and worked to construct a theology that was both faithful to its foundations and relevant for the time.  Bonhoeffer, too, sought to refine and re-imagine the Lutheran theological tradition in order to articulate a biblical way forward in the midst of Nazi Germany.  Their different historical contexts nevertheless led them to a strikingly similar conviction: Christian disciples are called to bear essential witness to the reality of Jesus Christ in the world.  Kuyper and Bonhoeffer are thus excellent resources for exploring the very public nature of Christian discipleship.

Personal discipleship demands public engagement because the reality of life in Christ is public, in that it infuses all aspects of life.[2]  Kuyper and Bonhoeffer construct theologies of discipleship that speak to the mandate of Christian involvement in and for the world.  Their conclusions are both general and specific; they interact with the world from a set of theological convictions and yet allow their unique situation to inform the outworking of that theology.  As such, this paper will explore the specific historical context and theological implications of concepts from select writings from Kuyper and Bonhoeffer.  Investigations of Kuyper’s writings on sphere sovereignty, common grace, and worldview coupled with Bonhoeffer’s work on church/state authority, Christological ethics, and divine mandates (which culminate in Christonomy) will provide a compelling notion of public discipleship.  Kuyper and Bonhoeffer both construct a theology of engagement that operates from and witnesses to the gracious reality of Jesus Christ in the world.

---

[1] John De Gruchy gives an example of Reformed influence on Bonhoeffer by making the case that Bonhoeffer found himself outside his Lutheran heritage and embracing notions of the Reformed tradition in the decision to participate in the conspiracy against Hitler.  Cf. John De Gruchy, Bonhoeffer and South Africa: Theology in Dialogue (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1984), 98ff.

[2] Note that the use of “public” throughout the paper is not limited to “politics,” but rather signifies a theological orientation to all aspects of our interconnected society and life, including occupations, societies, economics, family, etc.

Christonomy

In my research this quarter, I am focusing in on the question of how discipleship takes action in the world.  In particular, I am looking at Abraham Kuyper's notions of sphere-sovereignty and common grace and Bonhoeffer's concept of the divine mandates.  I'm wondering if the idea of Christopraxis can be a viable synthesis of Kuyper and Bonhoeffer, but need to do some more research before I commit to that conclusion.  In the meantime, I've come across a fascinating concept in Bonhoeffer that is new to me, and I imagine will play a key part in my current work.

Bonhoeffer was working on the essay "The Concrete Commandment and the Divine Mandates" for his Ethics when we was arrested on April 5, 1943 - the unfinished manuscript laying open on his desk.  In this essay, he explains that the commandment of God revealed in Jesus Christ claims all of human life and the world through the reconciling, all-encompassing love of God.  This commandment finds its concrete form in the unity of four mandates: the church, marriage and family, culture, and government.

Bonhoeffer says, "To be sure, the commandment of Jesus Christ rules church, family, culture, and government.  But it does so by simultaneously setting each of these mandates free to exercise their respective functions.  Jesus Christ's claim to rule as it is proclaimed by the church simultaneously means that family, culture, and government are set free to be what they are in their own nature as grounded in Christ.  Only through this liberation, which springs from the proclaimed rule of Christ, can the divine mandates be properly with-one-another, for-one-another, and against-one-another, as we will have to discuss extensively at a later point" (Ethics, 402).

In the midst of this quote, Bonhoeffer inserts a footnote - and this is what really caught my attention: "Here the antagonism between heteronomy and autonomy is overcome and taken up into a higher unity, which we could call Christonomy."

Christonomy - that's a new word to me; but I think I see where he's headed with it.  He's describing how the clash of autonomy - where one acts completely on their own will - and heteronomy - where one acts based upon external forces and obligations - is overcome when we understand that only through and in Jesus Christ can one act in complete freedom.  This is because true freedom is only when we are with- and for-one-another - and this is only possible in Jesus Christ.

Although Bonhoeffer does not use this term anywhere else in his writings, I think that what he is describing here is really a central theme of his entire theology.  And others agree.  I found an article by Ulrik Nissen, titled "Disbelief and Christonomy of the World" who argues that indeed Bonhoeffer's adoption of the term "Christonomy" is an accurate and helpful way to understand his theology in general, and Ethics in particular.  Nissen is especially helpful in the final section of his article when he describes how Bonhoeffer's ethic of Christonomy can be a useful way to engage issues of contemporary politics.

Considering Kuyper's commitment to Christian engagement in politics, I think there will be quite a bit to work with in a Bonhoeffer-Kuyper dialogue.

On a final note, here's a quote from Nissen that reminds us of Bonhoeffer's commitment to the world: "True worldliness does not exist in an endorsement of the autonomy of the worldly.  Any attempt to separate the worldly from the proclamation of Christ leads to a deification of the worldly."  Bonhoeffer affirms the world and its mandates (church, family, culture, and government), but only in its reality - the reality of Jesus Christ.

You'll have to give me the rest of the quarter to figure how this all works out...

Creating a Christian Worldview

My studies this quarter are taking me deep into the characters and ideas that form Neo-Calvinist theology and ethics.  One of the main tenets of Neo-Calvinist thought, as put forth by its leader Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), is the belief that Christianity (as interpreted in Reformed/Calvinist thought) equips people for wide engagement in the whole of society, because all of the world is under God's grace and sovereignty.

There is much to be unpacked in even that one statement, and most of my quarter will be spent trying to understand and articulate the nuances and implications of Kuyper's and his colleague Herman Bavinck's thought.  I'm hopeful that I will have some time to work through some of the ideas that I am confronted with here on this blog in the coming months.  And I should mention that I am especially looking forward to working with the president of Fuller Seminary, Dr Richard Mouw, in this course.  He is my professor and Neo-Calvinism is his specialty - so I'm definitely in for a good ride.

In addition to Neo-Calvinism, I'm going to be turning my attention once again to Bonhoeffer.  I'm counting on some of the issues from this seminar to spur further questions and insight into how I might approach Bonhoeffer's thinking on theology and discipleship.  As a German Lutheran, Bonhoeffer is definitely not in the same camp as the Dutch Neo-Calvinists Kuyper and Bavinck.  But I have a hunch that in many ways they are after the same thing - creating a way to faithfully bear witness to the truth of Jesus Christ in every aspect of life.

It will be interesting to see where my research on Bonhoeffer takes me this quarter.  Is there a Neo-Calvinist influence in Bonhoeffer - perhaps that depends on Barth's connection to the movement...?  But, whether or not I engage with Neo-Calvinism and Bonhoeffer's thought, I am planning on pursuing Bonhoeffer's formation of a "Christian worldview" in his Ethics.  I am also beginning to mine volume 16 of the Bonhoeffer Works collection, Conspiracy and Imprisonment: 1940-1945 in hopes of substantiating the interplay of the concepts of discipleship and ethics in Bonhoeffer.  In a very real sense, ethics is discipleship for Bonhoeffer; participating in the conspiracy against Hitler was discipleship for Bonhoeffer.   Our theology of discipleship in effect creates our Christian worldview.  How Kuyper, Bavinck and Bonhoeffer converse around these issues will be an interesting, and fun, exercise.

Oh, and one last note...  I'm currently working through Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism for discussion in my seminar.  Kuyper (who was also prime minister of the Netherlands from 1901-1905) delivered this series of six lectures at Princeton Theological Seminary in October of 1898, in Miller Chapel.  This picture was taken in October of 2009, with my wife Jackie, when our daughter Maddie Mae was four months old.  Miller Chapel is the white building.  Pretty cool.