Below are introductions and abstracts for some of my recent writing.
A Better Worldliness: Discipleship for the Common Good
This paper was presented for Dr Glen Stassen's doctoral seminar "Method for Concreteness in Christian Ethics" at Fuller Theological Seminary in December 2012. It was then presented at Westmont College's Twelfth Annual Conversation on the Liberal Arts: War and Peace as Liberal Arts in February 2013.
Revelation as the Foundation of Discipleship in the Theology of Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer
A Better Worldliness: Discipleship for the Common Good
This paper was presented for Dr Glen Stassen's doctoral seminar "Method for Concreteness in Christian Ethics" at Fuller Theological Seminary in December 2012. It was then presented at Westmont College's Twelfth Annual Conversation on the Liberal Arts: War and Peace as Liberal Arts in February 2013.
We
learn about discipleship from stories – the stories of Jesus, the disciples and
apostles, and the great saints and sinners of the faith. Discipleship is, to say the least,
about discerning how these stories engage our commitments and convictions in
our own following-after Jesus Christ.
Stories also help us to unpack abstract theological concepts in order to
see how nuanced theology animates and shapes concrete action. The topic of this paper – how the
common good informs practice norms of just peacemaking – runs the risk of
remaining elevated and abstract.
The concept of the common good in particular can be fraught with lofty
(although important!) concepts of human nature and the purpose of
societies. In an attempt to
alleviate even my own tendency to remain ethereal, this paper employs the
method of historical drama.[1] The hope is that by encountering
specific episodes from the life of two contextually diverse Christian
disciples, a unique contribution might be made, first, to a notion of the
common good, and second, to connecting that notion of the common good to
concrete practices of just peacemaking.
Specifically, the paper will begin by following a unique development and
application of the concept of common grace in the Dutch Reformed theology and
practice of Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920).
Kuyper was trained as a Calvinist pastor before becoming heavily
involved in politics; he was Prime Minister of the Netherlands from 1901 to 1905.
Then, the paper will trace
Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s involvement in advocating for and articulating the
practice of confession of guilt for the renewal of society. Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) was a German
Lutheran pastor and theologian that was one of the few voices to stand against
the rise of National Socialism in the 1930s and 1940s. That these two figures represent
dramatically diverse historical and theological contexts helps prove the point:
there is much possibility within the diverse Christian tradition to define and
apply with concreteness the notion of the common good. What is more, the continuity of
conviction that arises despite Kuyper’s and Bonhoeffer’s contextual diversity
demonstrates the powerful viability of the contemporary practices of the Just
Peacemaking Initiative.[2]
Now, a note about the common good. It is undoubtedly a grandiose concept;
by its name, it seeks to affirm that the pluralistic and often divisive
segments of society can somehow agree on a common purpose and, by implication,
some shared solutions toward fulfilling that common purpose. Such an idea may sound naïve and
idealistic, and such a practice seems ever fleeting within the increasingly
partisan halls of our political institutions. But, what else is democracy if not the pursuit of the common
good for society? Perhaps the
disunity in our nation could begin to be repaired by the formation of a shared
notion of the common good.
Certainly some notable and promising headway is being made in this
regard. David Hollenbach (2002),
for example, provides a robust treatment of the rich tradition of the concept of
the common good throughout human history, from Cicero to Aristotle and then
through Augustine, Aquinas, and Ignatius. He demonstrates that the common good is not just a Christian
or Catholic concept, but that, in its nature, it supports a practice of
dialogic universalism by the pursuit of deep intellectual and cultural
exchanges of practices and ideas.
The common good is defined by the diversity of both local and global
society, and as such one historical or intellectual tradition cannot hold the
monopoly on its definition and practice.
There is thus an opening inherent
within the very concept of the common good for further, and perhaps even
creative, intellectual and practical contributions. The Catholic tradition has a particularly long and rich
history of the common good.[3] What is more, Evangelicals recently came
together and produced a promising vision of the common good, and even
mainstream media is contributing a steady stream of articles and editorials on
the subject.[4] This concept is re-emerging as a vital
measure of our shared commitment to our common humanity. As our world becomes increasingly
connected, it may be that there is a collective reawakening to our
responsibility to care for each other and for the earth. If that is the case, we will need all
of the resources we can muster in order to hear, understand, and respect each
other.
Admittedly, Abraham Kuyper and Dietrich Bonhoeffer are not
usually found around the table discussing the notion of the common good. Most often (and for good reason) when
we look to history for guidance on this matter, we see the representatives that
Hollenbach highlights – like Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas. These figures are vitally important and
provide resources for a diversity of religious and intellectual traditions. Kuyper and Bonhoeffer, on the other
hand, are specifically confessional figures with strong ties to their
respective traditions – Kuyper was unabashedly Dutch Reformed and Bonhoeffer,
even with his critiques and re-formulations, was thoroughly German Lutheran. Is it counterproductive to introduce
such confessionally specific voices to a concept that is seeking to cast a wide
net? On the contrary, Kuyper and
Bonhoeffer both demonstrate that it is not only possible but also necessary for
confessional theology to provide a holistic framework for participation and
engagement in the pressing issues of society. Today, the question of the common good as it specifically
relates to war and peace is just such a pressing issue. So, it is my contention that the
historical drama surrounding the life and thought of Kuyper and Bonhoeffer provide
compelling companionship in the life of contemporary discipleship. We can see the way forward because of
the work they have already done
[1]
James McClendon (2002) employs this kind of narrative-based theology as a basis
for his three-volume systematic theology. Glen Stassen (2012) outlines his
understanding of twelve characteristics of the “historical drama” genre in A Thicker Jesus: Incarnational Discipleship
in a Secular Age, pp. 10-13.
[2]
There are ten practices in the Just Peacemaking paradigm. The two that will be discussed here are
Practice Norm 5: Advance Democracy, Human Rights, and Interdependence and
Practice Norm 4: Acknowledge Responsibility for Conflict and Injustice and Seek
Repentance and Forgiveness. See
Susan Thistlethwaite (2011), Stassen (2008), and Stassen (1992).
[3]
See, for example, the papal encyclicals Pacem
in Terris (Peace on Earth) by Pope John XXIII and Deus caritas est (God is love) by Pope Benedict XVI. For this and other insights on this
matter, I am grateful to Glen Stassen for providing access to his unpublished
article “Catholic and Evangelical Support for the Common Good.”
[4]
For example, the National Association of Evangelicals produced a call to public
engagement for the common good in “For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical
Call to Civic Responsibility” (Sider and Knippers, 2005). Recent newspaper articles on the common
good include the New York Times’
Frank Bruni (2012, July 16), “Individualism in Overdrive” and The Wichita Eagle’s Ed O’Malley (2012,
November 25), “A Global Gathering for the Common Good.”
Revelation as the Foundation of Discipleship in the Theology of Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer
This paper was presented for Dr Howard Loewen's doctoral seminar "Karl Barth and Evangelical Theology: An Ecumenical Perspective" at Fuller Theological Seminary in June 2011.
Distinct Discipleship: Abraham Kuyper, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Christian Engagement with Public Life
This paper was presented for Dr Richard Mouw's doctoral seminar "Neo-Calvinist Theology and Ethics" at Fuller Theological Seminary in March 2011.
The Possibility of Discipleship: History, Human Life and Worldview in the Development of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Tegel Theology
This paper was presented for Dr James Bradley's doctoral seminar "The Church in Modern Society" at Fuller Theological Seminary in December 2010.
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.
This paper was presented for Dr Richard Mouw's doctoral seminar "Neo-Calvinist Theology and Ethics" at Fuller Theological Seminary in March 2011.
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.
The Possibility of Discipleship: History, Human Life and Worldview in the Development of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Tegel Theology
This paper was presented for Dr James Bradley's doctoral seminar "The Church in Modern Society" at Fuller Theological Seminary in December 2010.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s writings from Tegel prison are often described as “the new theology.”[1] His Letters and Papers from Prison contain wonderful and fresh theological insights and represent a serious attempt to reconcile the reality of the revelation of Jesus Christ with the growing effects of secularization on Western religion and culture. Though unfortunately fragmented, the Letters and Papers represent some of Bonhoeffer’s most creative work. They are the result of focused study and reflection on an impressive array of scholarship, including drama, literature, music, history, philosophy and physics. He scoured the prison library for material and he managed to receive a regular supply of books from his family and friends, often smuggled into Tegel by a friendly prison guard. Of the dozens of authors that Bonhoeffer read while in prison, three had a particularly strong influence on the development of his new theology.
Bonhoeffer’s letters from the spring and early summer of 1944 represent the height of his theological reflections. During this time he was giving particular attention to questions of the philosophies of history, human life and worldview and was looking to Wilhelm Dilthey, José Ortega y Gasset and Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker for insight. Dilthey and Ortega y Gasset provided a framework for Bonhoeffer to engage critically the historical emergence of science and its perceived companion secularization. Their philosophies of the radical reality of human life in the interpretation of history offered Bonhoeffer a compelling hermeneutic for interpreting God’s place in the rise of human autonomy. Weizsäcker, a physicist, argued that our evolving scientific view of the world has determined our perception of, and belief in, God; this led to an ever-retreating God of the gaps. From these authors (and certainly others) Bonhoeffer is able to refine and articulate the central aspect of his new theology. He embraces the modern world, calling it “a world come of age,” and declares that Jesus Christ has and always will be in its very midst. The false claims of religion, exposed by secularization, open wide the possibilities of the recognition of God’s nearness and grace. Bonhoeffer understands that the church can only truly follow Jesus Christ when religious constructs are shed from Christianity. He calls this separation religionless Christianity, and it is the very possibility of discipleship in a world that has come of age. This paper argues that Bonhoeffer’s understanding of this “possibility” emerges in part from his study of human life, history and worldview in Dilthey, Ortega y Gasset and Weizsäcker. Each of these three figures will be examined in terms of how their particular writings influenced the development of Bonhoeffer’s emerging theology.
This paper is part of a larger historical-theological project that is seeking to resource Bonhoeffer to construct a theology of discipleship. The project identifies discipleship – or more simply, following after Jesus Christ – as a central concern of Bonhoeffer’s entire theology, and articulates four movements that describe the development of this concept. First, the foundation of discipleship is the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Second, the reality of discipleship is Christ existing as church-community. Third, the action of discipleship is Christopraxis. Finally, the possibility of discipleship is religionless Christianity in a world come of age. This paper is concerned with the final movement, the possibility of discipleship, and seeks to identify and nuance aspects of Bonhoeffer’s Tegel theology to illuminate his ever-expanding notions of living into the radical reality of Jesus Christ in a much-altered world.
[1] Cf. Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography, rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 853-891.
Discipleship as Theological Praxis: Dietrich Bonhoeffer as a Resource for the Normative Task of Practical Theology
This paper was presented for Dr Richard Osmer's course "Education, Evangelism and Formation" at Princeton Theological Seminary in December 2009.
“Following Christ – what that really is, I’d like to know – it is not exhausted by our concept of faith.”[1]
In April of 1934, Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote a letter to his dear friend Erwin Sutz seeking guidance on how to preach the Sermon on the Mount. Bonhoeffer was in London overseeing his first parish and was working to keep his message “infinitely plain and simple,” convinced the Sermon “always comes back to keeping the commandments and not trying to evade them.”[2] And yet he struggled with an inadequate concept of faith to grasp what following Christ truly entailed.
Bonhoeffer’s reflections on the Sermon on the Mount eventually led to the penning of what would become one of his best-known works, Discipleship, in 1937. Here, Bonhoeffer rails against cheap grace, painting a picture of costly grace, in part, through an exposition of Jesus’ famous sermon in Matthew 5-7. But Bonhoeffer’s understanding of discipleship does not begin, or end, in this book. The formation of this central theme of his theology can be traced from his doctoral dissertation, Sanctorum Communio (completed in 1927 at the age of 21), all the way through his Letters and Papers from Prison, written throughout 1943-1945. Bonhoeffer’s question to Sutz – what does it really mean to follow Christ? – is the essential question of discipleship. It is a question Bonhoeffer will continue asking and, arguably, is the primary question of his entire theology.
For Bonhoeffer, this central orientation to discipleship is the question of what ought to be going on in the life of a Christian and in the life of the church. In this sense, Bonhoeffer falls quite naturally into the realm of the normative task of practical theological interpretation, as set forth by Richard Osmer.[3] Osmer describes four tasks that can be used to guide and respond to specific episodes, situations or contexts in ministry: the descriptive-empirical task is concerned with what is going on; the interpretive task explores why this is going on; the normative task engages in what ought to be going on; and the pragmatic task looks for how we might respond.
In this paper, Bonhoeffer’s concept of discipleship will act as a resource for the normative task of practical theological interpretation. The normative question of what ought to be going on will be understood in light of Bonhoeffer’s question, what does it mean to follow Jesus Christ? This question of discipleship will be understood in four movements: the foundation of discipleship is the revelation of God in Jesus Christ; the reality of discipleship is the nature of the church – Christ existing as church-community; the action of discipleship is Christopraxis; and the possibility of discipleship is religionless Christianity, which compels the ongoing mission of God in a world come of age. These four movements frame discipleship as a holistic theological orientation. Such a position carries specific implications for educational ministry. Discipleship uniquely engages the present challenges of spiritual formation and mission while resourcing the normative task of practical theological interpretation in its support of individual and corporate discernment of missional vocation.
[1] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, London: 1933-1935, English Edition, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, Volume 13 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 136.
[2] Ibid., 136.
[3] Richard Osmer, Practical Theology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2008), 4.
The Place of the Sermon on the Mount in Dietrich Bonhoeffer's 'Religionless Christianity'
This paper was presented in fulfillment of a ThM Thesis at Princeton Theological Seminary in May 2010.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Church Community: Sanctorum Communio in the Midst of Life Together
This paper was presented at the Pacific Northwest Regional AAR meeting in Tacoma, Washington on April 25, 2009. This Abstract was published in the International Bonhoeffer Society English Language Section Newsletter, Number 97, Fall 2009.
When the Sermon on the Mount is referenced in Bonhoeffer studies, Discipleship is the first, and often only, work that comes to mind. There is good reason for this. Bonhoeffer structured the bulk of Discipleship particularly around the Sermon in Matthew 5-7, providing compelling exegesis of each pericope. Conversely, the Sermon on the Mount hardly makes an explicit appearance in Letters and Papers from Prison. This has, somewhat understandably, led to the conclusion that Bonhoeffer has moved beyond the Sermon in Letters and Papers from Prison. However, a comprehensive investigation of Bonhoeffer’s use of the Sermon on the Mount moves one well beyond Discipleship. In fact, Bonhoeffer makes significant use of the Sermon in practically every stage of his theological development, including in the mature writings of Ethics, and, as we will see, in Letters and Papers from Prison.
This paper traces Bonhoeffer’s use and understanding of the Sermon on the Mount throughout his entire career, from a seminar paper in 1925, to his development of a peace ethic in New York in 1930, and eventually to strikingly implicit Sermon imagery in his proposal of religionless Christianity in 1944. Certainly Bonhoeffer’s concept and application of the Sermon changes and develops throughout his life and career. However, once he strikes the chord of simple obedience to the call of Jesus Christ in the Sermon, Bonhoeffer remains committed to taking seriously the command of concrete action. In this way, the Sermon on the Mount is a central hermeneutic for Bonhoeffer’s exposition and application of religionless Christianity.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Church Community: Sanctorum Communio in the Midst of Life Together
This paper was presented at the Pacific Northwest Regional AAR meeting in Tacoma, Washington on April 25, 2009. This Abstract was published in the International Bonhoeffer Society English Language Section Newsletter, Number 97, Fall 2009.
Karl Barth once noted about Dietrich Bonhoeffer that somewhere between the academic halls in Berlin and the parish pastorate, “a turning away from the phraseological to the real ensued.” Eberhard Bethge, Bonhoeffer’s trusted biographer, puts this turning somewhere in the summer of 1932. Sanctorum Communio represents the “phraseological” time of Bonhoeffer’s life. This was his doctoral dissertation, completed in 1927, at the age of 21. It was a purely academic work: a half historical, half systematic study of the sociology of the church. Life Together represents the “real” time of Bonhoeffer’s life – the time when his theology was just as focused on actions as it was on academics. Life Together was penned in 1938. Yet it is popular even today because it is so straightforward and practical. It is a book that is meant to be lived.
It is no mystery that the foundations of Bonhoeffer’s theology of the church which are worked out in Sanctorum Communio are found in the later work Life Together. One would expect, to a certain extent, theological consistency between the works. This paper is not even the first time such connections between the two works have been made. In my research, however, I was only able to find short inferences or examples of the connections between the two works.
This paper seeks to show that, in actuality, every section from Sanctorum Communio has a companion in Life Together. “The Christian Concept of Person” relates to “The Day Alone” and “The Day Together.” “The Primal State” connects with “Service.” “Sin and Broken Community” bring forth “Confession.” And “Sanctorum Communio” is realized in “Community” with “The Lord’s Supper.”
It is remarkable to me that you can hold these two very different works from two very different periods of Bonhoeffer’s life up side by side and directly connect Bonhoeffer’s early theology with his later practice. Even when Bonhoeffer turned from the phraseological to the real, his life and practice were grounded in his early, academic theology. Indeed, I believe it was the depth of his theology, as evidenced in Sanctorum Communio, which allowed him to demand so much in later works like Discipleship and Life Together, and which gave him the ability to speak so candidly about the Christian faith in Tegel prison.
