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.

The Possibility of Discipleship

Here's the first two introductory paragraphs to my seminar paper from this quarter...

Dietrich Bonhoeffer's writings from Tegel prison are often describes as "the new theology."  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. 

From Tegel Prison...

"What I am driving at is that God should not be smuggled in somewhere, in the very last, secret place that is left.  Instead, one must simply recognize that the world and humankind have come of age.  One must not find fault with people in their worldliness but rather confront them with God where they are their strongest."

Bonhoeffer's July 8, 16 and 18, 1944 letters to Eberhard Bethge in Letters and Papers from Prison make for some fascinating reading.  The March 9 and June 8 letters provide important background as well.  These are concepts that we need to be seriously reflecting and acting upon today.

The Consequences of Intellectual Formation

This quarter I'm working on a paper (which hopefully will eventually turn into a chapter of my dissertation) on Bonhoeffer's intellectual formation.  It really is a fascinating study.  I'm specifically looking at what Bonhoeffer studied while he was in Tegel prison and how that impacted the formation of his concept of 'religionless' Christianity.  I'm amazed at the volume of material that Bonhoeffer worked through during his time in prison, and then the resulting productivity.  He was reading history, philosophy, theology, science, novels, poems and music.  I hardly know where to begin or how to focus my investigation.  And this is not to mention all of the other influences before his imprisonment.  Some important names are bubbling to the surface, though, including Wilhelm Dilthey, Jose Ortega y Gasset, C. F. von Weizsacker, G. W. F. Hegel, Rudolf Bultmann and Karl Barth (just to name a few).  I'm still in the gathering stage of my research, so I don't have many conclusions to offer at this point.  But I can offer some thoughts on how this project is impacting me on a personal level.

You may remember that earlier this summer I read Paul Tillich's "A History of Christian Thought."  Now, the thing about studying history, is you begin to realize the incredible interconnectedness of the development of ideas.  Every historical figure is indebted to another historical figure.  Sometimes they are indebted in a negative sense, by being against a line of thinking.  Other times, a breakthrough occurs only because someone takes the next step beyond the previous great thinker.  But in every case, what comes next is only possible because of what came before.

All of this study of the development of ideas is making me think of my own influences.  The big one for me is, of course, Bonhoeffer.  After all, I am dedicating the next several years of my life to producing new scholarship on him.  Certainly I won't make it out the other end without his profound influence on my life (for better or for worse - I'm counting on for better).  And I have to admit, in large part I picked Bonhoeffer for my doctoral studies (and ThM studies for that matter) because I want to be influenced by him. 

I often have people ask me why I picked Bonhoeffer.  The short answer is that I needed something to study if I wanted to do doctoral work, and Bonhoeffer piqued my interest during my MDiv studies.  But the deeper answer is that in Bonhoeffer I find not only a theology but a life that profoundly illustrates the incredible potential of following Jesus Christ.  Bonhoeffer challenges me, and helps me, to think seriously about theology and about how theology should change the way I live.  Bonhoeffer convinces me that theology and life go together; there is just no way around it.  What I believe must have everything to do with how I act.  And if it doesn't, then I have to ask myself what I actually believe.

My interest in Bonhoeffer is certainly driven by intellectual curiosity; I wouldn't put myself through the pains of doctoral work if my mind didn't thoroughly enjoy the task at hand.  But, to be honest, studying Bonhoeffer can't be just an intellectual exercise for me.  I'm pouring my life into this because I am convinced that through and with Bonhoeffer the church can better understand its place in the midst of this world.  And this is where I arrive at the concept of discipleship. 

I certainly don't know how it will all come together, but my hope is that by the end of this leg of my journey, I will have a theology of discipleship to offer.  My dissertation will certainly be full of scholarly nuance and more footnotes than all but my examiners will probably read, but I want it to be something that equips me for a future of disciple-making.  I want to offer a way for people to think about how their belief in the triune God actually makes a difference in their daily lives.  And then I want to help students or church-goers or people just wondering about God to process their belief into a life of trust and hope in Jesus Christ.

This gets me thinking about one last thing.  I was talking to a friend this week about curriculum and curriculum development for the church.  And I can't help but think about how the concept of discipleship, which is so personalized, can be disseminated through educational ministries.  In my mind, the teaching ministry of the church is for disciple-making (this certainly is not a new idea).  But the difficulty lies in the difference between information and formation.  How is the curriculum we use to spread information involved in actual spiritual formation?  The answer certainly depends on a number of factors.  Perhaps the greatest of these factors is the commitment to discipleship of the teachers and leaders of our educational ministries.  When discipleship is a core value of a church, what is taught will be reflected in what is lived out within the congregation, and into the surrounding community and world.

Because what we think makes a profound difference in how we act.  At least that's what I get from Bonhoeffer.

The Religious Enlightenment

Well, I'm now two weeks into my first doctoral seminar, and I'm very happy with the course and with the trajectory of my PhD program.  My seminar is called The Church in Modern Society and is exploring the influence of the Enlightenment and secularization on the development of theology and the church (mostly in England and America) from the 17th through the 20th centuries.  It really is a fascinating and important topic to explore and understand.

One of the questions that we've been looking at these first two weeks is the notion that the Enlightenment and Christianity were historically over and against each other.  I know I at least remember learning that with the advance of reason in the Enlightenment, the church was put on the defensive and faith was characterized as struggling to hold out against the mighty forces of science and reason.  In some ways, this has been true in modern history; but in many ways this is certainly not the case.

Take John Locke, for example (no, not the John Locke from the TV show 'Lost,' but the philosopher-scientist John Locke from 17th c. England).  He has been widely looked to as one of the fathers of the science of reason and logic, and has therefore been understood as being against the Christian faith.  One of the questions we looked at in reading Locke in our seminar, then, was whether based on his writings we could discern if he was an 'orthodox' Christian.

We read his essay/book "The Reasonableness of Christianity."  That's a pretty 'Enlightened' title, isn't it?  In this book, Locke meticulously employs the modern constructs of reason to clearly argue for the truth of Christianity.  And what is the central question of truth for Locke?  It is whether or not Jesus Christ is the Messiah.  Now, Locke might end up straying slightly from some other traditional theological positions, but anyone who combs through the Bible to prove that Jesus is the Christ, and that to be a Christian means living in faith and obedience to Jesus, is in my mind on the right track.

There are more examples of Enlightened thinkers who actually see and use reason as proof of faith, and not the other way around.  Isaac Newton, for one, discovers and articulates an entirely new worldview using physics, and then offers the order of the cosmos as clear evidence of God's providence.  Newton then partners with other leading Christians and scientists to promote the Christian faith through reason and science (see the Boyle lectures beginning in 1691).

It can be argued, then, that the Enlightenment should really be called the Religious Enlightenment.  And what's amazing is that just in the last 30 or 40 years, historical scholars have been reassessing their interpretation of the Enlightenment as being embodied in reason against faith.  As we look more and more at the primary sources of Enlightenment ideas and notice that the fathers of the Enlightenment were employing reason with faith to understand biblical Christianity for their time, it becomes clear that this really was a Religious Enlightenment.

Now this is certainly not to say that the Enlightenment was completely religious through and through.  It is at this time, for example, that the deist movement and secularization begin to rise.  But we must be more careful and nuanced in how we understand the development of faith and reason, because how we understand history has (or at least should have) a profound effect on our current worldview and our vision of the future.