Bonhoeffer

John Webster’s essay, “Reading the Bible: The Example of Barth and Bonhoeffer” (pages 87–110 in Word and Church: Essays in Christian Dogmatics [Edinburgh; New York: T&T Clark, 2001]) is, in large part, the inspiration for my doctoral dissertation. I’d like to share the three reflections/lessons Webster draws from the biblical work of Barth and Bonhoeffer. Wrapping up his essay, Webster claims that Neither Bonhoeffer nor Barth were wissenschaftlich theologians; both were practical or pastoral theologians of the church of Jesus Christ. . . . Both, in short, were members of the guild, so despised by Kant and most of his heirs, of biblical theologians. Pondering their work may give us cause to reflect on three matters (108–109). ...

There’s an intriguing passage in Bonhoeffer’s Letters and Papers from Prison where he discusses the relationship between “spirit” and “flesh,” in the context of discussing “restoration” and “sublimation,” in the context of discussing lyrics from certain hymns and songs that were meaningful to him in prison. Here it is, from a December 19, 1943 (the Fourth Sunday of Advent) letter to Eberhard Bethge: In recent weeks this line has been running through my head over and over: “Calm your hearts, dear friends; / whatever plagues you, / whatever fails you, / I will restore it all.” What does that mean, “I will restore it all”? Nothing is lost; in Christ all things are taken up, preserved, albeit in transfigured form, transparent, clear, liberated from the torment of self-serving demands. Christ brings all this back, indeed, as God intended, without being distorted by sin. The doctrine originating in Eph. 1:10 of the restoration of all things, ἀνακεφαλαίωσις—re-capitulatio (Irenaeus), is a magnificent and consummately consoling thought. (DBWE 8:229–30) ...

In The Epistle to the Romans, Barth writes the following concerning the false image of God at the heart of religion: What men on this side resurrection name ‘God’ is most characteristically not God. Their ‘God’ does not redeem his creation, but allows free course to the unrighteousness of men; does not declare himself to be God, but is the complete affirmation of the course of the world and of men as it is. This is intolerable, for, in spite of the highest honours we offer him for his adornment, he is, in fact, ‘No-God’. The cry of revolt against such a god is nearer the truth than is the sophistry with which men attempt to justify him (Romans, 40). ...

(Note: Read more about my work on Barth, Bonhoeffer, and the Bible here.) I’m really looking forward to reading these two Barth (and Bonhoeffer) books coming out from Baker in 2019: Freedom under the Word: Karl Barth’s Theological Exegesis. Edited by Ben Rhodes and Martin Westerholm. Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Theologians for a Post-Christian World. By Wolf Krötke. Translated by John P. Burgess. Freedom under the Word (May 2019) According to Baker: ...

Based upon my own reading of Bonhoeffer’s Letters and Papers from Prison [DBWE 8], here is my attempt at a summary list of the facets/aspects of Bonhoeffer’s view of “religion” in prison. Religion emphasizes inwardness. [DBWE 8:362, 364, 455–57] Religion emphasizes conscience. [DBWE 8:362] Religion is a temporary phenomenon. [DBWE 8:362, 364] Religion is manipulative and exploitative. [DBWE 8:363, 366, 426–27, 450, 455–57] Religion ignores human strength/knowledge/autonomy and instead focuses on human weakness, ignorance, and boundaries/limits/limitations. [DBWE 8:366, 405–7, 426–27, 450, 455–57, 475–78] Religion is metaphysical, otherworldly, and escapist. [DBWE 8:364, 372–73, 447–48, 480, 485–86, 501] Religion is privileged. [DBWE 8:364] Religion is, like circumcision, no longer a condition for salvation. [DBWE 8:365–66] Religion posits a false “God” (a “deus ex machina,” “working hypothesis,” and “stopgap”) on the other side of human boundaries (a shrinking area, as humanity matures) in order to solve human problems. [DBWE 8:366, 405–7, 426–27, 450, 455–57, 475–80, 500–1] Religion is driven by anxiety. [DBWE 8:366, 478] Religion is individualistic. [DBWE 8:372–73] Religious language has lost its power.[DBWE 8:390] Religion is a particular posture towards life, capable of being exemplified, not only by pastors, but also by existential philosophers and psychotherapists. [DBWE 8:427, 450, 457] Religion is a partial and segmented posture towards life. [DBWE 8:455–57, 482] Religion ignores the world’s increasing godlessness. [DBWE 8:480, 482]

As I slowly make progress on my dissertation (“Scriptural but Not Religious: Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and a Biblical Critique of Religion”), I’m longing for the day when: Karl Barth’s Gesamtausgabe (Collected Edition) is finished. They are translated into a critical English edition. They are available within the same database/framework as Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Works in English and German (DBWE and DBW). In the meantime, the Digital Karl Barth Library, provided by Alexander Street Press is the best resource out there for searching the text of Barth’s works. ...

Tomorrow, I defend the proposal for my dissertation. For now, the dissertation is tentatively titled: “Scriptural, but Not Religious: Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and a Biblical Critique of Religion.” Here’s the “elevator pitch” for the dissertation. Feedback appreciated. Scriptural, but Not Religious: Barth, Bonhoeffer, and a Biblical Critique of Religion My project traces its origins to a single classroom discussion question in the Spring of 2015. The question was this: “In what ways is Bonhoeffer’s understanding of religion similar to, and different from, that of Barth?” ...

(Note: Read more about my work on Barth, Bonhoeffer, and the Bible here.) Christian theologians Karl Barth (1886-1968) and Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) inherited a particular understanding of religion. In the broadly post-Kantian milieu, nineteenth-century thinkers such as Friedrich Schleiermacher, Albrecht Ritschl, and Adolf von Harnack defined religion essentially, anthropologically, and subjectively. That is, religion has a particular essence, and is in some manner inalienable from our humanity. The emphasis of this conception is on the experience of the religious subject, instead of the knowledge of religion’s object (let alone its reality).[1] It is this notion of religion that both Barth and Bonhoeffer challenged. ...

ABROMEIT, Hans-Jürgen. Das Geheimnis Christi: Dietrich Bonhoeffers erfahrungsbezogene Christologie. Neukirchener Beiträge zur systemaschen Theologie 8. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991. BEINTKER, Michael. “Kontingenz und Gegenständlichkeit: Zu Bonhoeffers Barth-Kritik in ‘Akt und Sein.’” In Krisis und Gnade: Gesammelte Studien zu Karl Barth, edited by Stefan Holtmann and Peter Zocher, 29–54. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. BENKTSON, Benkt-Erik. Christus Und Die Religion: Der Religionsbegriff Bei Barth, Bonhoeffer Und Tillich. Arbeiten Zur Theologie, II/9. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1967. BETHGE, Eberhard. Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography. Edited by Victoria J. Barnett. Revised. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1967. BOOMGAARDEN, Jürgen. Das Verständnis der Wirklichkeit: Dietrich Bonhoeffers systematische Theologie und ihr philosophischer Hintergrund in “Akt und Sein.” Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser/Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1999. BURTNESS, James H. “As Though God Were Not Given: Barth, Bonhoeffer, and the Finitum Capax Infiniti.” Dialog 19, no. 4 (1980): 249–55. DEJONGE, Michael P. Bonhoeffer’s Theological Formation: Berlin, Barth, and Protestant Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. EICHINGER, Franz. “Zwischen Transzendentalphilosophie und Ontologie: Zur kritisch-systematischen Standortbestimmung der Theologie beim frühen Bonhoeffer.” In Vernunftfähiger – vernunftbedürftiger Glaube: Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Johann Reikerstorfer-, edited by Kurt Appel, Wolfgang Treitler, and Peter Zeillinger, 65–86. Religion – Kultur – Recht 3. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2005. FEIL, Ernst. The Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Translated by Martin Rumscheidt. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. GODSEY, John D. “Barth and Bonhoeffer: The Basic Difference.” Quarterly Review 7, no. 1 (1987): 9–27. ———. The Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1960. GREEN, Clifford J. Bonhoeffer: A Theology of Sociality. Revised. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. ———. “Trinity and Christology in Bonhoeffer and Barth.” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 60, no. 1–2 (2006): 1–22. GREGGS, Tom. Theology Against Religion: Constructive Dialogues with Bonhoeffer and Barth. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2011. ———. “The Influence of Dietrich Bonhoeffer on Karl Barth.” In Engaging Bonhoeffer: The Impact and Influence and Impact of Bonhoeffer’s Life and Thought, edited by Matthew Kirkpatrick. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016. KAMPHUIS, Barend. Boven En Beneden: Het Uitgangspunt van de Christologie En de Problematiek van de Openbaring Nagegaan Aan de Hand van de Ontwikkelingen Bij Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer En Wolfhart Pannenberg. Kampen: Kok, 1999. KARTTUNEN, Tomi. Die Polyphonie Der Wirklichkeit: Erkenntnistheorie Und Ontologie in Der Theologie Dietrich Bonhoeffers. University of Joensuu Publications in Theology 11. Joensuu: University of Joensuu, 2004. KRÖTKE, Wolf. Barmen – Barth – Bonhoeffer: Beiträge Zu Einer Zeitgemäßen Christozentrischen Theologie. Unio Und Confessio 26. Bielefeld: Luther-Verlag, 2009. LEHMANN, Paul L. “The Concreteness of Theology: Reflections on the Conversation between Barth and Bonhoeffer.” In Footnotes to a Theology: The Karl Barth Colloquium of 1972, edited by Martin Rumscheidt, 53–76. Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1974. MARSH, Charles. Reclaiming Dietrich Bonhoeffer: The Promise of His Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. MAYER, Rainer. Christuswirklichkeit: Grundlagen, Entwicklungen Und Konsequenzen Der Theologie Dietrich Bonhoeffers. Arbeiten Zur Theologie, II/15. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1969. PANGRITZ, Andreas. “Dietrich Bonhoeffer: ‘Within, Not Outside, the Barthian Movement.’” In Bonhoeffer’s Intellectual Formation: Theology and Philosophy in His Thought, edited by Peter Frick, 29:245–82. Religion in Philosophy and Theology. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. ———. Karl Barth in the Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. PUFFER, Matthew. “Dietrich Bonhoeffer in the Theology of Karl Barth.” In Karl Barth in Conversation, edited by W. Travis McMaken and David W. Congdon, 46–62. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014. REUTER, Hans-Richard. “Editor’s Afterword to the German Edition.” In Act and Being: Transcendental Philosophy and Ontology in Systematic Theology, 162–83. DBWE 2. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. SHERMAN, Franklin. “Act and Being.” In The Place of Bonhoeffer: Problems and Possibilities in His Thought, edited by Martin E. Marty, 83–111. New York: Association Press, 1962. TIETZ-STEIDING, Christiane. Bonhoeffers Kritik Der Verkrümmten Vernunft: Eine Erkenntnistheoretische Untersuchung. Beiträge Zur Historischen Theologie 12. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. WITVLIET, J. Theo. “Bonhoeffer’s Dialoog Met Karl Barth.” Kerk En Theologie 16 (1965): 301–21. WOELFEL, James W. Bonhoeffer’s Theology: Classical and Revolutionary. Nashville: Abingdon, 1970. WÜSTENBERG, Ralf K. “Philosophical Influences on Bonhoeffer’s ‘Religionless Christianity.’” In Bonhoeffer and Continental Thought: Cruciform Philosophy, edited by Brian Gregor and Jens Zimmermann, 137–55. Indiana Series in the Philosophy of Religion. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ Press, 2009.

(Note: Read more about my work on Barth, Bonhoeffer, and the Bible here.) This semester — my final one at Beeson Divinity School — I’m doing a directed study with Piotr Malysz on the topic of “Religion” in Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The impetus for this study was a discussion question in Dr. Malysz’s Spring 2015 20th Century History and Doctrine course. On March 24, our third class period on Dietrich Bonhoeffer, our second question for discussion read as follows: ...