by Mark Devine
Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s story has, understandably, piqued the interest of Christians and non-Christians alike, including evangelicals. However, Bonhoeffer was a pastor and theologian before he joined the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler, and use of his writings has been decidedly more attractive to theological liberals and progressives than to evangelicals.
The typical explanation for this state of affairs tends to run something like this: Bonhoeffer was influenced by liberals such as his neighbor, the great Adolph von Harnack, and especially by Swiss theologian Karl Barth, the so-called father of neoorthodoxy, which is, well, liberalism lite or perhaps, liberalism in disguise—the liberal wolf decked out in evangelical sheep’s clothing.
My view is that there is some truth in all of this but not very much. Evangelical critiques of both Barth and Bonhoeffer have often been a little too quick and dirty by my estimation. Still, it will not be my purpose to make either Karl Barth or Dietrich Bonhoeffer walk and talk like American evangelicals. They were not. From the perspective of the evangelical, both men display certain glaring weaknesses and blind spots.
So why bid evangelicals come sit at the feet of Bonhoeffer? Because what Bonhoeffer got right belongs to all Christians and has, I believe, particular relevance for evangelicals. We evangelicals have our own blind spots to dispel, and sometimes the critique most needed cannot come from within our own ranks.
Was Bonhoeffer a liberal? My short answer to this question is no. Bonhoeffer studied under the star proponents of Protestant liberalism at the University of Berlin—Harnack, Holl, and Seeberg. But during the 1924–25 winter semester, he encountered the theology of Karl Barth, which involved an onslaught upon original, Schleiermacherian liberalism. For Bonhoeffer, liberalism never recovered. Ten months before his execution, writing from his prison cell, Bonhoeffer continued his exploration of the failures of liberalism:
The weakness of liberal theology was that it conceded to the world the right to determine Christ’s place in the world.
Barth’s fingerprints are obvious. My short answer to the related question of whether Bonhoeffer is neoorthodox is that the term neoorthodoxy lacks clarity and proves largely unhelpful to those wishing to understand Bonhoeffer’s views and significance. Within his own contexts he certainly belongs to a back-to-the-Bible movement of sorts initiated by Karl Barth and he understood better than some contemporary evangelicals the essential nature of the Protestant liberalism he opposed. Without question, in his life we are confronted with a follower of Jesus prepared to die rather than abandon his Lord.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer has much to teach us, and we evangelicals need not put our heads in the sand to sit at his feet for a spell.
______________
Request a faculty review copy here.
Request a media review copy here.
Order Bonhoeffer Speaks Today at LifeWay, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or Christianbook.com.
Related Posts
Aleph and Omega – Biblical Word vs. Theological Concept: Avoiding a Common Word-Study Fallacy
Now Available: Together on God’s Mission
Malcolm Yarnell on God the Trinity
B&H Academic Around the Web – 4/23/15
Russell Moore on the Southern Baptist Future
R. Scott Pace on His New Release, Student Ministry By The Book
This is terribly written article. Was Bonhoeffer a liberal? Barth’s theology is liberalism-lite or he is a liberal wolf in sheep’s clothing.
The arrogance of the position of the article is that “conservative, evangelical” Christianity is “correct” and not simply part of the great Christian conversation. A statement like “what Bonhoeffer got right” is indicative of the arrogance of the article. Well, what did Bonhoeffer get right? Who got it right for us to compare Bonhoeffer, or even Barth to? What are the evangelical blind spots that might help us sound like we have a little more humility???
I began to study Bonhoeffer long before evangelicals began to engage him. I am not an expert by any means. However, my assessment of current Bonhoeffer studies is this – several Christian traditions are trying to rewrite the Bonhoeffer story in such a way as to claim him as a saint for their own traditions. Three traditions in particular that seem to be sparring for Bonhoeffer are the Anabaptist tradition (through Stanley Hauerwas), the Protestant Liberal tradition (through Charles Marsh) and the Evangelical Tradition (with Eric Metaxas leading the way).
Bonhoeffer is a fascinating figure. He ministered, taught, wrote, and lived in such a horrid environment that it is a miracle that someone such as Bonhoeffer could arise out of that climate.
To scrutinize his theology according to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, or whatever theological litmus test we are putting before Bonhoeffer to determine “what he got right” is theological arrogance at best and simply missing the point of the influence of Bonhoeffer’s life and legacy. – the struggle to live as a faithful follower of Jesus Christ in the midst of a culture that defies everything Christ stood for.
I am well aware that Stanley Hauerwas is not an Anabaptist. However, because Hauerwas was so influenced by John Howard Yoder, an Anabaptist/Mennonite Theologian, then many have turned to Hauerwas’ study of Bonhoeffer and Yoder in Hauerwas’ “Performing the Faith”, which provides an portrait of Bonhoeffer very much influenced by what Hauerwas learned from Yoder.
Wouldn’t it matter how one defines “liberal” as the term seems to have shifted meanings to a more political platform rather than a broadening of thought.? Interesting article, you are correct to assert that He should be judged by his time, not by how evangelicals and liberals of today might view him. I’m inclined to think that being liberal in itself is not bat, but like all ideologies it is how you apply them that makes the difference.
Good thoughts, Scott. I think it is important to take a person’s context into account when trying to evaluate their positions.
Keen insights into the life of a great martyr!
Thanks, Bob!