Interesting quote by Bonhoeffer

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

So, I know Bonhoeffer is highly controversial. Reading him for a class right now I can see why. Sometimes he has really good stuff, and sometimes stuff that simply put is not Lutheran.
But I came across this quote today, and I have never heard this argued (at least like this before). Wanted some both practical and theological reflections on it (this comes out of his "Ethics" by the way):
"The office of proclamation as witness to Jesus Christ is bound to Holy Scripture. Here we must dare to assert that scripture essentially belongs to the preaching office while the sermon belongs to the congregation. Scripture needs to be interpreted and preached. In its essence it is not a devotional book of the congregation. The interpreted sermon text belongs to the congregation, and, starting from this basis, there is a 'searching in the scriptures...to see whether these things were so' (Acts 17:11), as the sermon has proclaimed. Thus, as a borderline case there exists the necessity of contradicting the sermon on the grounds of Holy Scripture. However, even this presupposes that Holy Scripture belongs in essence to the teaching office. When an individual Christian or a group of Christians take hold of Holy Scripture by appealing to the equal rights of all Christians, to their maturity in faith, and to the evidence of the Biblical text, this is certainly not yet a sign of exceptional reverence and exceptional spiritual insight into the nature of divine revelation. Instead, it is the breeding ground of much audacity, disorder, rebellion, and spiritual confusion. The holiness of scripture is properly acknowledged by recognizing that it is a grace to be called to interpret and proclaim scripture, and that it is also a grace to be allowed just to be the hearer of the interpretation and proclamation. To say that the book of sermons and prayer book are the chief books of the congregation, while the Holy Scripture is the book of the preacher, may perhaps be an appropriate way of expressing the divine counterpoint of congregation and office."

 

[Look Up]

Certainly Luther translated the Scriptures so that the common man could read them for himself, but I would be surprised if the Bonhoeffer quote is "not Lutheran" even in the sense of being opposed to Luther's own views ... and even if Luther might want some sort of clarification not explicit in the quote.

Would you prefer that statements of church doctrine and confession be determined by democratic vote of the laity or by process of ministerial consensus? Bonhoeffer in the quote in question does imply that sometimes lay interpretation may trump the ministerial in terms of closeness to the Bible, but only in "the borderline case"; the norm is that the college of Scripture teachers should steward church doctrine as based on Scripture.

Or at least that is my initial take. But I may understand your objection insofar as Bonhoeffer may seem too enamored of ecclesiastical hierarchy and too dismissive of lay skills in Bible reading. And doctrinal differences in the global church of Jesus Christ suggest that somewhere, some Scripture teachers are off base in some doctrine or other. Still, giving the laity free sway likely only leads to more schism than where the hierarchy holds sway ... as I think history suggests.

 

[bach90]

I'm reading a book about Bonhoeffer right now, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy by Eric Metaxas. It gives insight not only to Bonhoeffer but how Germany was at the time. He became involved in the ecumenical movement largely because of his studies at Union Theological Seminary and because he was reaching out for support to rescue the German church (although Bonhoeffer viewed the Confessing "movement" as the true church and the Nazified "German Christians" as a heretical church).

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

I'm reading a book about Bonhoeffer right now, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy by Eric Metaxas. It gives insight not only to Bonhoeffer but how Germany was at the time. He became involved in the ecumenical movement largely because of his studies at Union Theological Seminary and because he was reaching out for support to rescue the German church (although Bonhoeffer viewed the Confessing "movement" as the true church and the Nazified "German Christians" as a heretical church).

I think Bonhoeffer also believed ecumenism could break and unite people across nationalistic borders.
I disagree with Bonhoeffer's assessment of the State Church. For one, just because many did not join the confessing church did not mean they were Nazified or part of the Nazi party. And there were theological issues at hand as well. Take Altheus and Elert's critique of the Barmen declaration. Their opposition was because of the bad theology behind it, not necessarily where it led. Bonhoeffer is like that to me. He was in a unique position to have amazing insight rather early on of the problems with Nazi Germany under Hitler. I think he did not realize how much harder it was for others to see what was plain to him. He made a lot of assumptions about those who did not join the confessing church or the resistance movement.

 

[Look Up]

If memory serves, Roman Catholic apologist Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn tries to show how the Nazi party was voted into power in 1933 largely by Lutheran, as opposed to Catholic, dominated counties in Germany. If the author is correct, and we have reason to believe the Lutheran church of Germany had in large measure drifted theologically going back some time before 1933, we can assign some fault upon an ostensibly Lutheran majority at this point.

But I see two dangers here. One, we must not blame the Germany of the day on account of the fact that it lacked the clearer hindsight we possess. Second, we must empathize with the national desperation and depression that WWI and subsequent Treaty of Versailles still effected on the people by 1933.

And once the national socialist party was in power, one had to join in order to continue to run one's village business, for example. One need not have been a fanatic to join, though desperate economic and militant times gave impetus toward fanaticism.

In other words, we cannot flatter ourselves as rubbing shoulders with the radical and brave Dietrich Bonhoeffer without appreciating the temptations we would have faced were we in Bonhoeffer's context, temptations which swept away the theologically soft and economically battered German majority.

Granted we may not be as schooled in Prussian militarism and our cultures differ, but writing as I am from an economically threatened and in my view theologically deviant culture, I think I have reason both to empathize with erring neighbors and to fear demagoguery--wolf-like shepherds, if you will, in sheep's clothing. We who claim to live in "the land of the brave and the home of the free" are also in need of more like Bonhoeffer, of prophets even though they may be crying in "the wilderness of the peoples" (signaling God's judgment, Ezek. 20).

 

[bach90]

If memory serves, Roman Catholic apologist Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn tries to show how the Nazi party was voted into power in 1933 largely by Lutheran, as opposed to Catholic, dominated counties in Germany. If the author is correct, and we have reason to believe the Lutheran church of Germany had in large measure drifted theologically going back some time before 1933, we can assign some fault upon an ostensibly Lutheran majority at this point.

Yes, kind of. The German Protestant Church was/is a federation of Lutheran and Reformed churches, but many Lutherans did vote for the Nazi party. Although many were Christian in the sense of many Americans today, they hold to the intellectual truth but nothing more. Also from a political perspective the disbanding of the Center/Catholic party was a factor that allowed Hitler to come to power. Although they were assured that by disbanding they would not be harmed and von Papen was allowed to remain as vice-Chancellor.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

If memory serves, Roman Catholic apologist Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn tries to show how the Nazi party was voted into power in 1933 largely by Lutheran, as opposed to Catholic, dominated counties in Germany. If the author is correct, and we have reason to believe the Lutheran church of Germany had in large measure drifted theologically going back some time before 1933, we can assign some fault upon an ostensibly Lutheran majority at this point.

But I see two dangers here. One, we must not blame the Germany of the day on account of the fact that it lacked the clearer hindsight we possess. Second, we must empathize with the national desperation and depression that WWI and subsequent Treaty of Versailles still effected on the people by 1933.

And once the national socialist party was in power, one had to join in order to continue to run one's village business, for example. One need not have been a fanatic to join, though desperate economic and militant times gave impetus toward fanaticism.

In other words, we cannot flatter ourselves as rubbing shoulders with the radical and brave Dietrich Bonhoeffer without appreciating the temptations we would have faced were we in Bonhoeffer's context, temptations which swept away the theologically soft and economically battered German majority.

Granted we may not be as schooled in Prussian militarism and our cultures differ, but writing as I am from an economically threatened and in my view theologically deviant culture, I think I have reason both to empathize with erring neighbors and to fear demagoguery--wolf-like shepherds, if you will, in sheep's clothing. We who claim to live in "the land of the brave and the home of the free" are also in need of more like Bonhoeffer, of prophets even though they may be crying in "the wilderness of the peoples" (signaling God's judgment, Ezek. 20).

I think that assessment of the Lutherans as if it was the Lutherans who were blind would ignore relations Rome had early on with Hitler as well. That said, it is certainly true that the vast majority of Lutheran and Reformed theologians, including some very good ones like Werner Elert, did not resist and at times supported the Nazi rise.

Most people today look on in shock, but studies in psychology have shown how easily one can do absolutely horrible things when put into a context of power or pressure to do bad things or for a "greater good". Furthermore, those who have ever watched Hitler with any amount of objectivity can see what a captivating speaker he was. His rhetoric was powerful, and especially early on subtle. And speeches empowering nationalism are still well received today, such as here in America. I can see how easy it must have been to fall into a Nazi support (especially with the great amount of propaganda). I think that had I not been privy to special information, not simply the public speeches and what not, I would have likely fallen into the trap as well and have that stain to bear were I a German then.

Anytime an entire nation gets inflamed so easily, we should realize how easy it is for sin to completely corrupt our lives. Even to degrees that will stun people for all of history.

 

[bach90]

Also, it was not as if the Nazis won election in 1933 and Germany became a police state overnight. It took a few years for the Nazis to fully establish their totalitarian regime. It was why Bonhoeffer was able to resist openly for the first couple of years (within the Church). Also Muller who was the bishop of the Reich church was frankly a horrible politician and lost support after he criticized the Old Testament and St. Paul.

Bonhoeffer though definitely wasn't a Confessional Lutheran, but he was NOT a theological liberal like the progressives love to make him out to be. He is rather similar to C.S Lewis theologically, holding what we would call "conservative" Christian views but trying to avoid denominational trifles. He certainly would not have approved of things like abortion or gay marriage, and he was an opponent of the higher critical method as taught in Germany at the time. I have no doubt he died a believer in Christ and is enjoying his eternal reward.

However, I question just how much he was a "martyr." Certainly he resisted the Nazi regime with every bone in his body and in that sense was a martyr and is a hero. But he was only executed indirectly for being a Christian, and directly for his opposition to Nazism (based on his Christian beliefs, and was certainly a noble thing to fight against and die for). He was not a martyr in the classical or early Christian sense.

 

[Resha Caner]

this comes out of his "Ethics" by the way

I have a copy of Bonhoeffer's Ethics. He was a very complex man, and I also struggle with what appear to be some contradictions. At the back of my copy is his essay What is Meant by 'Telling the Truth?'

I think his writings take on more meaning when you know they were written against the background of Nazi Germany than if you read them in a vacuum. It helps one appreciate the struggle he was going through. This was not musing from an ivory tower, but someone trying to live a Christian life under intense oppression. His Life Together is also a great read.

So, with that intro, I would make 3 basic comments:

1) The section you quote seems to fit with the general theme I took away from Ethics. His thesis for that book seemed to be that we are all too eager to make right & wrong a human endeavor. We should instead put aside the ideas of right & wrong and focus on the question: What is God's will?

2) That is a very appealing thesis, and I really liked it at first. In many ways I still do. I think there is a truth there, but it may be well nigh impossible to implement in a fallen world. It must be asked how one would discern between a human decision of right and God's will. In the end, his argument becomes circular. To make that decision, one is supposed to turn to someone holding the pastoral office. Yet to trust that someone has been called to the pastoral office is to trust a human. The only way to break the circle is for God to place something perfect in this world that we can access, and that perfection is the Word. So, I would modify the thesis a bit. I do think lay interpretation has created a rat's nest. But to close access of lay people to the Bible merely opens another door - for the corruption of the church. It is a balancing act of sorts. We should trust our pastors to interpret the Bible for us, but the Bible should also remain in our hands so that we can challenge a pastor to restrict himself to interpretation only and not to invention.

3) The result of going the other way is reflected in Bonhoeffer's own life. I don't dimiss the pressure he was under. I fully understand his human reaction to his situation. I expect I would have been a poor example in comparison if I had been there with him. But, the fact remains that the essay I mentioned above was a justification of the lies he told his Nazi captors.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

I've spent a good amount of time studying Bonhoeffer - IMO, you aren't going to get into his thought without reading 'Creation, Fall, Temptaion,' and his christology lectures, 'Christ the Center.' Those books are where his foundational presuppositions are worked out and pretty much provide the key to understanding his thought. Most of 'Ethics,' builds off themes in 'Creation, Fall, Temptation.'

 

[joyfulthanks]

Just wanted to thank you all for the interesting and informed discussion. My only knowledge of Bonhoeffer comes from reading The Cost of Discipleship, Life Together, and selections from Meditating on the Word, so I don't really feel qualified to join the discussion; however I'm finding it very interesting.