1
Following Jesus
Introduction
A distinct feature of the New Testament gospels is the calling, forming and commissioning of disciples by Jesus Christ. Like every other message, the Good News needs messengers. The historical context, in which followers of Christ live and work, shapes and affects the nature and demands of their discipleship. During times of crisis and hostility, the distinctive identity of a disciple becomes much more apparent than at times of ease, tolerance, general acceptance, or even positive aspiration.1 Following the period of persecution of the early church, the rise of Christendom altered the nature of discipleship. What had been a costly and radical call became a respected and desirable aspiration. The needs and demands for an ordered human society became interwoven with Christian convictions. Thus, to be a good citizen was often equated with being a good Christian. More recently this union has been challenged by the rise of a secular worldview which has brought about the relegation of faith matters into a separate private sphere which remains unconnected to the public sphere of life. Our present post-Christendom world is undergoing prolonged divorce proceedings occasionally interrupted by mediation sessions. What does Jesus’ command “come and follow me” mean today?
Throughout church history, various groups and monastic communities, often forced to exist on the margin of the church, sought to preserve significant features of what they perceived to be authentic Christian discipleship. The effect of these prophetic communities has frequently revitalized the Church and challenged parts of Christendom to rediscover some of its distinct “following” identity.
Two Stories, Two Distinct Voices
This dissertation attempts to listen and learn from two distinct prophetic voices who sought to articulate the call of Christ to follow him, in the midst of the tumultuous period of Nazi Germany. They were German and contemporaries, but each faced a very different context. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran pastor and theologian who profited from a privileged and extensive education followed by numerous international encounters and experiences. Arnold Köster was a Baptist pastor in Vienna and deeply affected by a Bible-based, conservative pietism. He was nurtured and rooted in a tradition that had as its central concern radical following. Bonhoeffer was part of the numerically dominant church-of-the-people (Volkskirche). Köster was a member of what most German citizens perceived as a Christian fringe movement, the Baptist denomination (Freiwilligkeitskirche, Free Church).
At a time when church was generally viewed as a necessary and integral part of society, the respective members of Volkskirche and Freiwilligkeitskirche tended to define the nature of church quite differently. At its best, the central concern of the Volkskirche model of church is to be “salt.” Salt seasons and preserves food, thus the primary function of the church is to influence and shape the whole of society with gospel truths. It is the soluble nature of salt which allows it to penetrate and season the whole. This apparent strength makes it difficult to identify the individual kernel. Similarly membership to the Volkskirche can be simply assumed by virtue of cultural and traditional association. At its best, the Freiwilligkeitskirche model of church, emphasizing the gathered church, perceives its primary role to be “light.” Unlike salt, light does not mingle or mix with darkness. By its very nature, it constitutes the opposite. Thus the distinction between who is in or out is defined much more rigorously. The gathered nature of the community is based on the voluntary choice—usually expressed in believer’s baptism—of its members.
Intertwined with divergent theological emphases, are social and cultural factors which also influence every believing community as it seeks to express its identity or ecclesiology. Minority movements characteristically distinguish themselves more radically from the rest, simply because they are a minority. The following statement by the American theologian Robert Friedmann is an interesting example of this: “Ever since the days of the apostolic church, Anabaptism is the only example in church history of an ‘existential Christianity’ where there existed no basic split between faith and life, even though the struggle for realization or actualization of this faith into practice remained a perennial task.”2
For anyone outside the separatist tradition this is a bold and provocative claim. The “only example” effectively excludes other attempts of undivided following. Does history support such a claim? Friedmann provides a caveat by admitting that the Anabaptist experiment is locked into a “struggle for realization.” Is this an admission of the fact that mere participation in a struggle does not in itself guarantee a positive outcome? After all, the outcome of every struggle can either be success or failure and, more frequently, is a confusing mixture of both.
The historical documents and the life stories of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Arnold Köster bear witness to the fact that both sought to actualize their faith into practice. They were comrades in the same struggle, yet each remained within their own separate church tradition and each sought to embody following Jesus in their own unique personal contexts, opportunities, and challenges. There are no records of any personal encounters between them and it seems unlikely that either of them read or studied articles or publications by the other. Their spheres of influence were quite apart, yet each sought to be, and challenged others to become, faithful followers of Christ. This study attempts to listen to both of these voices and to glean from them some of the crucial and abiding issues every follower of Christ inevitably faces.
Why Listen to Them?
A critic may interject: “Why listen to them? How can the past help us understand what following Jesus means now? Surely, today’s disciples are faced with a different world and new challenges.” Clearly the struggles of the past don’t always provide comprehensive up-to-date solutions. And yet, knowing that what worked yesterday does not necessarily work today does not negate the fact that a Christian community suffering from collective amnesia becomes rootless and confused.
More important than a courteous bow towards the past is to appreciate that the German experience of 1932–45 was a period of extreme crisis. The German people had been shaped for centuries by its Christendom heritage and culture. Yet, within a few years, government, laws, the arts, religion, morality, in short everything that had provided order and an inner cohesion to society fell apart. What does following Jesus mean in a world that is totally out of kilter? No longer protected by the safe confines of their churches, Christians were directly exposed to the pervasive influences of the world and a secular and twisted regime. Clear boundary lines between right and wrong, loyalty and betrayal, duty and decadence became blurred and often indistinguishable. Within that context, followers of Jesus were pushed to the edges of their faith as they sought to embody the truths of the gospel.
In his Theologische Ethik, the German theologian Helmut Thielicke frequently draws on the notion of borderline situations (Grenzsituationen).3 He argues that it is not sufficient to have an understanding of God’s word and commandments that is only applicable within a normal and ordered situation.4 Ethical principles which work only in a Christendom paradigm but collapse under the strain of extreme borderline situations are of little or no value. The philosopher Karl Jaspers, who first conceived the term Grenzsituation, claimed that “to exist and experience the borderline situation is the same.”5 For him, being was defined by the extreme experience of limits. The borderlines of pain, death, and guilt challenge and question the mundane. At these points, ultimate questions have to be faced, and it is the borderline perspective that leads to a deeper and more meaningful understanding of life. Thielicke, building on Jaspers’ existential analysis argues that the borderline was also an important characteristic of the biblical worldview. The Scriptures’ understanding of humanity and the world is profoundly i...