Chapter 1
Backgrounding Bonhoeffer
Martin Luther on Justificationâs Import for Anthropology
I Introduction
Given Bonhoefferâs own intellectual formation, the question of the role of justification in his theology inevitably sends one back to Luther. Indeed, several recent studies have convincingly demonstrated the impossibility of properly understanding Bonhoefferâs theology apart from Luther, who, along with Paul, formed the theological vein in which Bonhoeffer sought to establish himself.1 Beyond serving as Bonhoefferâs theological baseline, Luther also formulated his theological anthropology explicitly with reference to justification. This is more than can be said for Bonhoeffer, who, although clearly motivated by anthropological considerations, never outlines a theological anthropology as such. Thus, Lutherâs way of construing anthropology in terms of justification does not simply form an important explanatory backdrop against which Bonhoefferâs anthropology should be understood. Indeed, it also presents a framework within which to interpret the anthropological subtext of Bonhoefferâs early theological writings.2 The following discussion will begin with a brief consideration of the case for Luther as Bonhoeffer's primary theological influence, before turning to consider how justification shapes what it means to be human in Lutherâs theology. This will provide a framework for assessing the extent to which justification constitutes a controlling anthropological concept in Bonhoefferâs own thought in the next chapter.
II Luther as Theological Influence on Bonhoeffer
To claim a significant role for Martin Luther in the shaping of Dietrich Bonhoefferâs theology is relatively uncontroversial. Yet, generally speaking, Bonhoefferâs interaction with dialectical theology, especially that of Karl Barth, has ruled the day in terms of exploration of his thought.3 Perhaps this is partially due to the fact that it seems self-evident that Bonhoefferâas a German Lutheran who was trained in the Luther Renaissance by the likes of Karl Holl and Reinhold Seebergâbears the mark of Luther. If this is the case then it may be that Lutherâs influence on Bonhoeffer has often simply been assumed in Anglophone scholarship.4 Whatever the case may be, a number of recent studies have emerged in English which demonstrate persuasively that Luther plays a central role in shaping Bonhoefferâs theology.5 We shall comment briefly here on only three of them in order to confirm the legitimacy of reading Bonhoefferâs theology against the background of Lutherâs influence.
In a recent monograph, Michael DeJonge advances the twofold claim that first, âBonhoeffer thought his theology was Lutheranâ and second, that âhe was justified in thinking so.â6 As such, DeJongeâs work largely aids in locating Bonhoeffer firmly within the Lutheran confessional tradition, even if his participation in it was often creative in nature.7 This, however, does not entail a reduction of all aspects of Bonhoefferâs theology to his Lutheran heritage. Rather, it grounds Bonhoefferâs thinking in such a way as to suggest âthat interpretations that forget about Lutherâs importance for Bonhoeffer tend toward misinterpretation.â8 Thus, although DeJonge does not specifically address Bonhoefferâs anthropologyâinstead, he primarily focuses on defending Bonhoefferâs Christological appropriation of Lutherâs two kingdoms theologyâhis account implies that a proper understanding of it must take Lutherâs influence into consideration.9
Second, H. Gaylon Barkerâs The Cross of Reality explores the relationship between Bonhoeffer and Luther in terms of Christology and the theologia crucis. Like DeJonge, Barker is careful to note the dynamic nature of Lutherâs importance for Bonhoeffer, asserting: âBonhoefferâs goal was not simply to replicate Lutherâs theology; however, what he finds in Luther is the key to unlocking the churchâs witness for this new time.â10 According to Barker, then, one must read Bonhoefferâs Christocentrism with Luther in the background, yet always in a way that foregrounds Bonhoefferâs commitment to the importance of the churchâs concrete proclamation in the present.
Barker offers particularly convincing evidence for the connection between Bonhoeffer and Luther when he recounts comments made by Eberhard Bethge and Gerhard Ebeling in personal conversations he had with them. Bethge, Bonhoefferâs best friend and biographer, notes the compulsion Bonhoeffer felt in relation to Luther when he suggests: âBonhoeffer had to find his own Luther.â11 Ebeling, a student of Bonhoefferâs at the preacherâs seminary in Finkenwalde and a prominent Luther scholar in his own right, speaks to the deep, theological affinity between Bonhoeffer and Luther when he comments: âIn my heart, I believe Bonhoeffer and Luther are one.â12 Barker elaborates further on his conversation with Ebeling, writing: â[He] believed it was Bonhoefferâs intention to âre-winâ Luther over against the interpretations of the nineteenth century and of his time to come to the original Luther.â13
Third and, finally, although Wolf Krötkeâs essay on Lutherâs presence in Bonhoefferâs theology is considerably shorter than the aforementioned monographs, he makes a concise and powerful argument for the importance of understanding Bonhoeffer in light of Luther. Rather than consolidating Bonhoefferâs dependence on Luther thematically, as DeJonge and Barker do, Krötke moves systematically through core tenets of Bonhoefferâs theologyâScripture, Christology, sin, justification and sanctification, ethics, and temptation. In doing so, he ranges across Bonhoefferâs works, showing how Lutherâs influence shapes every theme. Krötke is honest about where Bonhoeffer departs from Luther, not shying away from identifying where Bonhoefferâs departures were less than successful. However, like DeJonge and Barker, he asserts that âBonhoeffer considered [Luther] an authority with whom he desires to be in agreement even and especially when he goes beyond him . . . His orientation towards Lutherâs theology evidently constituted for him the objective orientation of the Protestant Church and theology as such.â14 Unlike DeJonge, Krötke balks at locating Bonhoeffer within Lutheran confessionalism, citing both his resistance to the Luther offered him by his Berlin professors and the freedom exercised in his incorporation of Luther into his theology. In light of this freedom, Krötke concludes his essay modestly, claiming that in Bonhoeffer âwe often encounter Luther. In Bonhoefferâs theology and life we encounterâfar from any Luther cult or Lutheran confessionalismâthe heartbeat of one who has a living, Reformed faith in the midst of difficult circumstances.â15
DeJonge, Barker, and Krötke all substantively ground their respective studies in Bonhoefferâs works, giving special attention to the way in which he was shaped by the so-called Luther Renaissance.16 Yet, it is clear that Bonhoeffer relentlessly sought the ârealâ Luther, rather than settling for the one presented by Holl, Seeberg, Althaus, and others. Even so, Bonhoeffer had little interest in presenting âa harmonious âpicture of Luther.ââ17 Rather, âfor him, Lutherâwho himself rejected such a pictureârepresented an unparalleled theological, intellectual, and spiritual impulse and source for his own experiences of faith and reality.â18
From these studies, it might seem that the flexibility with which Bonhoeffer incorporated Lutherâs theological insights conflicts with the assertion that he sought the âoriginal Luther.â However, Bonhoeffer himself provides the key to reconciling these two apparently contradictory lines of thinking in Letters and Papers from Prison. There, in a letter to his parents on October 31, 1943, he writes: âAlready one hundred years ago Kierkegaard said that Luther today would say the opposite of what he said back then. I think this is trueâcum grano salis.â19 By this Bonhoe ffer does not mean that he thinks Luther would abandon his core doctrinal insights, but, rather, that his application of those insights would differ markedly. Thus, in Bonhoefferâs mind, faithfully retrieving the âoriginal Lutherâ for the sake of the church in the present would, at times, necessarily entail taking up and articulating Lutherâs core insights in a highly flexible manner. Viewed in this way, slavish adherence to Luther and Lutheranism is, paradoxically, infidelity to Luther. As such, any account of Lutherâs influence on Bonhoeffer must move beyond sketching corresponding thoughts and ideas to a further articulation of what exactly Bonhoeffer does with those thoughts and ideas in order to put them to theological work for the church situation of his time.
Before moving on to consider Lutherâs treatment of justification by faith alone as an anthropological concept, it is worth noting that not only are DeJonge, Barker, and Krötke unified in identifying Luther as Bonhoefferâs theological baseline, but all three also identify the fundamental importance of Lutherâs doctrine of justification for understanding Bonhoefferâs theology. For DeJonge, if Bonhoeffer is, indeed, to be considered within Lutheran confessionalism then his definition of Lutheranism âis focused on justification, a particular account of the person of Christ, and the church community, where the last is defined both in terms of Christâs presence and the correlative concept of the preached and heard word.â20 Giving special attention to the role of the doctrine of justification in Act and Being and Discipleship, DeJonge concludes that justification is key to the structure of Bonhoefferâs theology.21 Likewise, Barker asserts that, for Bonhoeffer, âthe central theological question was that of justification, which, out of necessity, is tied to Christology, for salvation comes through Christ alone.â22 Finally, Krötke simply states that âBonhoeffer gained his theological framework and categories from Lutherâs doctrine of justification.â23 Indeed, far from a static, theological substratum, Bonhoefferâs theological work was driven by the doctrine of justification in a comprehensive manner.24
To sum up, i...