1 Bonhoeffer and Karl Holl If we seek to locate Bonhoeffer’s position on the map of the twentieth-century theological landscape, invariably many comparisons will be made, many relationships examined, and nuances in his thought emphasized; a survey of the Bonhoeffer literature indicates the extent to which this has already been done. Such a study is done to help us better understand his context, but it also brings clarity to his theological position. Bonhoeffer’s theological background was that of liberal theology, which was the dominant voice in Berlin. But he was also a part of the twentieth century in that he was influenced by the two strong reform movements in early-twentieth-century German theology: the Luther renaissance (represented by Karl Holl) and dialectical theology (Karl Barth and others). Even though he was influenced by both movements, he maintained a critical distance from them. This is indicative of Bonhoeffer’s theological orientation. He remained fiercely independent in his thinking, consistently claiming Luther as his only real ally. So while he learned from Holl and found inspiration 33 THE CROSS OF REALITY from Barth, he finds an alternative to both of them in Luther.1 It is this influence of Luther that separates Bonhoeffer from Barth as well as from his teachers. The integration of these influences by Bonhoeffer gives his theology its own independent voice.2 Bonhoeffer’s Independent Theological Stance One of the first persons to critically evaluate Bonhoeffer’s theology was his dissertation advisor, Reinhold Seeberg. In his written evaluation of , Bonhoeffer’s doctoral Sanctorum Communio dissertation, Seeberg’s comments show the extent to which 1. Seeing the deficiencies in twentieth century theology, Bonhoeffer concludes his analysis with what might be seen as a programmatic statement for his own theology: “Luther was able to write and his piece on usury at the same time. Why can’t we do On the Bonadage of the Will that anymore? ” (DBWE 11:24). The extent of Luther’s influence on Who will show us Luther? Bonhoeffer’s theological project has been pointed out by Wayne Floyd, “Editor’s Introduction to the English Edition,” , DBWE 2:7, for example, where he concludes that the Act and Being heart of Bonhoeffer’s argument in was “deeply indebted to theological insights Act and Being from Martin Luther, especially his ” Lectures on Galatians. 2. After submitting Barth’s theology to examination in his lectures on systematic theology in the twentieth century along the same lines as begun in Bonhoeffer makes Act and Being, the following statement that, in essence, is descriptive of his theological task: “Lutherans of today should be ashamed that they don’t know how to define the Lutheran understanding of revelation by differentiating it both from Catholic substance thinking and from Reformed actualism” (DBWE 11:243n331; this is an alternative rendering of Bonhoeffer’s lecture, as recorded by Otto Dudzus). Commenting on this work, Jonathan Sorum, “The Eschatological Boundary in Bonhoeffer’s ‘Nachfolge,’” (ThD diss., Luther Northwestern Theological Seminary, 1994), 29, draws the following conclusion: “Luther could do both dogmatics and ethics at the same time. For him, everything was of a piece; dogmatics, ethics, God, human beings, and world were all one reality, but precisely God’s being God is what made everything else real. Bonhoeffer seeks to follow Luther. Any understanding of the theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer must begin with an understanding of his understanding of the theology of Martin Luther, for Bonhoeffer’s task was nothing else that to ‘show us Luther.’” See also Joachim von Soosten, “Editor’s Afterword to the German Edition,” , DBWE 1, where Sanctorum Communio he describes the nature of Bonhoeffer’s disagreement with Barth growing out of his Lutheran commitments (292, 305). It is the nature of such tensions between Barth and Bonhoeffer that leads Cliff Green to conclude that in spite of what Bonhoeffer learned from Barth and his siding with Barth over against his teachers, “nevertheless, in his alignment with Barth, Bonhoeffer remained typically independent (“Editor’s Introduction to the English Edition,” Sanctorum , DBWE 1:3). For a further description of the relation/influences of Holl/Barth, see Communion Hans Pfeifer,“Editor’s Afterword to the German Edition,” , The Young Bonhoeffer 1918–1927 DBWE 9:571ff. 34 BONHOEFFER AND KARL HOLL Bonhoeffer as a young scholar garnered the respect of one of the leading theologians of the day: The author is not only well oriented in the theological field but also thoroughly acquainted with sociology. He is decidedly gifted in systematic thinking, as demonstrated by the dialectic in the structure of his work both in general and in particular. He seeks to discover his way on his own. He is always prepared for intelligent discussion of other opinions. Even if one does not share his opinions, one will readily acknowledge the scientific interest and the energy of the argumentation. They are only the converse of the many good qualities of the work: Its enthusiasm for Christianity, the precise systematics in the method of the entire study, the inner concentration of his task, the ingenious particularity of his view, and his critical ability to cope with over views. On the whole, the work can be characterized as a very satisfactory model of serious academic erudition.3 In addition to praising Bonhoeffer’s intellectual skills, Seeberg notes Bonhoeffer’s , seeking “to discover his way on his own.” independence He recognized that Bonhoeffer did not simply repeat the language and thought patterns of his teachers; both in the way he approached his subject and his overall orientation indicated an independence that could not be easily categorized.4 Independence was a characteristic of Bonhoeffer’s long before this point in his academic career, however; it was a characteristic of Bonhoeffer’s person as well as his thought. He was never subject to hero worship and was always able to approach a subject or person with an independent spirit (only his family members exerted such an influence on him that even to the end of his life their basic orientation and philosophy of life would shape the decisions he would make). 3. DBWE 9:176–77. 4. Bonhoeffer’s text indicates independence of another sort as well. What he proposed was a “systematic” rather than a “historical” study. This methodological independence sets him apart from his teachers and the mainstream liberal theology of the nineteenth century. See Cliff Green, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 25. Bonhoeffer: A Theology of Sociality 35 THE CROSS OF REALITY Even his choice to become a theologian is one that is marked by his independence. In spite of the overwhelming influence of his family, Bonhoeffer chose a profession that would enable him to make a contribution in ways that others in his family would not. According to Bethge, At the root of his choice [to become a theologian] was a basic drive toward independence. This did not exclude his insatiable appetite for all kinds of different knowledge, but the driving force in his life was the need for unchallenged self-realization. The presence of theologians among his forebears made his choice of career not that unusual; while this no doubt played a part, it was hardly a decisive factor. His isolation among his brothers and sisters was probably of far greater importance; it may have nourished his urge to surpass them all.5 This independence was noted by fellow students as well. Perhaps while it is not an expert judgment, it nevertheless sheds light on Bonhoeffer’s theological make-up, which was exhibited quite early. One fellow student from Adolf von Harnack’s 1925–26 seminar on Augustine, Helmut Goes, for example, observed, I had already noticed Dietrich Bonhoeffer at the very first sessions. Not just because he surpassed almost all of us in theological knowledge and ability; that was for me the most impressive thing. But what really drew me to Bonhoeffer was that here was someone who did not merely study and absorb the words and writings of some master, but who thought for himself and already knew what he wanted and also wanted what he knew. I actually had the experience (and to me it was rather alarming and a tremendous novelty) of seeing the young blond student contradict the revered polyhistorian His Excellency von Harnack politely, but on objective theological grounds. Harnack replied, but the student contradicted him again and again. I no longer know the topic of discussion—Karl Barth was mentioned—but I still recall the secret enthusiasm that I felt for this free, critical and independent theological thought.6 5. , 37. DB-ER 36 BONHOEFFER AND KARL HOLL While such an observation may not carry the same weight as that of Bonhoeffer’s professors, it nevertheless sheds light on Bonhoeffer’s theological make-up, which, as these observations point out, was exhibited early. Because of that independent spirit, differences with his teachers emerged at an early date as well; by his own admission Bonhoeffer said that he felt out of place in Berlin. In a December 25, 1931 letter to his friend Erwin Sutz, for example, he shared this observation: “My theological origin is gradually becoming suspect here, and they seem to have somewhat the feeling that they have been nurturing a viper in their bosom.”7 The same conclusion can be drawn with regard to his relationship to Karl Barth. At the same time as he was distancing himself from his Berlin teachers, Bonhoeffer found Barth to be a positive source for theological reflection, while maintaining a critical distance.8 He did not refrain from challenging Barth, especially when it “conflicted with the more deeply ingrained convictions animating his own understanding of how theology was related to both faith and experience.”9 According to Bonhoeffer, Barth’s emphasis on God’s majesty threatened the concreteness of God’s revelation.