Page 307 - Stati inu obstati, revija za vprašanja protestantizma, letnik II (2006), številki 3-4, ISSN 1408-8363
P. 307
SYNOPSES, ZUSAMMENFASSUNGEN
UDC 230.2 Bonhoeffer D.
230.1:17
Nenad Hardi Vitorović
Dietrich Bonhoeffer – responsibility and freedom
The paper presents a chronologically circumscribed discussion of the
theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer as can be divined from the selection of his
works recently published under the title Odgovornost in svoboda (Responsibility
and Freedom). His major theological contours are considered against the back-
ground of the famous events which engulfed Bonhoeffer from the 1920s to the
early 1940s, culminating in his execution for high treason. Through the
interplay between Bonhoeffer’s theological thought and his concrete political
and ethical actions, the paper seeks to gain some further insight into the
theological enigma of a pacifist in active rebellion; a pastoral theologian turned
armed traitor.
One of the most significant influences on Bonhoeffer’s thinking was Barth,
whose critique of the place of human possibility in philosophy and theology
Bonhoeffer enthusiastically adopted. His acceptance of Barth was, however,
qualified by a dissatisfaction with the latter’s stress on the complete otherness
of God and his concomitant treatment of divine-human communication in
abstract terms. For Bonhoeffer, what was important was the immediate and
personal, whereby God is encountered, not in his otherness (his freedom from
humanity), but in his gracious commitment to us (his freedom for humanity).
In turn, humanity is not to be construed in terms of individualism, but as
individuals in inseparable solidarity with community (whether that be in Adam
or in Christ).
Here Bonhoeffer’s predilection for concreteness over abstraction once more
comes to the fore: in the incarnation, Christ, in whom the unity of the church
is constituted, also creates an indissoluble continuity between God and the
world; the centuries-old absolute separation between the sacred and the profane
is invalidated. Because of the incarnation, there cannot exist two separate
spheres of activity, but only the one space of the actualisation of Christ. Herein
can be seen Bonhoeffer’s ethical basis for his participation in the plot on Hit-
ler’s life: there are no autonomous spheres with their own conf licting princi-
ples; there is only unity in Christ. We are therefore obliged as Christ’s disci-
ples to do whatever is necessary in the light of this reality. We are, however,
precluded from making any ultimate moral evaluation of our decisions – we
must leave that to God. Our challenge remains to be obedient in all things to
Christ, not simply as an object of religion, but as he truly is, the ruler of the
world.
305
UDC 230.2 Bonhoeffer D.
230.1:17
Nenad Hardi Vitorović
Dietrich Bonhoeffer – responsibility and freedom
The paper presents a chronologically circumscribed discussion of the
theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer as can be divined from the selection of his
works recently published under the title Odgovornost in svoboda (Responsibility
and Freedom). His major theological contours are considered against the back-
ground of the famous events which engulfed Bonhoeffer from the 1920s to the
early 1940s, culminating in his execution for high treason. Through the
interplay between Bonhoeffer’s theological thought and his concrete political
and ethical actions, the paper seeks to gain some further insight into the
theological enigma of a pacifist in active rebellion; a pastoral theologian turned
armed traitor.
One of the most significant influences on Bonhoeffer’s thinking was Barth,
whose critique of the place of human possibility in philosophy and theology
Bonhoeffer enthusiastically adopted. His acceptance of Barth was, however,
qualified by a dissatisfaction with the latter’s stress on the complete otherness
of God and his concomitant treatment of divine-human communication in
abstract terms. For Bonhoeffer, what was important was the immediate and
personal, whereby God is encountered, not in his otherness (his freedom from
humanity), but in his gracious commitment to us (his freedom for humanity).
In turn, humanity is not to be construed in terms of individualism, but as
individuals in inseparable solidarity with community (whether that be in Adam
or in Christ).
Here Bonhoeffer’s predilection for concreteness over abstraction once more
comes to the fore: in the incarnation, Christ, in whom the unity of the church
is constituted, also creates an indissoluble continuity between God and the
world; the centuries-old absolute separation between the sacred and the profane
is invalidated. Because of the incarnation, there cannot exist two separate
spheres of activity, but only the one space of the actualisation of Christ. Herein
can be seen Bonhoeffer’s ethical basis for his participation in the plot on Hit-
ler’s life: there are no autonomous spheres with their own conf licting princi-
ples; there is only unity in Christ. We are therefore obliged as Christ’s disci-
ples to do whatever is necessary in the light of this reality. We are, however,
precluded from making any ultimate moral evaluation of our decisions – we
must leave that to God. Our challenge remains to be obedient in all things to
Christ, not simply as an object of religion, but as he truly is, the ruler of the
world.
305
