- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (1/18)
- Next Post »A La Carte (1/19)
Counterfeit Bonhoeffer
- 01/18/11
- 76
I’ve made no secret of the fact that I enjoyed reading Eric Metaxas’ biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Actually, it’s one of my all-time favorite biographies; it’s readable, engaging and it deals with a fascinating part of history. But lately I’ve come across a few articles by experts in Bonhoeffer who say that it’s just plain wrong—it’s a portrayal of the man that is geared toward evangelicals and, in seeking to make the reader happy, it succumbs to all sorts of errors.
Richard Weikart of California State University says that Metaxas “serves up a Bonhoeffer suited to the evangelical taste” and notes with disbelief that in “an interview with Christianity Today Metaxas even made the astonishing statement that Bonhoeffer was as orthodox theologically as the apostle Paul.”
As orthodox as Paul? Metaxas does not seem to know that in his Christology lectures in 1933 Bonhoeffer claimed, “The biblical witness is uncertain with regard to the virgin birth.” Bonhoeffer also rejected the notion of the verbal inspiration of scripture, and in a footnote to Cost of Discipleship he warned against viewing statements about Christ’s resurrection as ontological statements (i.e., statements about something that happened in real space and time). Bonhoeffer also rejected the entire enterprise of apologetics, which he thought was misguided.
Weikart suggests that Metaxas simply got in over his head—that he did not take the time to properly understand Bonhoeffer’s theological context of German liberalism. “I trust that Metaxas is my brother in Christ, but unfortunately he simply does not have sufficient grounding in history, theology, and philosophy to properly interpret Bonhoeffer. This is not just my opinion. Victoria Barnett, the editor of the English-language edition of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, wrote a scathing review of Metaxas’s biography. In her opinion, Metaxas ‘has a very shaky grasp of the political, theological, and ecumenical history of the period.’ She then calls Metaxas’s portrayal of Bonhoeffer’s theology “a terrible simplification and at times misrepresentation.”
Weikart goes on to offer a partial list of errors, saying that it “is hard to give much credence to someone writing about German history who thinks that Bonn is in Switzerland or that Hitler was democratically elected into office or that Germany was not yet a police state in August 1934.” Here is how he concludes:
Metaxas, then, has presented us with a sanitized Bonhoeffer fit for evangelical audiences. Evangelicals can continue to believe comfortingly that Bonhoeffer is one of them, and that his heroic stance against Hitler was the product of evangelical-style theology. This view is nave, but many wish it to be so. They might prefer Metaxas’s counterfeit Bonhoeffer to the real, much more complex, German theologian who continued to believe in the validity of higher biblical criticism, who praised Rudolf Bultmann when he called for demythologizing the New Testament, and who in his prison writings called for us to live “as if there were no God.” In 1944, toward the end of his life, Bonhoeffer admitted that he was a theologian who “still carries within himself the heritage of liberal theology.”
Clifford Green is another Bonhoeffer scholar, and one who has edited several volumes of Bonhoeffer’s Works. He says that Metaxas resorted to outright denial of some of the things we know to be true about Bonhoeffer and his theology and then offers this critique:
Metaxas writes as an omniscient narrator, a mind reader who knows Bonhoeffer’s every thought and feeling. (Is this just a literary device, or does it reveal how much the author projects his own views into the mind and actions of his subject?) For example, at the height of the church struggle, Bonhoeffer caused an uproar when he wrote: “Whoever knowingly separates himself from the Confessing Church separates himself from salvation.” Metaxas assures us that Bonhoeffer did not think this was explosive and “never imagined that it would become a focal point of the lecture.”
The purpose of his article is to say that Metaxas essentially hijacked Bonhoeffer, tearing him out of his own time and context and rewriting him in such a way that he would appeal to contemporary evangelicals.
I did not want to believe what those authors (and authors) are saying about Metaxas and his biography. But I am inclined to believe them as they bring the weight of scholarship and experience. They may well be right in suggesting that Metaxas got in over his head; and they may be right in suggesting that the true Bonhoeffer was simply too unorthodox to appeal to the likes of me—the kind of person who read, enjoyed and enthusiastically recommended the book.
Having said that, I think that some caution is in order. Scholarship can bring dimness just as it can bring clarity. I suspect we will need to wait to see how Metaxas and other scholars react to this early criticism. It would be as big a mistake to immediately believe men like Weikart and Green (because they claim to know Bonhoeffer better) as it would be to believe Metaxas (simply because he wrote a popular book). I believe that time will bring a lot of clarity—the kind that comes when people debate issues like this one.
And yet I find it quite easy to believe that an author, either deliberately or inadvertently, could create a character who was appealing, even if less than accurate. I don’t think we would need to look too far into the biography section of a bookstore to find just that kind of character. Sometimes the truth just doesn’t sell as well as a half-truth. And I’m afraid that we evangelicals may just prefer a safe and friendly character over an accurate one.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (76)
I’m thankful for the article but am kind of bummed because I’m at chapter 13 and was thoroughly enjoying it. Now I feel like I need to just bail on it entirely. I don’t have time to fact check everything that’s in the book, I justed wanted a factual account of his life. This isn’t sounded like the book for me then.
Bummer
I am thankful for this information as well. It will be interestiong to see how this all shakes out. I too am reading Metaxas’ book. I will continue to read it but with much less enthusiam. I am still interested in the man Bonhoeffer and will follow this issue closely!
Bo,I don’t think you should abandon the book! It really is very good. I think it helps to be aware of an author’s bias, though—and clearly, Metaxas had one. This does NOT mean that what he writes should be discounted as a whole, however. I personally enjoyed the book—and was inspired by Bonhoeffer’s witness.
“I believe that time will bring a lot of clarity—the kind that comes when people debate issues like this one.”
Excellent word. Good post.
Iron sharpens iron always with a few sparks and some heat. But it’s well worth it in the end.
No comments on the Ala Carte today?
I don’t know if a “coat” in Canada is the same as a jacket in the U.S., but I hope that you didn’t get one of those zippers that opens both ways. Don’t ever get one of those. It’s useless and worthless. Don’t ask how I know :-)
Thanks for posting this, Tim. I really appreciate your letting us know.
I too thoroughly enjoyed the book and the spiritual challenge I experienced reading of Bonhoeffer’s life. I hope Eric Metaxes does respond to these criticisms as I’m anxious to hear if he found things to counterbalance these quotes.
We are attracted to fearless, audacious titles like “Cost of Discipleship”, and we love a well-told story. Those pre-suppositions lend us to excuse serious critique (as in the good kind) of Eric’s book. I found myself doing the same thing with his “Amazing Grace” - Some of the same kinds of scholarly rebuke were levied his way on that one, too.
FWIW, thirty years ago I was hearing about the same unorthodox, neo- Bonhoeffer that these critics are highlighting. A main facet of neo-orthodoxy is that one can say something that sounds perfectly orthodox (i.e. God’s word in Christ pronounces us perfectly righteous, even when we feel perfectly guilty) and not necessarily mean what a Bible-believing Christian would mean by the same words.
Thanks for posting this Tim. I agree with your wise advice about waiting to see how Metaxas responds. However, I’m waiting skeptically. I worked at a U of T bookstore that sells Bonhoeffer’s Works, and the majority of people that are buying them (aside from Cost of Discipleship and Life Together) are not what you would call evangelical. He’s a hero in neo-orthodox and liberal circles not only for his stand against Nazism, but for theological reasons. I really don’t know how Metaxas can respond to the reality of Bonhoeffer’s theological position—the picture he paints is not at all reflective of the true image.But we’ll see.
I remember getting the impression from my parents, who lived through Bonhoeffer’s time, that he was a theologically liberal. So I’ve been wary of jumping on the Bonhoeffer bandwagon, because I haven’t really been shown anything that convinces me that my parents weren’t right.
I do believe Bonhoeffer was a hero, but he probably wasn’t one of us.
Wow, so interesting, Tim, thanks for posting this. I haven’t read the book. I’d had the impression that Bonhoeffer was liberal and unorthodox in some important ways but when this book came out, was glad to think I’d been mistaken. Good counsel on waiting to see what follows.
We all hope for an honest assessment in any non-fictional story being told. We should all remember when reading any biography that an author’s bias will always be in play by some degree.
Additionally, it would be unrealistic to expect complete objectivity in any human endeavor. And even if perfect objectivity were humanly attainable, against what standard would we know it?
Inerrant text exists in only one book! It is in the Author of THAT book that we’ll find perfect truth. In this book there is NO BIAS, and NO AGENDA but His own. And it is in Him alone that our very eternity depends.
In Christ,
Dan…
“I’m afraid that we evangelicals may just prefer a safe and friendly character over an accurate one.”
Sadly, this sentence contains a lot of insight into what we often look for in a biography. Thanks for the article!
We tend to overlook the scars on our heroes and the noble examples left by men like Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther King have inclined many people to downplay the serious errors in their theology. But somewhere, somehow we need to find a way to learn from and highlight the good in their examples while challenging the bad so that we do not tacitly approve of the bad.
I agree that time will tell how this issue works itself out. But we don’t need to wait that long to find out if Bonhoeffer was liberal and unorthodox. Some of what Tim quotes above is directly from Bonhoeffer’s own writings. If the man questioned the virgin birth in his own words, should we really wait around to find out if this is true?
Now whether we should read the book or not based on this bias is another issue.
Bonhoeffer, and his wide acceptance (and praise) among theologically conservative people always gives me a little of the same feeling I get with the same praise given to C S Lewis from the same people - so much admirable, but some things so very troubling…
Some more on this I read earlier this month…
http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/what-to-think-about-dietrich…http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/what-to-do-about-dietrich-bo…
Think another post will come on that same blog later this month continuing the series…
For many of us the larger issue here is how does Tim Challies react when he has enthusiastically endorsed a book and it turns out that maybe that book wasn’t all he (in all good conscience) believed it was?
The answer for many writers/editors/blogs is “Ignore it and hope my readers forget I recommended the book.”
The answer here is clearly very different. Integrity is an overused word but one that is carrying the day here. I appreciate more than I can say your willingness to be honest and frank about people’s very different assessment of this book. And I appreciate your cautions about letting some time go by and see how this turns out. But it is clear that you value truth and honesty more than popularity and prestige. For that this reader is quite thankful.
“I’m afraid that we evangelicals may just prefer a safe and friendly character over an accurate one.”
The theologically-liberal crowd also prefer a Bonhoeffer that is safe and friendly to their own goals and theology. I think liberal academics can tend to overlook evangelical tendencies in Bonhoeffer which make them uncomfortable, even if Metaxas might have exaggerated these tendencies. Everybody wants Bonhoeffer as their hero because his defiance of Hitler places him under one of the few universal banners of moral heroism left to us—that opposition to Hitler is an unequivocal good. Hitler is one of the few figures that we are allowed to call “evil” in the wider culture, and therefore someone who opposes him automatically garners a nod of approval. This is powerful and seems to be why people are so concerned to identify him as wholly “ours” or wholly “theirs”.
In studying Bonhoeffer’s writings this past fall, I was struck by the fact that he is certainly not an American evangelical. He was thoroughly German. He was definitely Lutheran. And he lived eighty years ago in very different religious climate and context from evangelicalism today. Attempts by either side to make him into their hero are inevitably problematic since he wasn’t even dealing with the categories that we deal with today.
In my own opinion, Bonhoeffer followed Jesus and believed the gospel, and my evangelical faith was encouraged through reading his writings. But I would not say that his views are entirely orthodox, nor would I feel comfortable adopting him as the patron saint of evangelicalism. Like most cases, nuance and complexity seem to rule the day, and both liberals and evangelicals need to recognize that he will not fit comfortably into either mold.
This comment is especially appropriate since the original German title of the “Cost of Discipleship” was simply “Discipleship” and the title that we know was only added by an American publisher after Bonhoeffer’s death.
We do tend to prefer fearless and audacious things, rather than the sometimes blander historical reality.
I mostly enjoyed Metaxas biography, although I was much more annoyed by his frequent colloquial analogies than it seems anyone else was. But I don’t think we should throw Bonhoeffer out with the bath water any more than I think we should throw MLK or Augustine. All of them held views that we would not view as ‘evangelical’ and to think that we are the pinnacle of Christian thought is just false. Short of heaven no one person or group will be fully orthodox because no one person or group will fully understand the full complexity and ramifications of God. That does not mean we should not try. Just that we should be humble in our attempts and generous in our judgments of others.
Metaxas is far from the only author to try to turn his subject into a modern evangelical. (And this isn’t the first time Metaxas has done it. If you read ‘Amazing Grace’ you will find his portrayal of Wilberforce is similar.)
What I find a bit more disturbing frankly is when authors do it to biblical characters. We need to realize we are living in a culture, as have all other people in history. We will never fully be able to take others out of their culture to understand them because we will never be able to fully remove ourselves from our own culture in order to understand the other. Only God is fully outside of human culture so only he is able to fully understand us.
I remember first hearing about this book on a politically conservative talk show; and from the things I’ve heard about the author and his book, it makes sense. When I heard the author basically say that Bonhoeffer was theologically conservative, I was very surprised.
This book and the things surrounding it makes evangelicals look bad; it seems that Tim and others are hoping that Metaxa’s critics are wrong, which does not make evangelicals look good. When reading books on history, Christians should be given no greater credence for simply being Christian over unbelievers.
This book does not seem to be worth reading for a good understanding of the subject of the book, but as a good example of bad scholarship and of an author who reflects many within his community.
“I’m afraid that we evangelicals may just prefer a safe and friendly character over an accurate one.” It’s because of things like this that I no longer claim to be evangelical.
Tim,
Thanks for the update. I have read the book and benefited greatly. I look forward to Metaxas’ response!
I’m 1/3 way through the book. When I read through the chapter on Bonhoeffer’s visit to New York I became curious if he read any of the opposition’s (fundamentalist) writings against those he was associating with (Union Seminary- who according to Metaxas he was not fond of). Namely, I wondered if he ever looked into the writings of Machen (“Christianity and Liberalism” and “The Virgin Birth of Christ”, Warfield, & others). Also, from how Metaxas describes the impact the church in Harlem had on Bonhoeffer because of their spirituality and other aspects, I wonder what kind of impact various writiers like the puritans and others would have had on him. When he was in England, I wonder if he knew about the ministry of Martyn Lloyd-Jones. It may be due to his probable Neo-Orthodox leanings that he stayed away from these men and from Reformed Theology.
Everyone waiting for a response will probably be waiting for a while. I reviewed it on my blog in June and at that time Christianity Today’s Books and Culture brought up some of these issues as well as Christian Century and a number of other reviews. I was well aware when I reviewed it that many of the more serious scholars were not happy with it. It may be that Metaxas has done more response than I am aware of, but I don’t think he has. He has done a lot of press but mostly in the more conservative press (he has been on Glen Beck three times talking about it I believe.) It is a very popular book. It has sold well and was on Barnes and Noble’s top non-fiction of the year list. So I don’t think there is a lot of reason for Metaxas to respond.
“And I’m afraid that we evangelicals may just prefer a safe and friendly character over an accurate one.”
And so we have them created for us…………… how stupid! And the other ‘sides’ do it too, whether papists or liberals.
I’m sure that there would be many biographies written with spin on them and so we need to be very careful is setting up people on pedestals. But what do you now do with Bonhoeffer? If he truly held to liberal views, and that is what I was taught about him (and also the shakiness of CS Lewis), 30 years ago by those elders in my church who studied his views on theology? Do you ban the reading of these men, as my church did 30-40 years ago when I was a younger man. It was against the reformed faith to read their works. But what do you also do with Roman Catholic’s who have led wonderful lives of faith and devotion to God? How do you handle Billy Graham’s errors or did Llyod Jones theology always stack up? How about John Stott? How about Francis Schaeffer? If you read his son Frankie’s view, Schaeffer was a tyrrant and a hypocrit. But then you read Os Guiness (http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?1417) ….. How about Tony Compolo??? one could go on…. and also become very divisive.
So again what does this mean to us who read Challies’ reviews? We too need discernment and to read widely on a subject and not just take one man’s review. Thanks for your honesty though Tim in revisiting this biography? If you take out the errors in Bonhoeffer’s theology what do YOU do with this man? Do you take this book off your most favourite list and put it in a list called “Read with Discernment”. “Nice story - but a distorted biography to tickle the ears of the evangelical mind.”
ps thanks Anna (19) for your comments.
Bonhoeffer views also seemed to change over time. His earlier writings/lectures seem to be much more liberal than his later writings. I’m not a Bonhoeffer expert, but it does seem possible that there are many things to appreciate about his later writings while at the same time regarding his earlier work as being mainly heterodox.
“And I’m afraid that we evangelicals may just prefer a safe and friendly character over an accurate one.”
No! Give me the facts, please!
I read the book and found many areas in which I’d disagree with Bonhoeffer. I knowingly read a lot of books about people with different beliefs from mine and I wouldn’t want any sugar-coating going on. I’m thankful for your post.
Here’s a suggestion. I’ve read the biography and when I started I believed that Bonhoeffer was not a Christian in the evangelical sense. However, Metaxas discusses a change in Bonhoeffer that occurred during his visit to Union Seminary; it was a result of his attendance at black churches where, presumably, he heard a clearer presentation of the gospel.
Metaxas suggests that the change in Bonhoeffer may have been a conversion experience. If so, is it possible that Bonhoeffer was a liberal theologian early in his life and then through the influence of the gospel became more evangelical in the same way that Augustine was changed when he received Christ? I profess no expertise in this area, but I have read some of Bonhoeffer’s writings and much of what he says resonates with me; however, I have not read all of his works nor considered the timing of each one.
I read this over Christmas break, partially due to Challies’ description and recommendation. As has been mentioned previous, it is a good read and quite the page turner.
I have a passing acquaintance with the name and work of Richard Weikart, and at a minimum, mere mention of his perspective and critique carried some weight with me.
I’m no literary critic to say the least, but can some of these differences be placed under the umbrella of ‘different research - different perspective - different biography’? For example, the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of George Washington are oft debated. Some mention he was a mere Deist, ala Jefferson and Franklin. Others insist he was a Christian. A reasonably recent book entitled ‘Washington’s God’ made the case that he was a Christian. It’s a book I enjoyed, it’s a perspective I now share, but it’s still a perspective that is panned by many in the scholarly world.In no way am I implying that we wiki-fy Bonhoeffer’s life, theology, and evangelicalism, but perhaps Metaxas did arrive at some honest conclusions with some honest research, and perhaps he should have worked a little harder on it.
But, all in all, I’d say most people would be better off reading Metaxas’s ‘Bonhoeffer’ than by skipping it due to some poo-pooing from the intelligentsia.
This is a great post, and shows a lot of humility. Thanks for the insight!
Being a Lutheran and auditing an evangelical seminary course on Bonhoeffer this Fall, I have been pretty well exposed to both his theological background and the circumstances of his life and content of his writings. Bonhoeffer’s courage and compassion make him an appealing figure to people of all theological stripes (and thus fuel a desire to co-opt him a bit). We can all learn a bit from this - our views will hold much more pull when our lives are lived with honesty and self-sacrifice.
That said, I agree with the reviews cited above that Metaxas seems to have been out of his theological depth at times. There are several instances where he views as unique to Bonhoeffer theological concepts that have been the fabric of the Lutheran church for centuries. Throughout the book he evidenced a rather shallow grasp of Lutheranism.
As to Bonhoeffer’s views, it is helpful to remember that (a) he grew up relatively irreligious in a very Liberal time but was captivated in many ways by Barth’s rejection of liberal excesses, (b) the term “Liberal” in the German studies didn’t carry the same socio-political connotations as it did in the US then and does now, and (c) neither his “Ethics” nor his “Letters and Papers from Prison” were ever edited by him for public consumption and the second were never intended for public consumption - if my unedited manuscripts and journals were published, some very shoddy thinking that should never be read by anyone else would see the light of day - I could be made the champion of some causes I detest because those thoughts were half-formed and never intended for dissemination. Once these circumstances are remembered, a more nuanced picture of Bonhoeffer can (and should) emerge.
Tim, sometimes you need to keep an eye on the critics as well:
Richard Weikart said:“is hard to give much credence to someone writing about German history who thinks that Bonn is in Switzerland or that Hitler was democratically elected into office or that Germany was not yet a police state in August 1934.”
Geographic mistakes are embarrassing but Hitler’s party, the National Socialists were, believe it or not, actually democratically elected to parliament in 1933 and didn’t completely consolidate their power until August 1934 when Hindenburg died and Hitler then assumed supreme command of the state and military. Why is Weikart saying otherwise?
D Bonhoeffer does not at all deny the virgin birth [the term itself is a widely accepted misnomer; the birth of Jesus was hardly miraculous, notwithstanding protestations from mainly Roman Catholic theologians that cannot be defended on the basis of Scripture] in his Christological lectures.The false allegation can presumably be traced back to the ‘Gesammelte Schriften’, pp. 233f. (the German volume is in front of me) where D Bonhoeffer distinguishes between ‘becoming man’ (Menschwerdung) and ‘having become man’ (Menschgewordenen), or, if one may speak at all in this fashion, the event of the incarnation as viewed in terms of process and end-product. The former refers to the mode (dominated by the how? question) which seeks to explain “the hypothesis of the Virgin Birth” (sic), and thus is questionable on historical and dogmatic grounds. No empirical explanation (also cf. Barth’s extensive discussions on analogia entis) can be offered to solve the miracle - and thus explain it away! Only from the standpoint of biblical orthodoxy may one thus protest!Then follows this sentence - I translate - “the biblical testimony about it [this refers to the ‘how question’] is uncertain”. D Bonhoeffer goes on to say that the dogmatic lack of clarity on this how question has no special significance in relation to the “biblical testimony of this real fact.”It seems to me that D Bonhoeffer is concerned about those who seek to explain away the miracle by resorting to an empirical explanation (D Bonhoeffer also warns his original hearers against a Hegelian idea about the incarnation) since it “misses the decisive point of ‘Menschwerdung’, viz. that Jesus became man differently from us”.Theological data are to be derived from Scripture, and D Bonhoeffer, in this respect, does not go beyond John Calvin (com. Romans 9:14) - to quote quote him appositely, yet out of context - who famously said, “the Holy Spirit has taught us nothing but what it behoves us to know…Let this then be our sacred rule, to seek to know nothing…except what Scripture teaches us: when the Lord closes his holy mouth, let us also stop the way, that we may not go farther.”
Well said… Why do we allow our own problems and concerns to define and overtake others’ both in space and time?? i.e. our issues and problems do not map one to one, with others’, and therefore our categories rarely apply nicely.
Thanks for sharing this.
I recently finished the book and felt that Metaxas was far too simplistic in his comparisons to modern day issues. Also was annoyed that it appeared he was trying to spoon feed the reader by forcing several conclusions.
I had no idea that there was this much controversy surrounding it.
just remembered that Tim Keller wrote the forward. Wonder what he thinks about all this…
Hi Tim,
Good work! When I heard all the evangelicals praising the new Bonhoeffer bio., I was a bit surprised.
Along the same lines, many readers here may be surprised to learn that C.S. Lewis was a non-Evangelical who denied many important Bible truths:http://www.svchapel.org/resources/articles/22-contemporary-issues/542-cs…http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/december/9.28.html
Tim, perhaps you could write another blog about “Counterfeit C.S. Lewis.”
Brave post, Tim. And much needed. I’ve been reading the book over the past few weeks with increasing incredulity. I want to believe Metaxes’ portrayal of DB, especially the change from his first US visit, but it just doesn’t fit all the facts.
I knew as soon as I heard Metaxas say that Bonhoeffer was a “Barthian” (mispronouncing it with the “th” sound, rather than a hard “t”) on his Glenn Beck appearance that this guy probably doesn’t really know what a “Barthian” is, and therefore the book probably won’t reliably portray Bonhoeffer. Then I listened to a radio interview of him in which he went on about his fascination with a black church in America and could tell he was trying to turn him into an American evangelical. Needless to say, I’m not surprised that there are critical reviews emerging from Bonhoeffer scholars.
But I’m sure it’ll do well at the box office once the movie comes out…
You know, I really like Bonhoeffer’s quotes. I actually have his most famous one on my checks:
“When Christ calls us, He bids us come and die.”
here’s another:
“The followers of Jesus have been called to peace. When Jesus called them, they found their peace. For Jesus is their peace……The peacemakers will carry the cross with their Lord, for it was on the cross that peace was made. Because they are so caught up in the work of Christ for peace, because their mission is to do the work of the Son of God, therefore they are called God’s own children.”
“Blessed are the peacemakers,….”
When I saw the author on Glenn Beck and listened to him talk I got the sense that he was over hyping Bonhoffers orthodoxy because I had always heard that Bonhoffer denied many things that I believe. If the author did these things on purpose the good old marketplace will be filled with leary readers on his next volume.
A friend of mine with a PhD in history who did his dissertation on the subject of Luther’s influence on Germany has pretty much said the same thing.We can appreciate/applaud Bonhoeffer’s stand against great evil.We can benefit from much of what he says (Life Together is great).But this is not the only book to make him out an evangelical (I recently reviewed a book based on The Cost of Discipleship that did this as well), which he really was not. I’m not sure why we have the need to re-make him in our image, but we seem to be compelled to do this.
Could it be that evangelicals are so used to writing off and ignoring everything about the so-called “mainline” churches, and those historic European churches which are infected with the same kinds of liberalism and neo-orthodoxy, that if any one of their number does something that makes it onto the radar screens of evangelicalism (like a Lewis or a Bonhoeffer), then surely, they reason, this individual must be an exception to the rule—surely, he’s more evangelical than the rest!
Not that I really follow what’s going on in those circles myself to any real extent, but my point is simply that evangelicals are generally so ignorant of the theological issues at play that if the evangelical publishing world wants to communicate something from those circles that perhaps they boil it down and reduce it so much that the figures in question come out looking more like the evangelical book-buying public than they should. This is beside the fact that evangelical authors like Metaxas who have an evangelical readership themselves are at least somewhat ignorant of the theological issues, so it would be hard for them to write an accurate book that would satisfy the standards of the academy. Writers like himself may be good at telling a story, but perhaps they need to be more careful about the subjects on which they write.
Yeah, I’m sorry. I never really understood why so many evangelical Christians were into the works of Dietrich Bonhoeffer or Karl Barth. Their theology never totally aligned with some of the essential doctrines of the Bible.
John (44) I think you are right. And Joseph (45) shows us why. If we cannot learn from other Christians that are unlike us, then we are assuming that we are specially blessed or knowledgeable and that is a sure sign that we not. I am reading Barth’s “Evangelical Theology” right now. Clearly he is not an Evangelical (as the term is currently used in North American right now), but just as clearly he was a Christian and did much to bring German theology back toward Christ.
No one’s theology is ‘totally aligned with the essential doctrines of the Bible’. Because to be completely aligned with scripture is to be completely aligned with God and as sinful people we will never be, and can never be fully aligned with God in this world. I am not advocating a ‘pick and choose’ religion. But we should be able to learn from those outside our tradition.
Exactly. While reading Metaxas’ book on Bonhoeffer, I couldn’t quite grasp it until recently. He was a ‘Lutheran,’ but far from the confessional brand. Even in Metaxas’ version, Bonhoeffer comes across as a strong pietist (not a good thing) as he tends to cling to his good works instead of Jesus and His death and resurrection.
He may have believed those things intellectually, as many evangelicals do nowadays, but not sure that is where his hope was found, as I am unsure many evangelicals do, either, nowadays.
Bonhoeffer was a very interesting individual, who, I believe, ought to be studied. But he should be viewed in the light of who he was, not what we may want him to be.
Check out Carl Trueman’s take over at Ref21.
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2011/01/bonhoeffer-and-anonymous-evang…
I’m sorry, but if Bonhoeffer wrote it I probably read it, and I don’t remember him ever casting doubt on the virgin birth or the literal resurrection of Christ. I think that so-called expert probably took something he said out of context and ran with it to make it fit his own unorthodox views. I haven’t read Metaxas’ biography of Bonhoeffer because bn.com wants $17 for the Nookbook version of it, and I’m not about to pay that much. I am also no evangelical being a Quaker and all, but if even one person picks up Bonhoeffer because of that book, then I don’t care what liberties he may have taken.
WaltzingMatilda, check the price again. The Kindle version was that high but is now $9.90. (I just checked it is $9.90 for Nook as well.)
I have a real issue with the “If just one argument”. Because it is rarely that easy. It is always given as a one way argument. If just one person picks up Bonhoeffer that is great. But how many will not pick up Bonhoeffer (or read the bio) because they hear it is shoddy scholarship.
I hear the “if just one” all the time around evangelism, but how many over the top Christmas pageants turn people away from Christ. How many in your face confrontations on the street turn more people away from Christ than to him. We need to be better than that and honestly look at things.
(On the whole, I think it is better to have a popular biography of Bonhoeffer that more people will read than it is to have a better bio that is more technically oriented that only scholars read. But I would prefer to not have the false dichotomy and have a very good, but still very readable and popular oriented Bio of Bonhoeffer.)