Is Bonhoeffer really a good role model for youth workers?
Recently I wrote a critique of Dr. Andrew Root’s approach to incarnational youth ministry, to which he graciously responded.
In many ways, however, Root’s understanding of the Incarnation is not his own. The ghost of Dietrich Bonhoeffer walks each and every page. Even the phrase Root uses, place-sharer, is Bonhoeffer’s (Stellvertreter). Root said that Bonhoeffer’s part in the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler was driven by the belief ‘that it was the only way that he could truly (truly = in the imitation of Christ) share the place of those crushed by the wheels of the Nazi political machine’ (2007:85). This would have been the ideal place for Root to have added some words of caution about using Bonhoeffer as a de facto position on Christology, however we are left wanting.
With this in mind I think it’s worth taking a minute to ask whether Bonhoeffer really is the best role model for youth workers. As much respect I have for him as both a compassionate minister, and a deep thinker, there is another side that is rarely discussed.
Bonhoeffer’s Christology was born out of a very turbulent life experience. He emphasised the this-world focus and concrete nature of Jesus becoming flesh which was heavily outworked in a strongly social gospel. Abstract or internal knowledge of God was almost entirely dismissed by Bonhoeffer. He intended that ‘all Christian doctrines be reinterpreted in “this world” terms… The only way to find God, then, is to live fully in the midst of this world. Christians must participate in Jesus’ living for others’ (Godsey, 1991).
Bonhoeffer, during the later period of his life, discontinued his daily Bible reading, denying that Scripture contained any timeless principles. He said, ‘we may no longer seek after universal, eternal truths’ by reading the Bible (Bonhoeffer and Krauss 2010:71). Further, as someone who leaned towards universalism, Bonhoeffer also lacked a coherent theology of the atonement or even of salvation itself (Weikart, 2015).
Although Bonhoeffer brings humanity to a sometimes overly ‘functional’ evangelical Christianity, his work cannot be used uncritically. Yet this is precisely what Root and others in the modern youth work world do by building his theology of incarnation. It is little wonder then that Root deemphasises the divinity of Jesus, rarely speaks to any experience of Him outside of concrete relationships with people, and expresses a muddy view of the atonement.
What is continually missing from Bonhoeffer is any sense of it is finished. There is no talk of victory, glory, heaven, or the eternal nature of salvation through Jesus being fully God. These have no presence in his work leaving a heavily misbalanced gospel.
Bonhoeffer is an inspiration personally, but I don’t’ think he makes a great role-model theologically when it comes to the practice of youth work. At least, I’d like to see him used more critically.
References (in order of appearance)
Root, A. (2007) Revisiting relational youth ministry: from a strategy of influence to a theology of incarnation. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Books
Godsey, J. (1991), Bonhoeffer’s costly theology. Available at http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-32/bonhoeffers-costly-theology.html
Bonhoeffer, D. and Krauss, R. (2010). Letters and papers from prison. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press.
Weikart, R. (2015), The Troubling Truth About Bonhoeffer’s Theology. Available at http://www.equip.org/article/troubling-truth-bonhoeffers-theology/
I had a great conversation about this post online. The person I was talking to was looking for a few more specifics. I thought they were reposting here (with a few bits taken out marked with that would be weird out of context! These are marked with ‘…’ ):
Thanks for chatting and for engaging with my post. I’ll do my best to answer here. Hopefully this won’t be too dry or polemic, but I’m sure you’ll be used to reading people far smarter and more boring than me. At least I hope so! I took an hour over this, which is far too short a time to make it a full, clear, or nice read. I do hope it’ll be helpful though.
…
Bonhoeffer…
First, don’t get me wrong. I’m actually a huge fan of Bonhoeffer… I read much of Bonhoeffer’s works when I first went to Bible College 13 years ago. And I recently resisted him in a postgrad course where I wrote a critique of Andrew Root’s methodology. I do love Bonhoeffer, especially his compassion, his social focus, his love of creation, and his academic superhuman powers!
…
I wouldn’t, therefore, throw the baby out with the bathwater. Bonhoeffer is heavily discussed in academia, but in youth ministry there is very little critical engagement with him. Dr. Root does well, but he reads Bonhoeffer with a very strong bias, partially because he is working from translations. I think Glassford is quite helpful on this (Glassford, DK 2016, ‘Bonhoeffer as youth worker: a theological vision for discipleship and life together’, Christian Education Journal, 13, 2).
If we place the measure of orthodoxy on the classical, broadly accepted evangelical creeds (Nicene, Apostles, and Caledonian), then – by that standard – I believe Bonhoeffer is not orthodox.
I’ll do my best to add a few sources, but it’s been a while and I don’t have all my notes. It would take a wee bit more to do more digging – but frankly there are many, and far better critiques than mine out there! 😛
On the Bible
Early in his life Bonhoeffer saw the Bible is useful, but not infallible or inerrant. He was similar to Barth in that he saw the Word in the reading experience but not in the words themselves. He called the Bible a witness to revelation, but not revelation. (Bonhoeffer’s Works as translated by Nicolaisen & Scharffenorth, 2009., Volume 12, pp.375-377).
He started off as a literary critic, then accepted (a la Bultmann) that many of the stories and words of Jesus in the Gospels were ‘mythology’ and didn’t see them as accurately recorded history. (Gütersloher Verlagshaus 5:137-138).
By the end of his life (certainly by ‘Letters from Prison’), he had rejected the Bible as a source of ultimate truth. He said that ‘we may no longer seek after universal, eternal truths’ from the Bible. (Bonhoeffer, D. and Krauss, R. (2010). Letters and papers from prison. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press. p.71 – see also GS, 3:28 for the original).
There’s more on this in Walter Harrelson’s piece “Bonhoeffer and the Bible,” in ‘The Place of Bonhoeffer: Problems and Possibilities in His Thought’, that ME Marty edited. Can’t seem to find the page number though.
On Jesus
Bonhoeffer denied the virgin birth. He said ‘The question ‘how’? For example, underlies the hypothesis of the Virgin Birth. Both historically and dogmatically, it can be questioned. The biblical witness is ambiguous. The doctrine of the Virgin Birth is meant to express the incarnation of God, not only the fact of the incarnation. But does it not fail at the decisive point of the incarnation, namely that in it Jesus has not become man just like us’ (‘The Cost of Discipleship’ translated by Fuller, 1995:215)
He also denied the sinless nature of Jesus. ‘He who assumed the flesh with its tendency to sin and self will’ (GS 3. Not sure page). See also the translation of ‘Christ the Centre’ (1978:109).
On the atonement
Bonhoeffer doesn’t accept substitutionary atonement as the means of salvation and rejects penal substitution entirely as purely formulaic.
He said the cross was a place of empathy and inspiration, but not atonement. Like Root, Bonhoeffer’s version of salvation came from the incarnation lived out, not the death or resurrection. This is what he compares as ‘cheap’ to ‘costly grace’ in ‘The Cost of Discipleship’ translated by Fuller, 1995:45-49). Incidentally, this is an amazing piece of writing that contains a lot of truth. It would be fabulous if he didn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater by replacing substitution with empathy). See also ‘A Testament To Freedom’ (I haven’t written down the page, sorry). And see Letters from prison, p. 185.
On salvation by grace alone
As much as he loved his particular version of grace, Bonhoeffer believed in regenerational baptism. So you need faith, but also must be baptised in order for salvation to be effectual. (Letters from prison, 142-143; Way to freedom, 1971:93, 151). He also added to this the taking of common (ibid. p115).
One of his most well known quotes on this is: ‘We must finally break away from the idea that the gospel deals with the salvation of an individual’s soul.’ (GS 4:202).
I’m pretty sure this changed in his later years as he grew more into a universalist. He said this in lots of ways, but the best quote I can dig up is:
God has reconciled in Christ the whole world to Himself. All of mankind is included, and the world is reconciled with God… Now there is no longer any reality, any world unreconciled or not at peace with God (Works as translated by Nicolaisen & Scharffenorth, 2009., Volume 6, pp.64-65).
Conc.
So, I could dig into more detail, but I’m sure you’ve read it all before. Because Bonhoeffer rejects the orthodox positions on the Bible as revelation, the divine, sinless person of Jesus, the method of atonement, and on salvation by grace alone, it’s tricky to assume him to be orthodox.
These are the areas Root ignores, because Root also has the same issues. He too rejects substitutionary atonement (2007:15, 89, 129-130), and moves away from individual salvation (2013:110-112), thinks relationships are the end goal rather than a means to help young people be saved (2004:99; 2007:23, 81, 90). He also downplays Jesus’ divinity (2007:89-94), downplays sin, (2007:90-94), downplays the cross as an act of divine empathy (2013:99, 149), downplays the atonement to the point of avoiding talking about it as much as possible, and tries to downplay salvation of any kind as a result (2013:128, 132-133, 148-149: 2007:91-94). He also dramatically changes how we understand the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (2013:147).