SortingBeans

I thought since my last discussion about Bonheoffer was so productive, and possibly a bit confusing, I would ask permission from one of my University professors to quote him in my blog.

This works out, because not only am I hit for blogging time, but this professor’s comments are very well articulated. I have a high degree of respect for this man. He has given me permission to quote his comments, but he will not be responding to comments made here on the blog Please know that. This post is in regards to Bonhoeffer’s view on the resurrection of Christ—which, to the Faith shapes every other facet.

I will begin by quoting my email to him, then his response to me.

Prof. Lloyd,

I was wondering if you could offer some thoughts on ontology. I am reading Bonhoeffer, “The Cost of Discipleship,” and in chapter 28, “Baptism.” Here, Bonhoeffer says, “[Jesus] is the incarnate, crucified, risen and glorified Christ, and he meets us in his word. The difference between the terminology of the Synoptists and the witness of St. Paul does not involve any break in the unity of the scriptural testimony” (230). His footnotes on this state: “The direct testimony of the scriptures is frequently confounded with ontological propositions. . . . The truth that Jesus Christ is risen and present to us is then taken as an independent statement with an ontological significance which can be applied critically to other ontological statements, and it is thus exalted into a theological principle. This procedure is analogous to the fanatical doctrine of perfectionism, which arises from a similar ontological misunderstanding of the scriptural utterances on the subject of sanctification. . . . The assertion that Christ is risen and present is, when taken strictly as a testimony given in the scriptures, true only as a word of the scriptures. This word is the object of our faith.”

If ontology is the study of “being,” then I am a bit confused as to what Bonhoeffer is attempting to convey. Is he therefore saying that Christ’s state of being is only that of the Scripture “word,” or that since the scripture “word” proclaims it, it is therefore true? Perhaps Bonhoeffer is simply talking in terms that Jesus can only be met through the “word” and any ontological propositions would be found in the word itself, not in a Christ with a physical state of being, other than the “word” as the physical state of being of Christ? Perhaps I am not even on the right path of interpreting Bonhoeffer? Do you have any insight on this?

I think Bonhoeffer is a little off on some of his theology, but has many good things to discuss. I am a little stumped on what he means here.

Any help would be appreciated.

Jonathan.

And here is professor’s reply:

Jonathan,

We must always remember two things about Bonhoeffer’s theology: 1) He was influenced early in life by the famous German liberal theologian, Adolf Von Harnack, and 2) he was later influenced by German neo-orthodox theology, particularly the theology of Karl Barth. Though Barth’s influence caused Bonhoeffer to question some of Harnack’s liberalism, the spectre of old German liberalism was never fully vanquished from Bonhoeffer’s theological outlook.

When Bonhoeffer uses the phrase “ontological propositions,” he is talking about propositions that purport to describe reality, or an actual state of affairs (an actual state of “being” as it were). Thus, if I meant for the proposition “Jesus Christ was raised from the dead and is alive today” to have a real, ontological status, then I would mean that I believe the proposition describes an actual state of affairs—namely that Jesus Christ, in space-time history, rose from the dead and is actually alive today (albeit in a state of existence different from his physical, earthly incarnation).

Thus, Bonhoeffer is saying that we should not try to take the scriptural testimony of the risen Jesus as making any kind of ontological statement about the existence of Jesus. That’s a view of Jesus’ resurrection that is quite consistent with both of Bonhoeffer’s aforementioned theological mentors. Bonhoeffer would say, “Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Unlikely. But it doesn’t matter. What matters is the transformative power (read: existential significance) of those words in the life of a believer. What impact does the testimony have in the life of the one who allows himself to be transformed by the power of these words?” Notice he is very careful in the passage you’ve quoted to say that this testimony is true “only as a word of the scriptures.” Not at all literally true, in any ontological sense. Instead it conveys a kind of truth similar to myth or legend.

The idea that what matters is not the historical event but rather its existential import in the life of the believer is a classic neo-orthodox move. Bonhoeffer, like many good theological existentialists, would say that the resurrection of Jesus is not something that literally happened to Jesus, but rather it is something that happens to us, his disciples. “Jesus Christ has been raised in our hearts” and that “resurrection” gives significance to our existence.

In the latter half of the twentieth century, many evangelical Christians fell in love with Bonhoeffer’s writings, because they found a deep personal piety contained therein that they found attractive. They also appreciated his courage and willingness to die for his convictions. But once again, this shows how uncritical evangelicals have become. While we might find many statements from Bonhoeffer on such subjects as personal piety and personal ethics that we might agree with and even appreciate, those statements come packaged in a theology that should be troubling to those who take the biblical narrative seriously. I myself do in fact believe that the proposition “Jesus Christ is risen from the dead” is an ontologically true statement. In fact, if it were not so, I would concur with the apostle Paul that “our faith is futile.” What genuine transformative power is that proposition supposed to have if it is not ontologically true?

Feel free to respond, but please understand there will be no response from this professor—unless, of course, he happens to read this and decides to respond himself. But do not expect it.



-Jonathan J.