I have to start by comparing this with Eric Metaxas’s biography (see earlier post). This biography was written in German so we are reading a translation from a language that translation from doesn’t always help readability. Thus this volume is not as readable as Metaxas. Of course, the broad story outline is the same but there the similarity ends. In this biography the man emerges not as a proto-evangelical but as a complex thinker who loved to wrestle with theology, a theology that is depicted as growing and developing as the German disaster unfolded. Here we find that he is open to the demythologising of Rudolf Bultmann (p278f). Here his relationship with Maria von Wedemeyer is dwelt on less but seems much fuller.
In this biography the German church’s relationship and issues with the Nazi government are much more fully explained (in all their confusing complexity). We can understand Bonhoeffer’s objections to the Aryan paragraph. We can understand that his decision to join the Abwehr allowed him not to face the dilemma of conscientious objection to fighting, together with the opportunities to keep open dialogue with people from other countries. We can see it as a decision taken not to further the war effort, but to find ways of ridding Germany of Hitler. It is salutary to note that even with the disaster that Hitler brought on Germany there are still people who view his actions as traitorous (similarly with Oskar Schindler).
His theology is placed firmly in its historical context. His insistence on costly discipleship was at a time when the cost of discipleship was indeed high, and he was well prepared for the cost he would eventually pay. He is much more concerned with the totality of the call of God than on the outward sign of worship. He seems less interested in internal church struggles, unless they have a bearing on the world around. The church is not something that can retreat from the world, rather it models how we as humans are to live in the world, and how the world should live.
Bonhoeffer came to the conclusion that to assassinate Hitler was the right thing to do. However he was quite prepared to accept the consequences of that action. If killing is a sin, then he will be guilt of a sin in order to do the greater good. This is not a case of the end justifying the means, rather there is a price of the means as well, even if the end was a good one.
This is an excellent biography and serves well as an introduction to his life and thought. Indeed his story must be the starting point of studying his theology. And theology always needs to be studied, in my view, in terms of historical and personal context.
