Michael DeJonge's Bonhoeffer's Theological Formation provides an insightful and compelling reading of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's early theology, focusing primarily on his 1929 Habilitationshrift, Act and Being. At one level, DeJonge carefully contextualises and exegetes a notoriously difficult text. At another, he argues for a specific approach to understanding this text: Bonhoeffer's early theology is governed by a distinctly Lutheran conception of the person of Christ. In this review I will overview some of the central moves that DeJonge makes, and indicate just one point where his argument requires clarification.
DeJonge begins by carefully situating Bonhoeffer's early theology between the Luther renaissance of his Berlin teachers and Barth's dialectical theology. This provides the context for setting out Bonhoeffer's more specific interest in Act and Being: how revelation can be understood in a way that reconciles existing ‘act’ and ‘being’ approaches to theology. In chapter 3, DeJonge traces Karl Barth's early theology as exemplifying the former of these approaches: Barth's theology contains ‘an act-concept of revelation and its logical correlates: a formal account of God's freedom, a subject-concept of God, and a dialectical form of thought’ (p. 37). Moreover, DeJonge closely associates the actualistic and dialectical character of Barth's theology with his Reformed influences, in particular with the extra calvinisticum whereby Christ is first eternal logos and only then Christ incarnate.
In chapter 4, DeJonge claims that Bonhoeffer provides an alternative to Barth's approach by offering a person-concept of revelation. In contrast to Barth, ‘Bonhoeffer's person-theology seeks to portray God's freedom as freedom for humanity, and God's transcendence as transcendence in history’ (p. 77). DeJonge further explicates this person-concept of revelation by identifying it with a distinctly Lutheran conception of the person of Christ. The incarnate Christ, accordingly, is ‘the simul who unites all contradictions’ (p. 84). Beginning with the incarnate Christ avoids the distinctions and oppositions which are central for Barth. This also means that theological thinking is not dialectical but rather hermeneutical, an ongoing reflection on the meaning of the person of Christ.
In chapter 6, DeJonge positions this reading of Bonhoeffer against two other contemporary scholars who have sought to downplay the differences between Barth and Bonhoeffer: Christiane Tietz and Charles Marsh. After setting out and criticising their respective approaches, he restates his position that there are ‘enduring differences in Barth's and Bonhoeffer's theology’ (p. 114). Again, whereas ‘Barth sees act and being together in the inner Trinitarian subjective life of God . . . Bonhoeffer sees act and being together in the historical person of Christ’ (p. 114). In chapter 7, Dejonge situates Bonhoeffer's Christology against the work of his Lutheran contemporaries, in particular Karl Holl. This chapter is especially important in that fairly limited attention has been given to Bonhoeffer's relationship to his Lutheran teachers. DeJonge properly reads Bonhoeffer's focus on Luther's Christology as correcting Holl's more anthropological reading of Luther. DeJonge concludes Bonhoeffer's Theological Formation with a brief discussion of how the person-centred theology of Act and Being continues into Bonhoeffer's later work, including Discipleship and Ethics.
DeJonge's central claim that the differences between Bonhoeffer and Barth can be organised in terms of Reformed and Lutheran commitments is insightful and broadly compelling. Some readers will no doubt question whether he offers a sufficiently nuanced reading of Barth's theology. Others may wonder whether a study of Act and Being alone provides an adequate foundation for drawing broad conclusions about Bonhoeffer's theology. However, in this review I would like to focus on just one point where I think DeJonge's argument requires clarification.
DeJonge sets out his account of Bonhoeffer's person-centred theology by first outlining a general concept of person in Bonhoeffer's early theology (in chapter 4). In a brief engagement with Sanctorum Communio, for instance, he describes Bonhoeffer as developing ‘a definition of person as a general structure that applies to both individuals and communities’ (italics mine; p. 72). He continues, ‘in both dissertations, person is the fulcrum of the argument. And in both dissertations, Bonhoeffer relies on person to create a theoretical space outside of the subject-object epistemological framework’ (p. 73). DeJonge is concerned with a concept of person which has broad applicability, including to both anthropology and ecclesiology. In chapter 5, however, he specifies and substantiates this concept by turning to Bonhoeffer's Christology lectures. DeJonge's interest here is in the centrality of the concrete person of Christ.
My concern is with this way of proceeding – from a general concept of person in Bonhoeffer's theology to the specific person of Christ. Is Christ being understood (even in part) on the basis of a more general concept or idea? If so, this would seem antithetical to claims advanced in the Christology lectures, which resist an idealism of this kind. If not, then a more detailed discussion of the differing ways this concept functions across Bonhoeffer's theology would be helpful. Would such a discussion complicate the claim that Bonhoeffer's early theology can be understood and organised as a person-theology? To be clear, this is primarily an ambiguity in DeJonge's book as it stands which calls for clarification. This ambiguity might also be partly attributed to the highly succinct and tightly constructed nature of his argument.
Bonhoeffer's Theological Formation is one of the best books that has been written on Bonhoeffer's theology. It makes a significant contribution to scholarly literature and is likely to be at the centre of debates about Bonhoeffer's early theology for quite some time. It should be read carefully by all those with interests in Bonhoeffer, Barth, Lutheran theology and modern theology more broadly.
