Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Ideology, Praxis and his Influence on the Theology of Liberation

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ypot20

Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Ideology, Praxis and his Influence on the Theology of Liberation

Keith Andrew Wiedersheim

To cite this article: Keith Andrew Wiedersheim (2021): Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Ideology, Praxis and his Influence on the Theology of Liberation, Political Theology, DOI: 10.1080/1462317X.2021.1925438

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1462317X.2021.1925438

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Published online: 17 May 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ypot20

POLITICALTHEOLOGY

https://doi.org/10.1080/1462317X.2021.1925438

DietrichBonhoeffer:Ideology,PraxisandhisInfluenceonthe TheologyofLiberation

KeithAndrewWiedersheim

CentrefortheStudyofReligionandPolitics,SchoolofDivinity,UniversityofStAndrews,StAndrews, Scotland

ABSTRACT

ThisarticletracesDietrichBonhoeffer’stransitionfromorthodoxyto orthopraxy.Ashislifeandthoughtmovedeverdeeperinto resistingNazism,Bonhoefferwaseventuallyexecutedin1945in punishmentforaidingplotstoassasinateHitler.Iarguethatthe paththatledtohispraxisofresistancetoNazioppressionis significantlydifferentfromorthopraxyasa ’firstact’ inthe TheologyofLiberationwhicharoselaterinLatinAmerica. AlthoughBonhoeffer’sworkhasinfluencedtheTheologyof Liberation,Ishowthathisorthopraxyisbasedonaliberative Christologywhich,unliketheliberativeChristologyofthe TheologyofLiberation,steersasfaraspossiblefrompolitical ideology.Iclaimthat,tointerpretBonhoeffer,onemusttacklehis ideologicaldeconstructionofreligionandpolitics,Churchand State.Whatwediscoverisaliberationtheologybasedon imitatio Christi.

KEYWORDS

Bonhoeffer;liberation theology;ideology;utopia; orthopraxy

StudyingthelifeandworksofLutheranpastorandtheologian,DietrichBonhoeffer,gives ustheopportunitytoexplorehowpoliticalideologyinteractswithreligion.1 Outofthe variousbranchesthatstemfromtheumbrellaterm “PoliticalTheology,” Ihavechosento compareBonhoeffer ’sviewsonideologywiththatoftheTheologyofLiberation.2 In doingso,wediscoverthatBonhoefferwasapioneerliberationtheologianthroughhis liberativeChristologyandtheologyofresistance.However,weshouldnotconfusethe “TheologyofLiberation” withliberationtheology,thelatteritselfbeinganumbrella termthatincludesvariousbranchesoftheologyassociatedwiththeliberationofthe oppressedandthepoor.3

ForBonhoeffer,ChurchandStateshouldlimiteachotherinonerealityunderChrist. And,asStanleyHauerwasremarks, “Bonhoeffer ’sworkwasfrombeginningtoendthe

CONTACT KeithAndrewWiedersheim kaw27@st-andrews.ac.uk CSRP,SchoolofDivinity,StMary’sCollege, UniversityofStAndrews,StAndrews,KY169JU,UK

1BorninBreslau(EastPrussia)in1906.ExecutedinFlossenbürgonApril9,1945. 2Foranup-to-datereviewofthevariousbranchesofPoliticalTheology,seeCavanaughandScott, TheBlackwellCompaniontoPoliticalTheology

3Forexample,theTheologyofthePeoplethataroseinArgentinawasanimportantmovementwhichaffectedPope FrancisIinhisowntrajectoryagainstoppression.SeeScannone, “PopeFrancisandtheTheologyofthePeople,” 118–35.

©2021TheAuthor(s).PublishedbyInformaUKLimited,tradingasTaylor&FrancisGroup ThisisanOpenAccessarticledistributedunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttributionLicense(http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/),whichpermitsunrestricteduse,distribution,andreproductioninanymedium,providedtheoriginalworkisproperly cited.

attempttoreclaimthevisibilityofthechurchasthenecessaryconditionfortheproclamationoftheGospelinaworldthatnolongerprivilegedChristianity.”4 Thisisbecause PoliticalTheologyinGermany,priortothesecondworldwar,wassignificantly influencedbyMaxWeber’ssociologyofpower,andCarlSchmitt’skidnappingoftheologicalconceptsforpurelysecularpowerpolitics.WiththeTheologyofLiberationthat aroseinthenineteen-sixties,we findadifferentideologicalanchor,onethatcomesfrom thebottomupthroughbasecommunitiesofthepoorandoppressed.

Bonhoefferandtheriseofnationalsocialism

AsWernerJeanrondclaimsinhisarticle “FromResistancetoLiberationTheology,” beforeDietrichBonhoeffer – andbyextensionbeforeNationalSocialism – therewas nosignificantChristiantheologyofresistance.5 IwouldthereforeclassifyBonhoeffer ’ s ownPoliticalTheologyasa “theologyofresistance,” echoingChristianeTietz’sbook TheologianandResistance: TheLifeandThoughtofDietrichBonhoeffer. 6 And,Jeanrond tellsus,no “coherenttheologyofresistance” waspossiblegiventheineffectivenessofthe ProtestantresponsetoNazismandtheCatholicChurch’sappeasementpolicy.7 Jeanrond herereferstotheriggedelectionsoftheConfederationofGermanEvangelicalChurches andthe Reichskonkordat withtheCatholicChurch,botheventstakingplaceasearlyas July1933.ButalthoughBonhoeffer ’sresistancetoNazismiswellknown,itwouldbe wrongtojumptotheconclusionthatitwasa natural outcomeofhisecumenical outlook,whichdevelopedmainlyduringhisyearattheUnionTheologicalSeminary inNewYork(1930).8

BonhoeffercamefromaprivilegedhomeandaconservativeLutheraneducational background.HestudiedattheUniversityofTübingenduringtheunstableenvironment oftheill-fatedWeimarRepublic.Notably,hisprofessorsincludedAdolfvonHarnack,a friendoftheBonhefferhousehold.Asastudent,Bonhoefferjoinedapatrioticfraternity knownasthe “Hedgehogs” (hisfatherhadalsobeenamember),naturallyseekingfriendshipscompatiblewithhisownconservativeLutheranculturalheritage.9 Inthiscontext,I agreewithJohndeGruchy’spointthatwecannottakeforgrantedBonhoeffer ’sresistancetoNationalSocialism,butratheritaroseoutofa “troubledconsciencecombined withasenseofdeeployaltytotheFatherland.”10

FromhisPhDthesis SanctorumCommunio (1927),untilhisexecutionattheFlossenbürgconcentrationcampin1945,Bonhoeffer ’stheologyshowsanotabletransformation whichgrewoutofhisresistanceagainstNazism.11 ThehereticalproposalofHarnack andthe DeutscheChristen toeliminatetheOldTestamentfromtheHolyScriptureled

4Hauerwas, “DietrichBonhoeffer,” 138.ThisphrasewasalreadyusedbyHauerwasin2004.SeeHauerwas, Performingthe Faith,34.

5Jeanrond, “FromResistancetoLiberationTheology,” S187.Jeanronddefines “resistance” as “oppositioninwordand action” toanyformof “ideologicaltheoryandpraxis.”

6Tietz, TheologianofLiberation.

7Jeanrond, “FromResistance,” S191.

8deGruchy, “DietrichBonhoefferandtheTransitiontoDemocracy,” 347.Bonhoefferpersonallywitnessedtherampant racisttensionsintheUnitedStates.

9Bethge, DietrichBonhoeffer.ABiography,48–9. 10deGruchy, “DietrichBonhoefferandtheTransitiontoDemocracy,” 349.

11Bonhoeffer, SanctorumCommunio.Futurereferencesofthecollection DietrichBonhoefferWorksinEnglish willbeabbreviatedasDBWE. DBWE 8hasaReader’sEdition,whichwillbecitedassuchwheneverappropriate.

toamajorcrisiswithintheProtestantChurches.Inresponse,BonhoefferandHerman SassedraftedtheBethelConfessionofAugust1933.12 Fromtheverybeginningof Hitler’srisetopower,BonhoefferwasanoutspokencriticofNationalSocialistpolicies, andevenKarlBarthlaterlamentedtheweaknessofhisownresponsetotheemerging anti-semitismthatwassoevidentlyevil.13 BonhoefferexpectedtheProtestantChurch tocallfora statusconfessionis inresponsetotheAryanParagraph,butthisdidnot happen.Consequently,hejoinedthenewlycreatedConfessingChurch(Bekennende Kirche)followingtheBarmenDeclarationofMay1934,takingaleadingpositionatits seminaryinFinkenwalde.14 In LifeTogether (GemeinsamesLeben,1939),Bonhoeffer describestheseminarynotasasecluded collegiumpietatis, butratherasabeaconsustainingtrueChristianfaithinoppositiontothe DeutscheChristen. 15

WiththeclosureofFinkenwaldebytheGestapoin1937,however,Bonhoefferlosthis lastbastionofprotest.Nowisolated,hetooktheextraordinarydecisionin1938ofcollaboratingwiththesecularresistancemovementsagainstHitler.Remarkably,givenBonhoeffer ’spublicdisapprovalofHitler,theGermanmilitaryintelligence(Abwehr)employed himin1939inaforeignliaisoncapacity.Inthissurrealscenario,hebecameaclergyman workingforGermanmilitarywhileservingtheresistance.16 Hiscollaborationinplotsto assassinateHitlerledtohisarrestandimprisonmentinApril1943.Hischoicetopassover to “action” wasnotonetobeararms,buttoassistmovementsthatdidso.Bonhoeffer warnedusthat “[c]heapgraceisthemortalenemyofourchurch.”17 Now,morethan ever,Bonhoefferenteredintotheterritoryof “costlygrace,” toalevelthathecouldnot haveimaginedinhispopularbook Discipleship (Nachfolge,1937).

Thedoctrineoftwokingdomsand “righteousaction”

TheclosureofFinkenwaldewaseffectivelytheculminationofCarlSchmitt’svisionof statepower,basedonHobbes’ Leviathan (1651).AccordingtoJuergenMoltmann “the logicalconsequencewasactuallythe “full,undividedabsolutismofthestate,” including theinternalsphere: cuiusregio – eiusreligio, inwhichSchmittsawthecompletionofthe Reformation.”18 SchmittidentifiedfreedomofreligionasathreattotheState,andthus soughttotalcontroloftheProtestantChurchesbytheState,whichbecameNazipolicy. ForBonhoefferthiswasabsolutelycontradictorytotheideathat “[t]heworldhasno realityofitsownindependentofGod’srevelationinChrist.”19 Bonhoefferconsequently begantorethinktraditionalinterpretationsofMartinLuther’sdoctrineoftwokingdoms. AsGeffreyKellyandJohnGodseyexplain,Bonhoeffer ’sreinterpretationofthedoctrine oftwokingdomsdidnotmeanthetransferof “allegiance” fromJesusChristtoanearthly lord;ChurchandStateshouldlimiteachotherinoneunitedreality.20

12ThedeclarationwaseventuallywatereddownandBonhoefferdidnotsignit.

13Greggs, “TheInfluenceofDietrichBonhoefferonKarlBarth,” 52–3.

14SeeSchlingensiepen, DietrichBonhoeffer1906-1945,138–9.

15DBWE5, 38.

16ThiswasmadepossiblebyHansvonDohnáhyi,Bonhoeffer’sbrotherinlaw,whoheldaseniorpositioninthe Abwehr andwashimselfamemberoftheresistance.Formoredetails,seeTietz’schapter “TheConspiracyPeriod,1940-1943” in Tietz, TheologianofLiberation,81–92(loc.1500–1690).Kindle.

17DBWE4, 43.

18Moltmann, “CovenantorLeviathan?,” 19–41.

19DBWE6, 58.

20KellyandGodsey, “Editor’sIntroductiontotheEnglishEdition,” DBWE 4,9.

ButwiththeabsorptionoftheChurchwithintheNazipoliticalmachine,suchalimitationofpowerbetweenChurchandStatewasamereillusion.ItmadeBonhoeffer ’sidea ofthedivinelygivenfourmandates(derivedfromMartinLuther)untenable.Thesemandatesare;work,marriageandfamily,government,andchurch.ChristianeTietzsaysthat “accordingtoBonhoeffer,humanbeingsaretoliveunderthesemandates;thequalityof theircontentisgiventhroughtheirdirectednesstowardChrist.”21 Tietzthenfollowsby sayingthatforhim, “governmentexistsfortheprotectionofmarriageandwork,butnot inordertoshapethemonbehalfofitsowninterests.”22 Inshort,thewholeframework ofBonhoeffer ’spoliticalframeworkisdestroyedbyNationalSocialism.

Evenuntilthepublicationof Discipleship inthemidstofNazioppression,Bonhoeffer stillretainedthatobediencewasessentialtofaith.PaulLehmannclaimsthatitappearsas ifin Discipleship Bonhoefferwas “scornfuloftheworld” withhis “ultra-Lutheranism.”23 However,asLehmannsays,behindthefaçadethewerealreadysomedoubtsregarding worldinessandfaith.Inaddition,MartinRumscheidtnotes,Lutheranismbecame subjecttopoliticaldivisions – afarcryfromthesocialunityoftheChurchin Sanctorum Communio 24 AndEberhardBethgeconfirmsthatBonhoeffer “hadceasedtodifferentiate betweenfalseandtruereligion;ratherhedrewadistinction,learnedfromLuther, betweenfaithandreligion – religioncomingfromthe flesh,butfaithfromthe Spirit.”25 Therefore,faithrepresentsthewholeofrealitywhilereligionisbutapartial viewoftheworld.26

Bythetimeofhisimprisonment,fromApril1943untilhisdeath,Bonhoefferbeganto consideradifferentchurchaltogether.InhisfamousletterofMay1944,writtentohis godson,Bonhoefferrevealshishopefulvision:

Itisnotforustopredicttheday butthedaywillcome whenpeoplewilloncemorebe calledtospeakthewordofGodinsuchawaythattheworldischangedandrenewed.Itwill beanewlanguage,perhapsaquitenon-religiouslanguage,butliberatingandredeeminglike Jesus’slanguage,sothatpeoplewillbealarmedandyetovercomebyitspower … 27

JohnPhillipscommentsthatBonhoefferwasattemptingtofreehimselfofthelanguageof ecclesiologybecauseofitsrestrictivenessandbecausetheconceptofChristasthechurch communityhadbecome “unserviceable.”28 AlthoughBonhoeffer ’slettertohisgodson callsoneto do thewillofGod(Matt7:21),leaningtowardspraxis,hewasentertaining utopianthoughtsofGod’slanguageoverpoweringtheworldasHiskingdomdraws near.LoriHalediscussesthechangeinBonhoeffer ’slanguagefrom1939onwards.She observesthatby1942,henolongersawtheprimacyof “lovingyourenemies” and dropsthisterm “almostentirely,” inasignificantdeparturefrom Discipleship.29 Instead,Bonhoefferspeaksof “righteousaction,” whicheventuallyincludeshiscollaborationwiththeplotagainstHitler.30 HalesuggeststhatBonhoeffercametotermswiththe

21Tietz,Theologian ofLiberation, 87(loc.1620of2705).

22Ibid.,87(loc.1621of2705)

23Lehmann, “FaithandWorldlinessinBonhoeffer’sThought,” 39.

24Rumscheidt, “TheFormationofBonhoeffer’sTheology,” 59.

25Bethge, “Bonhoeffer’sChristology,” 66.

26Ibid.,67.

27Bonhoeffer, LettersandPapersfromPrison,DBWEReader’sEdition, 381–2. Letter145.

28Phillips, TheFormofChristintheWorld,137.

29Hale, “FromLovingEnemiestoActingResponsibly,” 84.

30Ibid.,86.SeealsoLehmann, “FaithandWorldliness,” 39.

paradoxthatChristdiedforall,includingmurderers.Thus,Bonhoefferwrotehisessay “AfterTenYears,” offeringencouragementtoothersresistingagainstNazism,including attemptsonHitler’slife.31 Hisconscience,itseems,wasleaningtowardsapraxisthattoleratedviolentaction,evenifbyproxy.But,infact,nowheredoeshedirectlyjustify violentaction.

Bonhoeffer ’slettertoEberhardBethgewrittenonJune8th1944,fromTegelprison, revealshisprogresstowardstheideaofa “worldcomeofage.” Hesays “it’sbecoming evidentthateverythinggetsalongwithout ‘God’ anddoessojustaswellasbefore.”32 AccordingtoPeterSelby,Bonhoefferinsistedonanhistoricalpathtohumanautonomy, wheretheGospelleadstoanunderstandingthat deusex-machina mustbereplacedbya Godwho “istrulyasufferingparticipantwiththelifeoftheworld.”33 InhisletterofJuly 8th,1944,hespeaksoutagainsttheprivatizationoffaithwhere “holier-than-thou” clergy behaveastabloidjournalists, “grubbingaroundforthedung.”34 Finally,onJuly16th, Bonhoefferphraseshisfamouswords: “BeforeGod,andwithGod,welivewithout God.”35 PaulvanBurenclaimsthatBonhoefferemphasizesremaininganchoredinthis worldwithJesusastheontologicalpriorityasGod’srevelationincarnate.36 Andinhis referencetoMatthew8:17,BonhoeffermakesitclearthatChristhelpsusnotbyhis omnipotencebutbyhisweaknessandsuffering.37

Bythetimeofwriting Ethics (Ethik, 1949)fromtheearly1940sonwards,Bonhoeffer waswellengagedindeconstructingtheideologicalframeworkthatstoodbehinda ChurchabsorbedbytheState.AsStanleyHauerwassays:

AsChristwasintheworld,sothechurchisintheworld.Thesearenotpioussentiments,but reality-makingclaimsthatchallengethewaythingsare.TheyaretheveryheartofBonhoeffer ’stheologicalpolitics,apoliticsthatrequiresthechurchtobethechurchinorderthat theworldcanbetheworld.Bonhoeffer ’scallfortheworldtobetheworldisbuttheoutworkingofhisChristologyandecclesiology.38

BonhoefferincreasinglyreliedontheChristologyemergingfromhisappreciationof theSermonontheMountinhis1932–33lectures.Hewarnedagainstconfusingthe Sermonwithanewandrevolutionary “ethicalideology” thatmustapplytohistorical reality.39

Relationaltruth

BonhoefferbegantofocushisattentiononthequestionoftheegobyaddressingLuther’ s corcurvuminse leadingtoa “self-glorifyingsolitude” bywayofreasonturnedupon itself, ratioinseipsamcurva 40 ThedangeristhattheologycanfallintowhatBonhoeffer sawastheself-referentialworldofphilosophythatissimplyanexerciseof “bargaining”

31DietrichBonhoeffer, “AfterTenYears,” in LettersandPapersfromPrison,DBWE8,editedbyJohnW.deGruchy(Minneapolis:FortressPress,2015),37–52.Thisessayappearsinthe “Prologue”

32Bonhoeffer, LettersandPapersfromPrison, DBWEReader’sEdition,416–7.Letter161.

33Selby, “ChristianityinaWorldComeofAge,” 235.

34Ibid.,444–5.

35Ibid.,464–5.

36vanBuren, “LivingWithGodWithoutGod,” 53.

37Bonhoeffer, LettersandPapersfromPrison, DBWEReader’sEdition,464–5.Letter161.

38Hauerwas, “DietrichBonhoeffer,” 142.

39DBWE6, 229–31.

40DBWE2, 41,58,and139.

withoneself.41 InhisChristologylectures(1932-33),Bonhoefferaskstwofundamental questions: “Whoareyou,Jesus?” and “Whereareyoutobefound?”42 Bonhoeffer ’sChristologyiswhollyrelational: “IcanneverthinkofJesusChristinhisbeing-in-himself,but onlyinhisrelatednesstome.”43 ThequestionofwhoJesus is becomesonewithwhereHe stands.Heisstanding “whereIshouldbestanding” becauseIcannotdosointhisfallen world.44 ItisaboundarywhichIcannotcross,ashintedin SanctorumCommunio where hespeaksofa “paradoxicalrealityofacommunity-of-the-Cross.”45 Inotherwords,our positionwithrespecttoevilandrespondingthroughrighteousactionmustberelational andcontextdriven,andthisiswhatwe findinhisunfinishedessayentitled “Whatis Meantby ‘TellingtheTruth.’”46

Bonhoefferintroducesahypotheticalcaseinwhichateacherpubliclyshamesachildin theclassroomabouthisfather’salcoholism.Theashamedpupilanswerswithalietoprotect hisprivatedomain.Bonhoefferconcludesthattheteacherisdoingwrongbecauseheisviolatingthechild’srighttoprivacy,andthisisthe “truth” bywhichGodwilljudgetheteacher. Bonhoefferdoesnotclaimthatthechilddidnotlie,butthattheblameforthelie “fallsback entirelyupontheteacher.”47 HauerwasstatesthatforBonhoeffer, “[t]hethreattotruthfor Christianscomesnotfromthedifficultyofdevelopinganunproblematiccorrespondence theoryoftruth,butratherfromtheliesthatspeaktousdisguisedastruth.”48 Thoseare thelieswhichBonhoefferfearedandwhich “madepossibletheriseofHitler.”49 Hauerwas notestheinvertedlogicinBonhoeffer ’spoliticalthought,wherepeacemustbesubordinatedtotruth,ratherthantruthbeingsubordinatedtopeace,whichisillusory.50 RachelMuersprovidesfurtherinsight,andconsidersthatknowledgecanonlybe truthfulifitiscontextuallydependentonourtransformationalrelationshipwith(and in)Christ.51 Bonhoeffer ’sliberativeChristologyistransformationalandnotfoundational asiftiedtoapreceptofmoralduty.Itiswithinthisframeworkthatwemustgrapplewith Bonhoeffer ’sconsciencewhilefacingincreasingadversity.Hisapproachtorighteous actionismoderatedbythefactthatwecannotknowforcertainwhichactionsarepart ofGod’swill: “self-justificationisquitesimplysin.”52 Yethesays, “whatisworsethan doingevilisbeingevil.”53 Giventhatweareunabletodirecttheconsequentialresults ofouractions,thereisnopossibilityforustoreasonourwayintomakingtheright decisionsinthefaceofevil.54 Pettyself-justificationtoavoidmakingdecisionsandignoringthecallforhelpfromone’sneighborisignoringthemessageofChrist.55

41Ibid.,137–50.

42DBWE12,303

43Ibid.,314–15.

44Ibid.,324.

45DBWE1,151–2.Italicsinoriginal.

46Bonhoeffer, “WhatisMeant,” 363–72.Theessayisfoundinthispublicationof Ethics,butdoesnotreappearin DBWE8. Notethattheterm “relational” doesnotimplyrelativism.

47Bonhoeffer, “WhatisMeant,” 330.

48Hauerwas, BonhoefferonTruthandPolitics,14,presentedatheConferenceonLivedTheologyandCivilCourage,UniversityofVirginiainCharlottesville,June14th2003, http://www.livedtheology.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ 20030614PPR.04-Stanley-M.-Hauerwas-Bonhoeffer-on-Truth-and-Politics.pdf.

49Hauerwas, BonhoefferonTruth, 14.

50Bonhoeffer, NoRustySwords,Letters,LecturesandNotes,1928-1936,168–9.

51Muers, KeepingGod’sSilence,198.

52DBWE6,167.

53Ibid.,67.

54Ibid.,190

55Ibid.,136.

ThereareimmediateimplicationsforthosewhoconsiderthescopeofChristian praxis.If,forexample,themechanismsofhumangovernancefallfoulofChrist’struth andlandatthefeetofevil,andthedivinelygivenfourmandatesaredisabled,then theconditionsaresettoengageinrighteousaction.56 Thismayevenincludeactingviolentlyagainstthegovernment.YetBonhoefferdoesnotgivehimselfthecoverofself-justification.Hisactionscannotbejustified,asweknowfromhisownwritings.Bonhoeffer wasclearthatethicalprinciplescannotrestonasingleindividual.57 Andhisresistance cannotbeseveredfromthemillionswhodiedinbattleforthesakeoftheirneighbors, andthemillionswhoweresacrificedinsilencebytheNazis:

InChrist,allhumanrealityistakenon.ThatiswhyitisultimatelyinandfromChristthatit ispossibletoactinwaythatisinaccordwithreality.Theoriginofactionthatisinaccord withrealityisneitherthepseudo-LutheranChristwhoseonlypurposeistosanctionthe statusquo,northeradical,revolutionaryChristofallreligiousenthusiastswhoissupposed toblesseveryrevolution 58

BonhoefferdelimitsourfreedomtoactwithintheconfinesofastrictlyliberativeChristologybutwithoutknowingwhetheritisgoodorevilthatwillbetheoutcomeofsuch action.ThisjudgementisleftuptoGodandincertaincircumstances,anactionmay beevilbutparadoxicallyserveGod’spurpose(Bonhoeffertakesaspecificexampleof JudasIscariottodrivehomehispoint).59

Pavingthewaytoliberationtheology

AsPeterSelbynotes,inthedecadessinceBonhoeffer ’sdeath,anincreasinglynegative awarenessof “allowingtheexperienceofEuropeanandNorthAmericanChristianity tobedecisiveforthefutureofChristianfaithworld-wide” hasemerged.60 Inthis context,theuniversalityofBonhoeffer ’stheologyanticipatedthebeginningofliberative theologiesemergingoutofapost-holocaustworldthatspelledtheendofcolonial empiresandthebeginningoftheColdWar.WhilethelikesofAynRandinthe UnitedStatespromptedradicalformsofpopulistcapitalismandanti-communistactivism,a “post-idealisttheology” developedinEuropeandLatinAmerica.61 InEurope, JohannBaptistMetzandJuergenMoltmann’sPoliticalTheologystandoutintheface ofwhatwasleftofhumanmoralstandingafterAuschwitz,andinLatinAmericaitis thepraxisoftheTheologyofLiberationthatstandsout,bothinfluencedbyMarxist thinking.62 JeanrondidentifiesbothMoltmannandMetzasthemaintheologiansto developatheologyofresistancestartingfromthelegacyofBonhoeffer. 63

Liberationtheologyaroseinthelate1950swithinmainlyRomanCatholiccirclesin LatinAmerica.Fromthe firstgenerationofTheologiansofLiberationcamethemuchquotedphrase “preferrentialoptionforthepoor,” creditedtopriestandtheologian

56Herewe findpoliticaltheologyinpraxis.

57DBWE 6,220.

58Ibid.,224.

59Ibid.,225–7.

60Selby, “Christianity,” 238.

61Aguilar, TheHistoryandPolitics,24.

62BothareinfluencedbyMarxistphilosopherErnstBloch.

63IdonotforgetDorotheeSölle(1929–2003),whoseimportantworkalsocontributedtopost-warliberationtheology, butfallsoutsidethescopeofthisarticle.

GustavoGutiérrez,whowrotehisseminalwork ATheologyofLiberation (Teologíadela Liberación,1971).64 Asasocio-politicalmovement,theTheologyofLiberationinterpretedthegospelofJesusChristthroughthelivedexperiencesofoppressedpeople. Thetheologicalproblemthatarose,asJuanLuisSegundoputsit,isthatinfacing “reality,” onemustquestioninterpretationsofthegospelandcontextualizethemin thecurrentworld,notnecessarilyfromwesternizedRomanCatholichermeneutics.65

Inaddition,wemustbeclearfromtheoutsetthatliberationtheologynotonlyaddressed thepoor,butalsothesystematictorture,rape,andmurderofpoliticalopponentsin countriesrunbydictators.MarioAguilarvividlydescribedthisinhisaccountof eventsatVillaGrimaldiinChileandelsewhere,askingthepainfulquestionof whetherJesuswaspresentinthetorturechamber.66 Ashepointsout,anomnipresent andonmiscientGodmustbepresentinthetorturechamberandisalsoaprisonerofviolence.ThisalignswithBonhoeffer ’sChristology,wherethesufferingChriststandsinour place.Thus,fromBonhoeffer,throughthePoliticalTheologyofMetzandMoltmann,we findourwaytotheTheologyofLiberation.67

ClodovisBoff outlinesliberationtheology’sdefiningcharacteristicsin MysteriumLiberationis: “Thetheologyofliberationisanintegraltheology,treatingallofthepositivityof faithfromaparticularperspective:thatofthepoorandtheirliberation.”68 TheTheology ofLiberationhasamethodologicalandhistoricalurgency,asBoff notes: “Forexample, inEuropeitisfaiththatissurelywithoutasafefooting,whileinLatinAmericaitis breadthatisnotguaranteed.”69 Butalthoughpraxisonthesideoftheoppressedcomes first,Boff stressesitstheologicalbasisonthe “fundamentalsoffaith.”70 Faithisintegrated intopraxis,the “firstact” toconcreteaction,andheretheclergyhasaroletoplayas “ organicallylinked” to,andlivingwithin,thegrassrootsChristiancommunityofthepoor.71 Boff explainsthattheuseofMarxistinstrumentsofpraxisforemancipationistobeunderstood inamethodologicalcontextratherthanfromapolitical-philosophicalstandpoint.72 And JulioLoisproposesin MysteriumLiberationis thatitwouldbewrongtosuggestthatthe roadtopraxisstemsonlyfromideologicalprinciples;praxisconnectstotheconcreteness andhopeofthecrossandresurrection.73 Quiteso,butLois’ statementimplicitlysuggests thatideologydidnotplayjusta minor roleinthepraxisofliberation.Infact,manyTheologiansofLiberationwerestronglyboundtopoliticalrhetoric,perhapsexplainingwhywe findonlypassingreferencestoBonhoefferin MysteriumLiberationis. Wedo,however, find BonhoefferinanearlyarticlebyMethodisttheologianJuliodeSantaAna.74

64Gutiérrez, ATheologyofLiberation

65Segundo, TheLiberationofTheology,9.

66Aguilar, Religion,TortureandtheLiberationofGod,1.

67HerewebegintodeviatefromBonhoeffer’spoliticaltheology.WearenowoutsidethespectrumofstrictlyGerman academia.LiberationtheologybecamethepathtopopularandecclesiasticresistancetooppressioninLatin America,headingtoaconfrontationbetweenthepoorandtheState,andbetweenliberationtheologiansand clergyagainstthemainstream(mainlyRomanCatholic)ecclesiasticalestablishment.

68Boff, “EpistemologyandMethod,”,57.Italicsinoriginal.

69Ibid.,62–3.

70Ibid.,65.

71Ibid.,67,73–4.

72WearenottoconfuseMarxismwithoutrightCommunism.Many first-generationliberationtheologians,likeGustavo Gutiérrez,hadstudiedinFranceandBelgiumandwereinfluencedbyWesternEuropeanMarxism(e.g.,Antonio Gramsci.)

73Lois, “ChristologyintheTheologyofLiberation,”,185–6.

74SantaAna, “TheInfluenceonBonhoeffer,” 188–97.

SantaAna’sreadingofBonhoefferconcludesthatideologyisalienatingandshouldbe dealtwithonlydialecticallyinsofarasithelpstopromote “theconvergenceofhuman willsaroundprogrammesofaction.”75 GlynRichardsmovesfurtherandexaminesthe workofGustavoGutiérrezandJuanLuisSegundo,notingthepoliticaldimensionofcollectiveactioninBonhoeffer ’ s “worldcomeofage.”76 Here,Richardsentersthehermeneuticaldebateoforthopraxyversusorthodoxy:doespraxisdefinetheChristian theologythatfollows,ordoesChristiantheologydefinethecourseofpraxis?77 Gutiérrez answersthisquestionhimself:

WhereWesterntheologyassumesthatthinkingcomesbeforeunderstandingandaction,liberationtheologyarguesthatactionorpraxismustbethe firstmovementthatthen,andonly then,canleadtothinkingandunderstanding.However,thereisafurthercondition:this praxismustbedonefromtheperspectiveofthepoorandoppressed.78

AsexplainedbyClodovisBoff,faithisassumedasapreconditioninthishermeneutic question.

Theimportanceofthe “firstact” iswidelydiscussedintheenrichingcontributionby GeffreyKellyandMatthewKirkpatrickentitled “DietrichBonhoefferandLiberation Theologies.”79 KellyandKirkpatrickshowthesimilaritiesanddivergencesbetweenBonhoefferandTheologiansofLiberation.Tosummarize,theconvergenceisfoundinBonhoeffer ’sliberativeChristologywhichistheprincipallinktotheTheologyof Liberation.80 ButIwouldhighlightasspecificallyinterestingthefollowingpassagein relationtoJonSobrino:

AdoptingthelanguageofBonhoeffer ’sprisonletters,SobrinoarguesthatGodandtheSpirit aresimplydrawnuponasa deusexmachina toanswerourquestionsandconcerns,butultimatelytomoveusawayfromanyrequiredaction.ForSobrino,thisis “cheapgrace”—“the greatestdangerofChristianity,accordingtoBonhoeffer. ” Incontrast,theonlywaytobring aboutrevolutionistoreturntothehistoricalJesusofNazarethandhis “dangerous memory. ” This,forSobrino,isthekeytoliberationtheology,whichhebelievesBonhoeffer, amongstonlyahandfulofothers,soclearlyemphasized.81

WhatstandsoutisthesuggestionthatrevolutioncanbeapossibleoutcometoMetz’ s “dangerousmemory” ofJesus.Itisamemorywhichliesbehindtheutopiaofliberation.82 Metzmobilizesthosewhohavesufferedanddiedunjustlythroughsolidarityandmourning,preventingChristianityfrombecominga “paradiseforthevictorious.”83 YetBonhoeffer ’sliberativeChristologyexplicitly excludes revolutionasanideologicalgoaland concentrateson “Christasthemanforothers.”

ItisherethatwecometothenucleusofKellyandKirpatrick’ sessay: “Liberationtheologystandsorfallsontheacceptanceofthismethodologicalshift,andithasbeenperhaps itsmostcontroversialelement.However,dowe findanyevidenceofitinBonhoeffer?”84 As

75Ibid.,194.

76Richards, “FaithandPraxis,” 361. 77Ibid.,361.

78Gutiérrez, PowerofthePoor,200–3.

79KellyandKirkpatrick, “BonhoefferandLiberation,” 139–68.

80Ibid.,145–7.

81Ibid.,146–7.ReferencestoBonhoeffercomefromSobrino, ChristtheLiberator,loc.2006,6220,of8786.Kindle.

82Metz, FaithinHistoryandSociety,66–67.

83Metz, FaithinHistory,103.

84Ibid.,153.

bothauthorsstate,thisshiftisonecenteredonChrist’ ssuffering.85 Itreferstotheclassical hermeneuticalcircle,positedasaquestionofwhichcomes firstforBonhoeffer,orthodoxy ororthopraxy?FortheTheologyofLiberation,itisorthopraxywhichcomes firstinthe contextinwhichitaroseandSobrino,in ChristtheLiberator,remainsfocusedonthe resurrection inhisdiscussionoforthopraxycoming firstinhermeneuticalcircle.86 Instead,I suggest,Bonhoefferbreaksthehermeneuticalcircleverticallybyrecallingthebasictenet thatChristbrokeintohistorythroughhis incarnation.TheemphasisforBonhoeffer thusliesinourundertakingpraxisinfaithintermsof imitatioChristi (towhichwe returnlater).Thereisnodoubt,Ithink,thatBonhoeffer ’sliberativeChristologyalters thehermeneuticalcircle.Thus,liberationtheology “stands” inthecontextofitsorigins and,Ithink,forBonhoefferitstandsinanycontext.InsteadIwouldreformulatethequestion:IspraxisasunderstoodbyBonhoefferequivalenttothepraxisoftheTheologyof Liberation?

Praxis,ideology,andutopia

RubénRosarioRodríguez’ s “PoliticalTheologyas Liberative Theology” recognizesthat Bonhoeffer ’sworkhasservedtoinspiretheevolutionofLatinAmericanliberationtheology. 87 Heaffirmsthatthemodernchurchasaninstitutionmustrepresentacountercultureresistingoppression.RodríguezrefersdirectlytoBonhoeffer ’scalltopractice theologyfromtheundersideofhistorywithhisvisionof “religionlessChristianity” and findsanechoinGutiérrez’swork, “whosecritiqueoftraditionaltheologicallanguage emphasizesorthopraxyasacorrectiveagainstossifiedorthodoxies.”88 Inhisreferenceto religionlessChristianity,Rodríguezrecallsthismuch-debatedandpopularizedterm whichBonhoefferusedpassinglyinhis LettersandPapersfromPrison (Widerstand undErgebung,1951).Rodríguezarguesthat

academictheologyintheFirstWorldhasmissedthemarkinunderstandingwhatBonhoeffermeantbya ‘religionless’ Christianity;accordingtotheliberationiststhegoalisnot secularspirituality somenameless,vaguereligiousfeeling butratheratheologyfree fromthe ‘deadfaithoftheliving.’89

Hereferstoliberationistidealsasa “utopianprojectgroundedonaneschatological promise” whichembracesMarx’selevenththesisonFeuerbach.90 ButMarxismisnot thecoreproblemfortheTheologyofLiberation.Rather,whatisastakeistheriskofideologicalslavery.This,Ibelieve,wouldbeBonhoeffer ’spointofview.

Anideologyisasystemofideaswhichprovidestheframeworkforpoliticaltheories andfortheformulationofpolicy.Behindideologicalthinkingstandstheformulationof “truths” thatmobilizeaparticularhistoricalviewpoint.KarlMannheimdefinesideology inhisclassicwork, IdeologyandUtopia (IdeologieundUtopie,1929),explainingthat differentpositionsandideasmustnecessarilyrepresentdifferentexperiencesofthe

85Ibid.,156.

86Sobrino, ChristtheLiberator

87Rodríguez, “PoliticalTheologyas Liberative Theology,” 676.Italicsinoriginaltitle.

88Ibid.,676.

89Ibid.,677.

90Ibid.,677.Marx’selevenththesisproposesthatwhilephilosophersonlyinterprettheworld,theaimisactuallyto changeit.

world.91 Theseworldviews,basedon “snapshots” ofreality,donotrepresentthewhole. Mannheimseesideologyasinhibitinganunderstandingofhistoricalreality,becauseit isself-referentialandexclusive.Proponentsofanideologyattempttoimposeaparticular worldviewasthedominantonewithinthesociety.Bonhoeffernotesin Ethics: “Thosewho actonthebasisofideologyconsiderthemselvesjustifiedbytheiridea.Thosewhoact responsiblyplacetheiractionintothehandsofGodandlivebyGod’sgraceandjudgement.”92 ItwouldseemthatwehavecometoabarrierbecauseBonhoefferbelievesthat thereexistsanorthopraxywhichisnotimmersedinaself-referentialideology,while theTheologyofLiberationisembeddedina “firstact” twinnedwithMarxistideology.

Inhisinfluentialbook ThePowerofthePoor,GustavoGuttiérrezrecognizesthepioneeringliberationtheologythataroseoutofBonhoeffer ’sstruggleagainstNazioppression: “… thereareweightyindicationsthatBonhoefferhadbeguntomoveforwardinthe perspectiveof ‘thosebeneath’– thoseonthe ‘undersideofhistory.’”93 BothGuttiérrez andMetzarewellknownfortheirpreoccupationwiththeprivatizationoftheChristian faithinapost-enlightenmentworldthatisembeddedwithinanapatheticandtriumphalistculture.Yettheprivatizationofreligionisnomorethanideologicalkidnapping.94 To fightthisapathy,MetzsuggestsweturntoaliberatingChristianpraxis,yethis praxisremainsideological: “OnlywithMarxdiditbecomeclearthatindividualmoral praxisisinnowaysociallyneutralandpoliticallyinnocent.”95 Thissuggeststhatthere isperhapsaweaknessin Discipleship, becauseBonhoefferdoesnotemphasizethat thereis always anideologicalpricetagassociatedwithdiscipleship.Andintheend,by hispraxisofresistanceagainstHitler,Bonhoefferpaidtheultimateprice;hislife.

ForbothMetzandBonhoeffer,theChristianisstillbeingdefinedinhistory,meaning thatChristianidentitymustcontinuouslyevolve.96 Inthisconstantevolutionwhich encapsulatesdangerousmemory,Metzdidnot ignore thepoliticalbut anticipates it fromthebeginning.AccordingtoAguilar,

[t]heworksofMetzinEuropeandofGutiérrezinLatinAmericabecamecatalystsforpastoralmodelscentredontheconceptofthe ‘peopleofGod’ ratherthanontheChurchasthe onlyplacewhereGodcouldorshouldintervenewithinthecontemporaryworld.97

AlthoughMetzwasnotanactivist,theTheologyofLiberationwarmlyreceivedhis theology,andtheaffinitieswere “manifest,” wroteJuanJoséTamayo.98

GutiérrezshowsinterestinBonhoeffer ’slettersfromJuneandJulyof1944,andinparticularturnsto “aworldcomeofage” anda “powerless” God.99 Bonhoeffer ’scritiqueof “bourgeoisself-satisfaction” andthecommentthatasa “firststep” thechurchmust “give awayallitsproperty” tothoseinneedcertainlyalignedwellwiththeMarxistidealsof LatinAmericanTheologyofLiberation.100 RobertDeanexplainsthatwhatBonhoeffer

91Mannheim, IdeologieundUtopie 92DBWE6, 225–6.

93Gutiérrez, ThePowerofthePoorinHistory,231. 94InthesamewaythatSchmitttooktheologicalconceptsandconvertedthemintosecularideasservingpolitical ideology.

95Metz, FaithinHistory,andSociety,64.

96Metz, TheEmergentChurch,163.ForBonhoeffer,seeBethge, “Bonhoeffer”sChristology,” 71. 97Aguilar, TheHistory,25.

98Tamayo, “ReceptionoftheTheologyofLiberation,” 47. 99Gutiérrez, PowerofthePoor,180–1. 100DBWE8, 503–4.

hadinmindwasachurchwhichrelinquishesits “Constantinianpriviliges,” breaking awaycompletelyfromthestateandlivingoff “free-willoffering.”101 However,Iwould tendtoseethisassomewhatofamomentaryoverreactiononBonhoeffer ’spart,given thathedidnotfocusspecificallyonthepoorbutratheridentifiedwithresponsibility forothersinChrist.WemightthereforebetemptedtoseeBonhoeffer ’sinfluenceon theTheologyofLiberationbyapraxisthatisnothis.Andtoaddtotheconfusion,at onepointGuttiérrezseemstosteerawayfromMarxistideologyandlookstoutopianism ashisultimategoal.102 WhatishappeningherefallsunderwhatCliffordGeertznamed the “MannheimParadox.”103

PeterBreineroffersagooddefinitionofthisparadox: “Ideologiespreventusfrom takingadvantageofanalteredsocialandpoliticalsituationeitherbytreatingsocial realityasstaticandunvarying,orbyemphasizingonedynamicofsocialrealityatthe expenseofothersthathavesupersededit.”104 ThisrecallsKierkegaard’sproposalthat ideologiesincludebothapromiseandamenace,adualitythatgeneratestension throughoffensiveness.ErnestGellnerrepresentsthisdualityasfear(ordespair)inthis worldwiththepromiseofsalvationinanother,creatingthetensiononwhichideology thrives.105 Suchadualitypushesusstraightintoconsideringreligioninideological terms.106 Gellneraffirmsthatideologicaltruth-claims “proposemonopolisticsolutions incontextsinwhichtheydonot,ordonotaltogether,monopolisepower.”107 Herein liesGellner’scriticismdirectedatclaimsofreligiousultimacy,andparticularlyofKarl Barth:

Whatconcernsushereisthephenomenologyofreligionasaformofideology.TheBarthian defenceisquiteuntruetothefactsofthecase,totheveryspiritofthatwhichitwould defend.Logicallyornot,actualfaithshaveinfact both claimedultimacy and aredefended, arguedfor,fromextraneouspremisesdrawnfromanantecedentworldwhichisnaively takenforgranted,asgiven.108

Thus,ifweacceptGellner’sargument,religioussystemsareideologicalinnatureandare subjecttotheMannheimParadox,inthattheycanonlyexistwithinthecontextofa widerworldinwhichotherbeliefsystemscanbechallenged.Aslongasfaithisembedded withinareligiousframework,ittoobecomessusceptibletotheweaknessesofthe Barthiandefense.ItshouldbenotedthatGutiérrezhimselfusedtheBarthiandefense tostatethatfaithdoesnotconsistinassertingtheexistenceofGod,buttoactonHis behalf.109

IcometotheconclusionthatGutiérrez’spraxis – asisthecasewithmanyCatholic TheologiansofLiberation – remainschainedtotwoideologicalframeworks;the RomanCatholicChurch,andMarxism.ForTheologiansofLiberation,hopeand memoryservestwomasters;oneutopian-transformativeinthepositivesense,andthe otherdoctrinal-ideologicalinthenegative(dystopian)sense.Iwouldstressherethat

101Dean, FortheLifeoftheWorld,185. 102Gutiérrez, PowerofthePoor,81. 103Geertz, TheInterpretationofCultures,194. 104Breiner, “KarlMannheimandPoliticalIdeology,” 8. 105Gellner, “NotesTowardsaTheoryofIdeology,” 75. 106Ibid.,72–3. 107Ibid.,75. 108Ibid.,76. 109GutiérrezandShaull, LiberationandChange,89.

the content ofideologyisinitselfunimportant;far-rightideologiesareasdamagingas thoseofthefar-left.ThecoreofBonhoeffer ’spoliticaltheology,ontheotherhand, evolvedintoastruggleagainstideologyinaworldwheretheChurchandStatearesubordinatetoChrist’sreality.Hencehiscallforanewworldwithanewredeeming language.Inthisnewworld,faithinChristovercomesthestraightjacketofchurchorthodoxy.Bonhoeffer ’sPoliticalTheologyisoneofrefusaltoengagewithideologyleaving orthopraxyasanexpressionofChrist’struthandrealityattheexpenseoforthodoxy. OrthopraxyintheTheologyofLiberationthuscrossespathswithBonhoeffer ’spraxis, buttheyarenotequivalent.BonhoefferreliesonChriststandingdirectlyinhisplace. Bycontrast,theTheologyofLiberationrisksseekingatruthsubordinatedtoanideologicalpeace,which,aswehaveseen,isultimatelyillusory.

YetitwouldbewrongtoattributetoGutiérrezaMarxistideologyatthecoreofhis orthopraxy.AsAguilarsays,thishasledtoagreatdealofmisunderstandings.110 Indeed,inmanyinstancestheassociationsbetweenorthopraxyandideologycame throughparticularsocio-historicalcontexts,andtheTheologyofLiberationdidnot begin asanideologicalmovement.111 Infact,itwasexplicitlyutopianinitsvision:

Withinthe firstgenerationofliberationtheologiansinLatinAmericatherewasatingling utopiantouchthatmadethemtakepartinmanysocialmovementsandmanyChristian reflectionsonanewworldclosertothevaluesofthekingdomofGod.112

SotheTheologyofLiberationhasbeendrawnintoanpoliticalbattle aposteriori, having first startedasautopianprojectionoffaithwhichdoesincludealiberativeChristology.113 Inany case,theTheologyofLiberationprovokedanegativeresponsefromtheCatholicChurch, andmostspecificallyfromtheCongregationfortheDoctrineoftheFaith(CDF)underCardinalJosephRatzinger.TheCDFwarnedofaradicalpolarizationoffaiththatcouldbecome subordinatedtopoliticalcriteriathatdependedonclassstruggleasthedrivingforceof history(IX.6).114 Clearly,theCDFhadnoproblemin findingweaknessesintheTheology ofLiberation.Inresponse,JuanLuisSegundoaccusedCardinalRatzingerofcovertly wantingtoreturntothepre-VaticanIIera.115 Intheend,boththeTheologyofLiberation andtheCDFexposedthemselvestotheMannheimParadox,revealingideologiesanddoctrinesthatdonotconformwithChriststandingwhereweshouldbe.ButwhatofBonhoeffer? TheideologicalstandointsofboththeCDFandtheTheologyofLiberation,Ibelieve, wouldhavebeenunacceptabletoBonhoeffer,whosees imitatioChristi asemanating fromChristhimself: “Christianpeopledonotformtheworldwiththeirideas.Rather, ChristformshumanbeingstoaformthesameasChrist’ sown. ”116 ImitatioChristi is Bonhoeffer ’sorthopraxy,the firststeptoliberation.Itwas,ineffect,hisutopiaand refugeinresistance.Nevertheless,his political decisiontojointheresistanceagainst

110Aguilar, TheHistory, 21–2.

111Forexample,theTheologyofthePeople,whichinfluencedCardinalBergoglioinArgentina,didnotveersofarleft towardsaMarxistideology.SeeScannone, “PopeFrancisandtheTheologyofthePeople,” 118–35.

112Aguilar, TheHistory,17.

113RuthLevitasdemonstrateshowtheword “utopia” becameassociatedwithtotalitarianism.Sheclaimsthisintepretationiswrongbecauseutopiasare,functionally,expressionsofdesiresandhopes.SeeLevitas, WherethereisnoVision, thePeoplePerish

114InstructiononCertainAspectsofthe “TheologyofLiberation”.Romannumeralscorrespondtoparagraphsinthe Instruction. 115Segundo, TheologyandtheChurch,152–3.

116DBWE6,93–4.

HitlereventuallyexposeshimtotheMannheimParadox.IfweacceptHauerwas’ explanationthatBonhoefferwasultimatelytryingtoreclaimthevisibilityofthechurch,the riskisfaithbeing filteredbyChurchideology.Thehermeneuticalcirclewouldimmediatelyveertowardsorthodoxy.AndthisliesincontradictionwithPaulvanBuren’sview thatBonhoefferemphasizesremaininganchoredinthisworldwithJesusastheontologicalpriorityasGod’srevelationincarnate.Bonhoefferisconsciousofthiscontradiction. HeassumeshisguiltandawaitsGod’sjudgement.

YetBonhoeffertalksof “vicariousrepresentativeaction” whichisgroundedinGod becominghumanthroughChrist,andonly “onthisground” canweconsider “genuineresponsibleaction.”117 ThisisjustaboutasfarasBonhoeffergoestoexplain hisdecisions,butitdoesleaveonetodoubtifthereissomeapologeticself-justification. Infact,hereturnstothepoliticalwhenhesaysthatthe lawsofstatecraftdonotexhaustthecontentoftheintrinsiclawofthestate,andindeedthat thelawofthestateultimatelyextendsbeyondanylegaldefinition;preciselybecausethestate isinextricablylinkedtohumanexistence.Anditisonlyatthispointthatresponsibleaction reachesitsmostprofoundexpression.118

BonhoefferrespondstoGod’slawbyfollowingChrist,butIemphasizeherethatheis awarethatheultimatelycannotknowifhisactionsarevicariousornot.Ifearthat ourveryhumananthropocentricitylimitsourabilitytoactlikeJesusinasatisfactory wayinthepracticalworld.Theresultofouractions,evenifthrough imitatioChristi, inevitablyleadsusdownthepathofideologyoncewe “act,” andweeventuallyfall intotheMannheimParadox.That imitatioChristi inevitablylandsusintotheMannheim Paradoxisapointthatremainstobeexplored.

AsDietrichBonhoeffer ’slegacyloomslargeatthedawnofthetwenty-firstcentury, theTheologyofLiberationseemstohavelostprominence.IvanPetrella – asdosome ofthe firstgenerationliberationtheologians – considersthatitistimeto “rethinkliberationtheologyinlightofcurrentevents.”119 Givingapreferentialoptiontothepoorisno longervalidbecause “[n]oclassfullyembodieshistory.”120 Thusliberationtheologymust moveoninthetwenty-firstcenturyand findnew “historicalprojects.” Petrelladefinesthe “historicalproject” asa “midwaytermbetweenanutopia,avisionwhichmakesno attempttoconnectitselfhistoricallytothepresent,andaprogram,atechnicallydevelopedmodelfortheorganizationofsociety.”121 Petrellaaffirmsthatwithoutanyalternativeprojectinsight,capitalismturnsintothesubjectofidolatryandbecomesaagod.122

Bynullifyingthepoorasaunifiedrevolutionarysubject,Petrellastripsliberation theologyofitsconstitutivecause.Heseemstoignoretheworkofcontemporarycharities andmissionsthatputthepreferentialoptionforthepooratthecenteroftheirpraxis. Thesearenotgrandutopianprojects,buttheyarenevertheless “buildingblocks.” Petrella leadsusdirectlytowardstheumbrellaterm, “PoliticalTheology,” ratherthantoa

117Ibid.,232.

118Ibid.,272.

119Petrella, TheFutureofLiberationTheology,3(loc.198of5488).HebegantocollaboratewiththelateliberationtheologianMarcellaAlthaus-Reidupdatingliberationtheologytocurrentevents.Alas,thereisnospacetodiscusshersignificantworkonradicalhermeneuticsandQueerTheology(IndecentTheology,2000).However, IndecentTheology could beseenasadeparturefromliberationtheology,creatingseparate fieldsofstudy.

120Petrella, TheFutureofLiberation,6(loc.283of5488).

121Ibid.,11(loc.411of5488).

122Ibid.,11(loc.412of5488).

concreteliberationtheology.Heremainsexclusivelyembeddedinthepolitical,immersed inthereligionlessChristianityofthetwenty-firstcentury.

Conclusions

TheuseofBonhoefferasaninspirationforliberationtheologiansis,Ithink,quite natural,giventhathislifeandworkweredeeplyinvolvedin fightingtheinjusticeof anoppressiveideology.HemovedgraduallyfromconservativeLutheranorthodoxyto anorthopraxyakintothatofliberationtheology.Hestandsasapioneerliberationtheologianandcouldwellbeseenasamodelforotherliberationistswhocameafterhim,as Jeanrondsuggests.Nevertheless,IwouldnotgosofarastosaythatBonhoefferwasa TheologianofLiberationgiventheabsenceofMarxistinfluenceinhisroadtopraxis. HistransformationfrombelowbeginswithChriststandinginourplace.Bonhoeffer sees imitatioChristi asemanatingfromChristhimself.Weare firsttransformedby Christ;thisisBonhoeffer ’ s firstanddefinitivesteptoliberation,andsimultaneously, tosalvation.Whatcomesafterwardsmaybepoliticalandrevolutionaryinits outcome,butthecoreofBonhoeffer ’sliberativeChristologyis, asfaraspossible,void ofanyrecognizableideologicaldimension.Despitehisattemptstosteerclearofideology, Bonhoefferdoeseventuallysupportarevolutionarycoup,andfallsintotheMannheim paradox.Yethisunderlyingideologialframeworkremainselusive.Ifanything,itdesperatelyseeksutopianhoperatherthandystopianpoliticalframeworksandossified orthodoxies.

Disclosurestatement

Nopotentialconflictofinterestwasreportedbytheauthor(s).

Notesoncontributor

KeithAndrewWiedersheim isaresearcherattheCentrefortheStudyofReligionandPoliticsin theSchoolofDivinity,UniversityofStAndrews(Scotland).Heholdsvariousdegrees,ranging fromMolecularBiologyandManagementSciencetoClassicalandBiblicalStudies.Hehas workedextensivelyininternationalbusinessbeforereturningtoacademia.

ORCID

KeithAndrewWiedersheim http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2010-9997

References

InstructiononCertainAspectsofthe “TheologyofLiberation.CongregationfortheDoctrineofthe Faith.Vatican,6thofAugust1984. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/ documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19840806_theology-liberation_en.html.

Aguilar,MarioI. TheHistoryandPoliticsofLatinAmericanTheology:Volume1.Michigan:SCM Press,2007.

Aguilar,MarioI. Religion.TortureandtheLiberationofGod.NewYorkandLondon:Routledge, 2015.

Bethge,Eberhard. DietrichBonhoeffer.ABiography,editedbyVictoriaJ.Barnett.Minneapolis: FortressPress,2000.

Bethge,Eberhard. “Bonhoeffer ’sChristologyandHis ‘ReligionessChristianity.” UnionSeminary QuarterlyReview23 xxiii,no.1(Fall1967):61–77.

Bethge,Eberhard. “TurningPointsinBonhoeffer ’sLifeandThought.” UnionSeminaryQuarterly Review23 xxiii,no.1(Fall1967):3–21.

Bloch,Ernst. TheSpiritofUtopia.TranslatedbyAnthonyNassar.Stanford,CA:Stanford UniversityPress,2000.

Boff,Clodovis. “EpistemologyandMethodoftheTheologyofLiberation.” In Mysterium Liberationis:FundamentalConceptsofLiberationTheology,editedbyIgnacioEllacuría,and JonSobrino,57–85.Maryknoll,NY:OrbisBooks,1993.

Bonhoeffer,Dietrich. DietrichBonhoefferWorksinEnglish(DBWE),generaleditorWayne WhitsonFloyd,Jr.

Bonhoeffer,Dietrich. “WhatisMeantby ‘TellingtheTruth’?” In Ethics,editedbyEberhardBethge, translatedbyNevilleHortonSmith,363–372.London:CollinsFontana,1964.

Bonhoeffer,Dietrich. NoRustySwords.Letters,LecturesandNotes1928-1936,Volume1,editedby EdwinH.Robertson.London:Collins,1965.

Bonhoeffer,Dietrich. DBWE2:ActandBeing:TranscendentalPhilosophyandOntologyin SystematicTheology,editedbyWayneWhitsonFloyd,Jr.andtranslatedbyH.Martin Rumscheidt.Minneapolis:FortressPress,1996.

Bonhoeffer,Dietrich. DBWE5:LifeTogetherandPrayerbookoftheBible,editedbyGeffrey B.KellyandtranslatedbyDanielW.BloeschandJamesH.Burtness.Minneapolis:Fortress Press,1996.

Bonhoeffer,Dietrich. DBWE1:SanctorumCommunio:ATheologicalStudyoftheSociologyofthe Church,editedbyClifford J.GreenandtranslatedbyReinhardKraussandNancyLukens. Minneapolis:FortressPress,1998.

Bonhoeffer,Dietrich. DBWE4:Discipleship,editedbyGeffreyB.KellyandJohnD.Godseyand translatedbyBarbaraGreenandReinhardKrauss.Minneapolis:FortressPress,2001.

Bonhoeffer,Dietrich. DBWE6:Ethics,editedbyCliffordJ.GreenandtranslatedbyReinhard Krauss,CharlesC.West,andDouglasW.Stott.Minneapolis:FortressPress,2005.

Bonhoeffer,Dietrich. DBWE12:Berlin:1932-1933,editedbyLarryL.Rasmussenandtranslatedby IsabelBestandDavidHiggins.Minneapolis:FortressPress,2009.

Bonhoeffer,Dietrich. DBWE8:LettersandPapersfromPrison,editedbyJohnW.deGruchyand translatedbyIsabelBest,LisaE.Dahill,ReinhardKrauss,NancyLukens,BarbaraRumscheidt, andMartinRumscheidt.Minneapolis:FortressPress,2010.

Bonhoeffer,Dietrich. DBWEReader’sEdition:LettersandPapersfromPrison,editedbyJohn W.deGruchyandtranslatedbyIsabelBest,LisaE.Dahill,ReinhardKrauss,NancyLukens, BarbaraRumscheidtandMartinRumscheidt.Minneapolis:FortressPress,2015.

Bonino,JoséMíguez. TowardaChristianPoliticalEthics.London:SCMPress,1983.

Breiner,Peter. “KarlMannheimandPoliticalIdeology.” In TheOxfordHandbookofPolitical Ideologies,editedbyMichaelFreeden,andMarcStears,1–20.Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press,2013.doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199585977.013.0018.

Breiner,Peter. “KarlMannheimandPoliticalIdeology.” In TheOxfordHandbookofPolitical Ideologies,editedbyMichaelFreeden,andMarcStears,1–20.Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press,2013.doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199585977.013.0018.

Cavanaugh,WilliamT.,andPeterMScott. TheBlackwellCompaniontoPoliticalTheology,2nded, editedbyWilliamT.CavanaughandPeterManleyScott.Hoboken,NJ:JohnWiley&SonsLtd, 2019.

Dean,RobertJ. FortheLifeoftheWorld:JesusChristandtheChurchintheTheologiesofDietrich BonhoefferandStanleyHauwerwas.Eugene,OR:WipfandStock,2016. DeGruchy,JohnW. “TheReceptionofBonhoeffer ’sTheology.” In TheCambridgeCompanionto DietrichBonhoeffer,editedbyJohnW.deGruchy,93–110.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,1999.doi:10.1017/CCOL052158258X.006.

DeGruchy,JohnW. “DietrichBonhoefferandtheTransitiontoDemocracyintheGerman DemocraticRepublicandSouthAfrica.” ModernTheology 12,no.3(July1996):345–366.

Geertz,Clifford. TheInterpretationofCultures.NewYork:BasicBooks,1973.

Gellner,Ernest. “NotesTowardsaTheoryofIdeology.” L’Homme XVIII,nos.3–4(1978):69–82.

Godsey,JohnD. TheTheologyofDietrichBonhoeffer.Eugene,OR:Wipf&Stock,1960.

Green,Clifford. Bonhoeffer.ATheologyofSociality,reviseded.GandRapids,MI:William B.EerdmansPublishingCompany,1999.

Green,Clifford. “HumanSocialityandChristianCommunity.” In TheCambridgeCompanionto DietrichBonhoeffer,editedbyJohnW.deGruchy,113–133.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,1999.doi:10.1017/CCOL052158258X.007.

Greggs,Tom. “TheInfluenceofDietrichBonhoefferonKarlBarth.” In EngagingBonhoeffer:The ImpactandInfluenceofBonhoeffer ’sLifeandThought,editedbyMatthewD.Kirkpatrick,52–53. Minneapolis:FortressPress,2016.Kindle.

Gutiérrez,Gustavo. ATheologyofLiberation.History,Politics,andSalvation,15thAnniversary Edition,editedandtranslatedbyCaridadIndaandJohnEagleson,revisedbyMatthew J.O’Connell.Maryknoll,NY:OrbisBooks,2000.

Gutiérrez,Gustavo. ThePowerofthePoorinHistory,translatedbyRoberR.Barr.Eugene,OR: Wipf&StockPublishers,2004.

Gutiérrez,Gustavo,andRichardShaull. LiberationandChange,editedbyRonaldH.Stone. Atlanta:JohnKnoxPress,1977.

Hale,LoriBrandt. “FromLovingEnemiestoActingResponsibly.ForgivenessintheLifeand TheologyofDietrichBonhoeffer. ” WordandWorld 27, no.1(2007):79–87.

Hauerwas,Stanley. BonhoefferonTruthandPolitics.ConferenceonLivedTheologyandCivil Courage.UniversityofVirginiainCharlottesville.June14th,2003. http://www.livedtheology. org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/20030614PPR.04-Stanley-M.-Hauerwas-Bonhoeffer-on-Trut h-and-Politics.pdf

Hauerwas,Stanley. PerformingtheFaith:BonhoefferandthePracticeofNonviolence.Grand Rapids,MI:BrazosPress,2004.

Hauerwas,Stanley. “DietrichBonhoeffer. ” In TheBlackwellCompaniontoPoliticalTheology,2nd ed.,editedbyWilliamT.Cavanaugh,andPeterManleyScott,135–150.Hoboken,NJ:John Wiley&SonsLtd,2019.

Jeanrond,WernerG. “FromResistancetoLiberationTheology:GermanTheologiansandthe Non/ResistancetotheNationalSocialistRegime.” TheJournalofModernHistory,no.64, Supplement:AgainsttheThirdReich(Dec.1992):S187-S203.

Kelly,GeffreyB.,andJohnDGodsey. “Editor’sIntroductiontotheEnglishEdition.” In Discipleship,byDietrichBonhoeffer,editedbyGeffreyB.Kelly,andJohnD.GodseyandtranslatedbyBarbaraGreenandReinhardKrauss,1–33,DBWE4.Minneapolis:FortressPress,2001. Kelly,GeffreyB.,andMatthewDKirkpatrick. “DietrichBonhoefferandLiberationTheologies.” In EngagingBonhoeffer:TheImpactandInfluenceofBonhoeffer ’sLifeandThought,editedby MatthewD.Kirkpatrick,139–168.Minneapolis:FortressPress,2016.Kindle. Lehmann,Paul. “FaithandWorldlinessinBonhoeffer ’sThought.” InUnionSeminaryQuarterly Review23 xxiii,no.1(Fall1967):31–44. Levitas,Ruth. WhereThereIsNoVision,thePeoplePerish:AUtopianEthicforaTransformed Future,CUSPessayseriesontheEthicsofSustainableProsperity,No.5(27June2017), https:www.cusp.ac.uk/themes/m/m1-5/.

Lois, Julio. “ChristologyintheTheologyofLiberation.” In MysteriumLiberationis:Fundamental ConceptsofLiberationTheology,editedbyIgnacioEllacuría,andJonSobrino,168–194. Maryknoll,NY:OrbisBooks,1993. Mannheim,Karl. IdeologieundUtopie.Frankfurt:Klostermann,2015. Metz,JohannBaptist. TheEmergentChurch,translatedbyPeterMann.NewYork:TheCrossroad PublishingCompany,1981.

Metz,JohannBaptist. FaithinHistoryandSociety:TowardaPracticalFundamentalTheology, translatedbyJ.MatthewAshley.NewYork:HerderandHerder,TheCrossroadPublishing Company,2007.

Moltmann,Juergen. “CovenantorLeviathan?PoliticalTheologyforModernTimes.” Scottish JournalofTheology 47(1994):19–42.

Muers,Rachel. KeepingGod’sSilence:TowardsaTheologicalEthicsofCommunication.Oxford: Blackwell,2004.

Petrella,Ivan. TheFutureofLiberationTheology:AnArgumentandManifesto.Londonand NewYork:Routledge,2016.Kindle.

Phillips,JohnA. TheFormofChristintheWorld.AStudyofBonhoeffer ’sChristology.London: Collins,1967.

Rasmussen,Larry. “TheEthicsofResponsibleAction.” In TheCambridgeCompaniontoDietrich Bonhoeffer,editedbyJohnW.deGruchy,206–225.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1999. https://doi:10.1017/CCOL052158258X.012.

Rasmussen,Larry. “Editor’sIntroductiontotheEnglishEdition.” In Berlin:1932-1933,byDietrich Bonhoeffer,editedbyLarryL.RasmussenandtranslatedbyIsabelBestandDavidHiggins,1–53, DBWE12.Minneapolis:FortressPress,2009.

Richards,Glyn. “FaithandPraxisinLiberationTheology,BonhoefferandGandhi.” Modern Theology 3,no.4(1987):359–373.

Rodríguez,RubénRosario. “PoliticalTheologyas Liberative Theology.” PoliticalTheology 19,no.8 (2018):675–680.doi:10.1080/1462317X.2018.1520814

Rumscheidt,Martin. “TheFormationofBonhoeffer ’sTheology.” In TheCambridgeCompanionto DietrichBonhoeffer,editedbyJohnW.deGruchy,50–70.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,1999. https://doi:10.1017/CCOL052158258X.004

SantaAna,Juliode. “The InfluenceonBonhoefferoftheTheologyofLiberation.” TheEcumenical Review 28(1976):188–197.doi:10.1111/j.1758-6623.1976.tb01207.x

Scannone,JuanCarlos. “PopeFrancisandtheTheologyofthePeople.” TheologicalStudies 77,no. 1(2016):118–135.

Schlingensiepen,Ferdinand. DietrichBonhoeffer1906-1945,translatedbyIsabelBest.Londonand NewYork:T&TClarkInternational,2010.

Segundo,JuanL. TheLiberationofTheology,translatedbyJohnDrury.Maryknoll,NY:Orbis Books,1976.

Segundo,JuanL. FaithandIdeologies,translatedbyJohnDrury.Maryknoll,NY:OrbisBooks, 1984.

Segundo,JuanL. TheologyandtheChurch:AResponsetoCardinalRatzingerandaWarningtothe WholeChurch,translatedbyJohnW.Diercksmeier.SanFrancisco:HarperandRow, Publishers,1985.

Selby,Peter. “ChristianityinaWorldComeofAge.” In TheCambridgeCompaniontoDietrich Bonhoeffer,editedbyJohnW.deGruchy,226–245.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1999.doi:10.1017/CCOL052158258X.013.

Sobrino,Jon. ChristtheLiberator:AViewfromtheVictims,translatedbyPaulBurns.Maryknoll, NY:OrbisBooks,2001.Kindle.

Tamayo,JuanJosé. “ReceptionoftheTheologyofLiberation.” In MysteriumLiberationis: FundamentalConceptsofLiberationTheology,editedbyIgnacioEllacuría,andJonSobrino, 33–56.Maryknoll,NY:OrbisBooks,1993.

Tietz,Christiane. TheologianofLiberation:TheLifeandThoughtofDietrichBonhoeffer.Translated byVictoriaJ.Barnett.Minneapolis:FortressPress,2016.Kindle.

VanBuren,PaulM. “LivingWithGodWithoutGod.” UnionSeminaryQuarterlyReview23 xiii, no.1(Fall1967):53.