Eric Metaxas’ biography Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy was both historically and spiritually enlightening. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a theologian and pastor who was part of the opposition and resistance to Hitler, and he ultimately lost his life for being part of a plot to kill Hitler and bring an end to the Third Reich. He coined the term “cheap grace” in his famous book The Cost of Discipleship. These facts are well known about Bonhoeffer, and pretty much exhausted my previous knowledge of the man. What I didn’t know was how early and extensive Bonhoeffer’s resistance to the Third Reich was, how integral he was to the church’s opposition to Hitler, and that it was his commitment to pastoring and spiritual disciplines that gave him the strength to do the right thing and pay the consequences for it. Metaxas’ book brought Bonhoeffer to life, and his life is worth learning about.
Bonhoeffer was born early in the 20th century, raised in a close-knit family, and taught from childhood to think carefully and deeply before committing to a position. This last habit guided his later theological studies and ethical decisions. He studied theology in Berlin under the disciples of the historical-critical method, but rejected this view of the Bible. Instead, he believed that the Bible is God’s revelation to mankind and historically grounded. He adopted Barth’s approach to revelation – that the only way man can know God is for Him to reveal Himself to us. This frustrated his professors who thought this view was outdated and anti-scientific, but they were also impressed with his thoughtful explanation and defense of his beliefs and how firmly held to them. Bonhoeffer’s disagreement with his teachers is one of many good lessons to take from the book. He stood alone in his disagreement with his professors, but never in an acrimonious manner. He engaged them thoughtfully and respectfully. He kept these friendships throughout his life.
As a young man, he visited Rome and was exposed for the first time to Christians beyond the German Lutheran church. This instigated one of the themes of his theology – what is the church? He developed a less sectarian and more ecumenical view of the church, believing that what united the church was the Jesus Christ of history. His ecumenism was based on theological conviction, not universalism or liberalism. And it was his ecumenism that allowed him to develop friendships and connections to Christians outside of Germany who supported his resistance to Hitler. It was these connections that also were critical lines of communication out of Germany that gave early and accurate information about what the Third Reich was actually doing despite their public posturing.
Bonheoffer studied for a year in his early twenties at Union Seminary in New York City. He was appalled at the theological liberalism – the shallow thought and theology. It bothered him on two levels – as someone trained to think deeply and carefully, and as someone committed to the Bible. What he heard taught was not the Bible, often it was texts besides the Bible. Instead, he found vibrant fellowship in Harlem, and this introduced him to a combination of piety, theological depth, and enthusiasm he’d never seen in the church before.
One criticism of Metaxas’ book is that he’s made Bonheoffer out to be an evangelical when he was, in fact, a theological liberal. Metaxas quotes Bonhoeffer extensively and it’s clear from his own words that he was not a liberal. He was very critical of the liberals he encountered in New York. He studied with the best liberals in Berlin and rejected their theology with thoughtful and detailed criticism. He believed in the historical Jesus and God’s revelation in the Bible. But he was not an evangelical and I think at times Metaxas does interpret Bonhoeffer from his own 21st century Christian vantage point. Bonhoeffer adopted Barth’s theology, though not in every detail. Bonhoeffer developed spiritual and devotional disciplines, but these are not uniquely evangelical. I don’t think Metaxas tries to force these aspects of Bonhoeffer’s Christianity into the modern evangelical mold. I do think Metaxas does do this on several occasions when he restates Bonhoeffer’s efforts to deliberate over decisions. Metaxas tends to write that Bonhoeffer was seeking God’s will in the modern evangelical sense that phrase is used and I saw no justification for this in Bonhoeffer’s writings.
The other criticism I have of the book is that I don’t think Metaxas is a great writer. It’s hard to put my finger on, but I got the sense that much of the time he wrote to a rather low reading level. It sometimes seemed pedantic. Short sentence and repetitive. And I didn’t like his occasional personal insertions of commentary. Even though they were very brief, they call attention to the author, which is distracting. But these faults don’t get in the way of enjoying the book and what there is to learn from Bonoeffer’s life.
It struck me that there is a lot of timeliness to some of the themes of Bonhoeffer’s theological thought. What is the church? What is discipleship and what does it require? What is God’s purpose for us in the world? What does it mean to obey God? There’s a lot to benefit from Bonhoeffer’s thinking.
One of the major themes of Bonhoeffer’s thinking was the integration of material and spiritual. He had a holistic view of the Christians’ place in the world. Just as Jesus was incarnated, God came in the flesh to become a servant, Christians must embody God for the world. Christians cannot divide their spiritual lives from their part in the world. God is at work through us in the world. And this motivated Bonhoeffer at all times to determine how he could best be of service for God in the world. This was his guiding principle in his personal and professional decisions, and motivated his ethical thinking to oppose the Third Reich. He was pious and engaged in the world, and he thought they were two necessary aspects of his relationship with God.
I found personal spiritual encouragement from Bonhoeffer’s spiritual and devotional disciplines. For the last ten years of his life, Bonhoeffer made a habit of daily morning Bible reading, meditation on Scripture, and prayer. He made this an integral part of the theological training for his seminary students. This was very unusual for a theologian at the time. It’s this discipline that helped him abide in Jesus and draw strength and encouragement he later needed when he was imprisoned. Even in prison, he was patient, kind, and served those around him because of the grace he derived from God. I thought on his example in the last couple of days as I face a personal trial and realized that if God gave Bonhoeffer the grace he needed to endure prison, then He certainly could provide the grace and strength I need. It wasn’t his own personal willpower and strength that buoyed Him, it was the grace of God and He provides that to all who ask Him.
There’s a great deal of history of the church and the Third Reich in Metaxas’ book. He goes into detail of Hitler’s plan from the start to deceive and impose his power. I learned a lot I never knew. I never realized the extent of the resistance to Hitler by Christians from the very start and throughout his regime. Hitler’s efforts to impose his power over every aspect of German life is the very definition of totalitarianism.
Bonhoeffer and other Christians resisted Hitler’s efforts to corrupt the German Lutheran church. When they lost that battle, they founded the Confessing Church and claimed it was the true church in Germany and not the German Lutheran church, which had capitulated to Hitler’s Aryanism. In a country where there virtually had only been Lutherans and Roman Catholics, establishing a new church was a monumental step of resistance.
It was their Christian convictions that motivated many in the resistance to the Third Reich, including very high ranking military. They recognized the evil of all kinds being committed and tried from the beginning to stop it. As I read about how early and extensive this movement was, I kept thinking about the accusations by Christopher Hitchens and other atheists that Hitler and the Nazis were Christians and the fault of Christianity. Not only were they not Christians – quite antithetical to Christianity, though they tried cynically to use Christianity to mollify opposition – it was Christians who fought them from the very beginning, very vocally and visibly. Bonhoeffer and his Christian compatriots would not back down and showed tremendous courage.
Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy is a great one to read. Metaxas wrote the biography of William Wilberforce that became a movie and now Bonhoeffer’s biography. He’s done a great service by highlighting two heroes whose names have been well-known, but forgotten in the detail of their lives. The most enduring thing I took from Bonhoeffer’s life is that he was able to do what he did by the power of God. He sought it daily and earnestly. The good news is that the same God has abundant grace and mercy to strengthen us for doing His will in the world for the Kingdom.
Bonhoeffer was born early in the 20th century, raised in a close-knit family, and taught from childhood to think carefully and deeply before committing to a position. This last habit guided his later theological studies and ethical decisions. He studied theology in Berlin under the disciples of the historical-critical method, but rejected this view of the Bible. Instead, he believed that the Bible is God’s revelation to mankind and historically grounded. He adopted Barth’s approach to revelation – that the only way man can know God is for Him to reveal Himself to us. This frustrated his professors who thought this view was outdated and anti-scientific, but they were also impressed with his thoughtful explanation and defense of his beliefs and how firmly held to them. Bonhoeffer’s disagreement with his teachers is one of many good lessons to take from the book. He stood alone in his disagreement with his professors, but never in an acrimonious manner. He engaged them thoughtfully and respectfully. He kept these friendships throughout his life.
As a young man, he visited Rome and was exposed for the first time to Christians beyond the German Lutheran church. This instigated one of the themes of his theology – what is the church? He developed a less sectarian and more ecumenical view of the church, believing that what united the church was the Jesus Christ of history. His ecumenism was based on theological conviction, not universalism or liberalism. And it was his ecumenism that allowed him to develop friendships and connections to Christians outside of Germany who supported his resistance to Hitler. It was these connections that also were critical lines of communication out of Germany that gave early and accurate information about what the Third Reich was actually doing despite their public posturing.
Bonheoffer studied for a year in his early twenties at Union Seminary in New York City. He was appalled at the theological liberalism – the shallow thought and theology. It bothered him on two levels – as someone trained to think deeply and carefully, and as someone committed to the Bible. What he heard taught was not the Bible, often it was texts besides the Bible. Instead, he found vibrant fellowship in Harlem, and this introduced him to a combination of piety, theological depth, and enthusiasm he’d never seen in the church before.
One criticism of Metaxas’ book is that he’s made Bonheoffer out to be an evangelical when he was, in fact, a theological liberal. Metaxas quotes Bonhoeffer extensively and it’s clear from his own words that he was not a liberal. He was very critical of the liberals he encountered in New York. He studied with the best liberals in Berlin and rejected their theology with thoughtful and detailed criticism. He believed in the historical Jesus and God’s revelation in the Bible. But he was not an evangelical and I think at times Metaxas does interpret Bonhoeffer from his own 21st century Christian vantage point. Bonhoeffer adopted Barth’s theology, though not in every detail. Bonhoeffer developed spiritual and devotional disciplines, but these are not uniquely evangelical. I don’t think Metaxas tries to force these aspects of Bonhoeffer’s Christianity into the modern evangelical mold. I do think Metaxas does do this on several occasions when he restates Bonhoeffer’s efforts to deliberate over decisions. Metaxas tends to write that Bonhoeffer was seeking God’s will in the modern evangelical sense that phrase is used and I saw no justification for this in Bonhoeffer’s writings.
The other criticism I have of the book is that I don’t think Metaxas is a great writer. It’s hard to put my finger on, but I got the sense that much of the time he wrote to a rather low reading level. It sometimes seemed pedantic. Short sentence and repetitive. And I didn’t like his occasional personal insertions of commentary. Even though they were very brief, they call attention to the author, which is distracting. But these faults don’t get in the way of enjoying the book and what there is to learn from Bonoeffer’s life.
It struck me that there is a lot of timeliness to some of the themes of Bonhoeffer’s theological thought. What is the church? What is discipleship and what does it require? What is God’s purpose for us in the world? What does it mean to obey God? There’s a lot to benefit from Bonhoeffer’s thinking.
One of the major themes of Bonhoeffer’s thinking was the integration of material and spiritual. He had a holistic view of the Christians’ place in the world. Just as Jesus was incarnated, God came in the flesh to become a servant, Christians must embody God for the world. Christians cannot divide their spiritual lives from their part in the world. God is at work through us in the world. And this motivated Bonhoeffer at all times to determine how he could best be of service for God in the world. This was his guiding principle in his personal and professional decisions, and motivated his ethical thinking to oppose the Third Reich. He was pious and engaged in the world, and he thought they were two necessary aspects of his relationship with God.
I found personal spiritual encouragement from Bonhoeffer’s spiritual and devotional disciplines. For the last ten years of his life, Bonhoeffer made a habit of daily morning Bible reading, meditation on Scripture, and prayer. He made this an integral part of the theological training for his seminary students. This was very unusual for a theologian at the time. It’s this discipline that helped him abide in Jesus and draw strength and encouragement he later needed when he was imprisoned. Even in prison, he was patient, kind, and served those around him because of the grace he derived from God. I thought on his example in the last couple of days as I face a personal trial and realized that if God gave Bonhoeffer the grace he needed to endure prison, then He certainly could provide the grace and strength I need. It wasn’t his own personal willpower and strength that buoyed Him, it was the grace of God and He provides that to all who ask Him.
There’s a great deal of history of the church and the Third Reich in Metaxas’ book. He goes into detail of Hitler’s plan from the start to deceive and impose his power. I learned a lot I never knew. I never realized the extent of the resistance to Hitler by Christians from the very start and throughout his regime. Hitler’s efforts to impose his power over every aspect of German life is the very definition of totalitarianism.
Bonhoeffer and other Christians resisted Hitler’s efforts to corrupt the German Lutheran church. When they lost that battle, they founded the Confessing Church and claimed it was the true church in Germany and not the German Lutheran church, which had capitulated to Hitler’s Aryanism. In a country where there virtually had only been Lutherans and Roman Catholics, establishing a new church was a monumental step of resistance.
It was their Christian convictions that motivated many in the resistance to the Third Reich, including very high ranking military. They recognized the evil of all kinds being committed and tried from the beginning to stop it. As I read about how early and extensive this movement was, I kept thinking about the accusations by Christopher Hitchens and other atheists that Hitler and the Nazis were Christians and the fault of Christianity. Not only were they not Christians – quite antithetical to Christianity, though they tried cynically to use Christianity to mollify opposition – it was Christians who fought them from the very beginning, very vocally and visibly. Bonhoeffer and his Christian compatriots would not back down and showed tremendous courage.
Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy is a great one to read. Metaxas wrote the biography of William Wilberforce that became a movie and now Bonhoeffer’s biography. He’s done a great service by highlighting two heroes whose names have been well-known, but forgotten in the detail of their lives. The most enduring thing I took from Bonhoeffer’s life is that he was able to do what he did by the power of God. He sought it daily and earnestly. The good news is that the same God has abundant grace and mercy to strengthen us for doing His will in the world for the Kingdom.
I have run into Bonhoeffer's example over and over again these past several years, and I will really need to get this book.
Calling myslef an American Christian has lost some steam in my eyes. I am far from ashamed, but also encouraged to deepen that term in my own heart.
Bonhoeffer seemed to be a follower of Christ in name, deed, heart, and mind.
Posted by: Erik Fjell | July 20, 2010 at 11:44 PM
I don't believe we do justice to the many martyrs of the Christian Church when we try to include someone who was executed for trying to murder a government official (placed by the appointment of God), no matter how wicked the ruler. This is not New Testament Christianity.
It only opens the door for more of the same from unstable fanatics in our ranks. We should speak out against this and not give it our blessings.
Posted by: dave | July 21, 2010 at 04:47 AM
What are we to think of Bonhoeffer when his writings deny the deity of Christ or that the "historicity" of the Resurrection was in "the realm of ambiguity," and that it was one of the "mythological" elements of Christianity?
Posted by: Don | July 21, 2010 at 02:30 PM
Bonhoeffer did not reject the historical-critical method. Instead, he, like Barth, wanted to "move beyond" historical criticism. He probably, for example, didn't believe in the Virgin Birth. Although he was no liberal; he believed in the deity of Christ and the Resurrection -- contrary to von Harnack et al.
Melinda, you mention that "he found vibrant fellowship in Harlem, and this introduced him to a combination of piety, theological depth, and enthusiasm he’d never seen in the church before." I hope Metaxas explained that it was an African American church (Abyssinian Baptist Church), and that this experience allowed him to understand the view from the margins of society (or, as he said, "from below"). He later said that this experience allowed him to readily identify with the Jews when the first anti-Semitic laws were passed in 1933. (By the way, Bonhoeffer didn't coin 'cheap grace'. He actually picked up the phrase from Adam Clayton Powell, Sr., the pastor of Abyssinian Baptist Church.) Also, it was through the influence of some friends he made in New York -- most notably Jean Lasserre -- that "everything changed." He actually said that it was there that he became a Christian -- that is, fully committed to following the way of Christ: the Sermon on the Mount, "pacifism," and more broadly discipleship.
Thanks for the review!
Posted by: Gabe | July 22, 2010 at 09:12 AM