BONHOEFFER’S TRIP TO AMERICA
(1939) Between fear and duty
His decisions under the influence of social, historical and theological factors
By Tim Wenninger[This 2016 term paper is translated from the German on the Internet, www.grin.com.]
1. Introduction
The decision to write a term paper about Dietrich Bonhoeffer was of personal interest to me. What moves a person to stand up completely for his faith and other people? How did Bonhoeffer decide to leave the country and return to Germany? Which factors played a role? These and other questions interested me and will be answered in the course of the work to elaborate Bonhoeffer's point of view, motives and beliefs. The main work of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's is Volume 15, which contains many of Bonhoeffer's letters and some of his diary entries from the period 1937-1940. By increasing the number of direct quotations, Bonhoeffer's point of view and thoughts will be authentically reproduced. The work is divided into three temporal sections. The political and church situation before Bonhoeffer's departure, his time in America and his return to Germany and the effect of his stay on Bonhoeffer.
Embedded in the historical context, the work will show how Bonhoeffer's decisionmaking was influenced by fear and a sense of duty. At the beginning of the work, the time before Bonhoeffer's departure will be sketched, in particular, at the socio-political situation in Germany and to what extent this affected his departure. Bonhoeffer's Christian convictions and his involvement in the Confessing Church are also considered to better understand his decision.
In the following, Bonhoeffer's reasons for his departure and the related preparations are elaborated. What events led Bonhoeffer to leave his family, work and home behind? Afterwards the time in America is outlined. What made Bonhoeffer think about a possible return shortly after his departure? How strong was Bonhoeffer's attachment to Germany and what role did his sense of duty play in this decision? Finally, Bonhoeffer's return to Germany will be discussed. Which tasks did Bonhoeffer pursue and to what extent did his stay in the USA have an impact on his future decisions?
2. The influence of political and church developments in Germany on Bonhoeffer's departure from the USA
2.1 Politics and the church
After the National Socialists seized power in 1933, the church also became a focus of Hitler's interests. Hitler repeatedly used pseudo-religious confessions in his speeches and tried to convey the impression of a Christian statesman. Furthermore, he reintroduced religious education as a proper school subject.[1] With this concession and the assurance
of the legal inviolability of the churches by the state, Hitler wanted to avoid conflict with the churches and to win them over to his cause. High National Socialists also increasingly used Christian phrases and referred to the importance of the church in the fight against Bolshevism. The true intentions of the leading National Socialists became apparent at the first Reichstagung of the German Christian Faith Movement in 1933, where it became clear that the National Socialists were trying to gain influence and control in the church by promoting the church-political German Christians.
By this participation of the state in the church events Bonhoeffer's warning against the spread of state authority, made in the previous year, was confirmed.[2] Bonhoeffer describes the way of the church already as "as dark as seldom before"[3] The spillover of the state to the alleged independent church became even clearer with the state’s goal of political conformity for the Protestant church in the sense of a Reichskirche as well as the establishment of the Arien paragraph.[4]
The reaction of the other church leaders was divided. A large part reacted positively to the national euphoria and the new position of the church. Only some expressed their doubts, for example the Württemberg church president Wurm, who notes that the "freedom of movement vis-à-vis empire and state" is lost.[5] Bonhoeffer also reacts extremely critically towards the new developments in the area of the church.
Bonhoeffer expected from the church a critical attitude towards state action.[6] He strongly condemns the Aryan paragraph, because "the Aryan paragraph is a false doctrine of the church and destroys its substance.” In addition, Bonhoeffer demands that the church break its restrained position toward the state and "open its mouth for the silent"[8]
Despite Bonhoeffer's commitment, his own church in Pomerania introduced the Aryan paragraph in September 1933.
The Reichsprogromnacht strengthened Bonhoeffer in his position to support the Jews. The experience of the Reichsprogromnacht on 11,9,1938 as well as Bonhoeffer's acquaintance with several Jews probably also influenced his later attempt to actively help the Jews by participating in smuggling Jews into Switzerland in 1941, and publishing reports on deportations in order to better inform the population.9] The Confessing Church partly shared Bonhoeffer's view, since they described the disfranchisement of the Jews on the basis of the Nuremberg Laws passed in 1935 as "heresies of the German Christians", but nevertheless did not express any criticism. 10]
However, the majority of the Church hardly shared the sympathy for the Jews. The Hanover Bishop Marahrens, for example, declared some time after the Reichsprogromnacht that the "Protestant Church [affirms] the responsibility for keeping our people clean. Moreover, there is no sharper contrast in the area of faith than that between the message of Jesus Christ and the Jewish religion of legalism"[11]
Bonhoeffer's view is completely the opposite, for "a rejection of the Jews from the Occident must entail the rejection of Christ; for Jesus was a Jew"[12] and for this very reason Bonhoeffer also calls the Jews "brothers of Christ"[13] To Bonhoeffer, being
Christians means facing danger and showing true compassion. It should not be done out of fear, but out of the "liberating and redeeming love of Christ for all those who suffer". [14] When others suffer, a Christian should share the suffering and take action and not stand by and watch in apathy. It was precisely the Church's non-Christian behavior in view of the persecution of the Jews and especially the Reichsprogromnacht that led Bonhoeffer to disappointment and horror. 15]
Bonhoeffer expressed his horror at the behavior of the Church in 1940 by writing: "(The Church) was silent, where it should have screamed, because the blood of the innocent cried out to heaven. (...) The church witnessed violence and injustice taking place under the guise of Christ's name."[16] The measures for the Jews were not enough despite Bonhoeffer's active involvement in the Confessing Church, as previously mentioned,. For even in the Barmer Theological Declaration of 1934, which represents a foundation of the values of the Confessing Church, the Jews were not mentioned.[17]
The influence of the state on the Church increased after the annexation of Austria in March 1938, when the President of the Old Prussian Union, Friedrich Werner, ordered an oath of allegiance on April 20, 1938, by which the pastors were from then on personally subordinated to the Führer. The oath was increasingly criticized. However, this criticism did not develop into any real resistance or opposition, since if the oath was not carried out there was a threat of dismissal from office.[18]
Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer were among the strongest advocates against the implementation of the oath of allegiance in the Confessing Church. For thus the state, by taking the oath on the leader, would still be above the ordination of the pastors and would spread its authority even further into areas of the church. Bonhoeffer appeals to the authority of God before whom every individual must answer and which stands above every secular authority.[19] Despite the resistance, the Confessing Church accepted the oath of allegiance, which increasingly weakened Bonhoeffer's trust in the Confessing Church.[20]
Bonhoeffer was of the opinion that the church should not adapt itself to the political circumstances, "but should represent an antithesis against the world as an objective spiritual power with moral will and fighting courage.” This was why Bonhoeffer was actively involved in the Confessing Church, which should have formed such an antithesis. [21]
Politics and the state thus had a great influence on the life of the church. The church failed to evade or oppose this influence, just as it did not stand up for the protection of the Jews. With regard to these two aspects, the Church did not fulfill its duties. This inadequate action of the Church weakened Bonhoeffer's trust in the Confessing Church and this feeling did not improve in the course of the church struggle.
2.2 Church Struggle
At the beginning of the church struggle in 1933 Bonhoeffer was increasingly committed to international understanding and peace. This met with opposition from other German professors of theology, such as Paul Althaus and Emanuel Hirsch, who were welcomed by the national press, as they considered communication with the victorious nations of the First World War to be impossible. [22] Furthermore, Bonhoeffer had already been accused of being a pacifist and enemy of the state[23].
Bonhoeffer began illegally training young theologians for the Confessing Church in April 1935 in addition to his involvement in the Confessing Church, which from the beginning was considered an illegal oppositional force,. Bonhoeffer knew about the problems and fears of the pastors because he was in correspondence with many of them long after the Gestapo closed the preaching seminar in 1937.[24] Herbert Liedtke, for example, wrote in January 1939 that it was almost as if "every courage to face life had broken in him."[25]
Another pastor wrote about his insecurity because he sometimes had the frightening feeling that "he was speaking to people in a foreign, incomprehensible language" because they would not really understand God's message. The pastor attributed this to the fact that people have already strayed too far into "the distance from God"[26] The concern for the continued existence of the Confessing Church is also expressed, since the Church almost seems to "surrender"[27]
The Confessing Church feels confronted with distrust, isolation and church politics. It is criticized that the Church had not yet put into practice the Confessions of Dahlem or Barmen[28] "Only the adherence to the unity of the synodal decisions of Barmen and Dahlem, i.e. the adherence to the unity of right doctrine and right order of the Church, decides on the existence of the Confessing Church" and on its continued existence.
Many young pastors were confronted with the temptation to join the Consistory and thus decide against the Confessing Church so that they could pursue a secure, legal profession and receive a salary.[31] Some of the young pastors entrusted themselves to Bonhoeffer and he could support them in their struggle of conscience and convince them to remain faithful to the Confessing Church.
Bonhoeffer reminded them on the one hand that they can be sure to be sent by Christ, and that it is more conscientious "to receive a small ministry from the hand and on behalf of the Church of God than a secure ministry from the hands of the enemies of the Church."[32] He himself nevertheless found it depressing that so many young pastors left the Confessing Church and "sought rest and security at all costs"[33]
In 1938 Bonhoeffer increasingly asked the question of how it came about that many pastors left the Confessing Church. Was it an emerging doubt about the Confession Synod, about the person himself who has doubts in the face of the execution of the imposed mandate, or is it a doubt whether the Bible still has contemporary relevance for revelation? Bonhoeffer appealed to the Confessing Church to address these issues and to find possible solutions[34]
The doubts of many have still risen and more and more pastors have tended towards the supposedly more pleasant alternative, which meant that they joined the consistory in order to escape further "theological, ecclesiastical and human difficulties "in view of many circumstances, such as failure of church leadership, departure of esteemed brethren, disability and oppression from all sides" "[35].
NOTES
[1] Vgl. Strohm: Ethik, S. 153f.
[2] Vgl. ebd., S. 155ff.
[3] Ebd., S. 125.
[4] Vgl. ebd., S. 157f.
[5] Ebd., S. 159.
[6] Vgl. Gremmel: Widerstand, S. 15.
[7] Gremmel: Widerstand, S. 16.
[8] Ebd.
[9] Vgl. ebd., 20f.
[10] Ebd., 17.
[11] Ebd., 18.
[12] Ebd.
[13] Vgl. Retter: Resistence, S. 36.
[14] Gremmel: Widerstand, S. 20f.
[15] Ebd., 21.
[16] Gremmel: Widerstand, S. 21.
[17] Ebd.
[18] Bonhoeffer: Theologenausbildung, S. 581f.
[19] Strohm: Ethik, S. 126.
[20] Bonhoeffer: Theologenausbildung, S. 582.
[21] Peters: Präsenz, S. 28.
[22] Vgl. Gremmel: Weg, S. 25.
[23] Vgl. ebd., S.29.
[24] Vgl. Bonhoeffer: Theologenausbildung, S. 2.
[25] Ebd., S. 110.
[26] Ebd., S. 120.
[27] Ebd., S. 132.
[28] Vgl. ebd.
[29] Ebd., S. 581.
[30] Vgl. Bonhoeffer: Theologenausbildung, S. 2.
[31] Ebd., S. 123.
[32] Ebd., S. 425.
[33] Ebd., S. 426.
[34] Vgl. ebd., S. 409f.
[35] Ebd., S. 408.
The Barmer Theological Declaration as Confession for Today? Discussion with Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Wolf Krötke
ByStefan Prill [This essay published in 2015 is translated abridged from the German on www.grin.com.]
1. Introduction
"Behind Barmen and Dahlem we can no longer go back because they are historical facts of our Church to which we had to show piety and because we can no longer go back behind God's Word",1] the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote in 1936 about the meaning of the Barmer Theological Declaration[2] "Barmen" remains groundbreaking for the further way of our church",[3] Wolfgang Huber, the former
chairman of the council of the Protestant Church in Germany[4] emphasized in March 2009.
More than eighty years have already passed when the one hundred and nine and thirty synodical members (including one woman)[5] of the Barmen Synod of Confession on 31 May 1934 proclaimed God's word and confessed to six "Protestant truths"[6] and thus wrote church history[7] - and not only church history. The confession theses gained worldwide significance[8] in addition to the condemnation theses in which the Confessing Church rejected the National Socialist ideology, which the German Christians had adopted as their own and in view of the historical events of the church struggle
In Germany the Barmen Theological Declaration has in different ways entered into numerous regional church constitutions as well as into the basic order of the EKD.9] Especially the Lutheran regional churches, however, had their difficulties in this respect in recognizing Barmen as a binding confession,[10] even if the significance of the Barmen Theological Declaration also on the Lutheran side grew steadily in view of numerous Barmen anniversaries.[11] The question remains as to the topicality and significance of the Barmen Theological Declaration for the present despite the fact that members of Lutheran, Reformed and united churches raised their voices and confessed together on May 31, 1934,.
To what extent is the Barmen Theological Declaration a confession that can also claim validity for Christian churches today? To what extent can the six theses of the Declaration be understood as evangelical truths? And what do they have Christians to say today? From a dogmatic and ethical perspective, what insights, which are also relevant today, can be gained from the theses of the Barmen Theological Declaration?
Summarized: "What remains theologically of the Barmen Theological Declaration"[12]
Wolf Krotke also asks himself this question in the first section of his monograph "Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer",[13] which, along with the Barmen Theological Explanation, forms the textual basis for this work. For Krotke, the Theological Declaration of Barmen is a "text of the Evangelical Church"[14], which is permanently topical as an "event of the truth of the revealed God"[15].
The present work attempts to show that the Barmen Theological Declaration can thus be a confession which also has present relevance. First of all, Krotke's understanding of the BTE is presented and his explanations are analyzed. In a second step, the extent to which the BTE is to be understood as a text of confession is discussed. A third part then deals in more detail with the topicality of the Barmen Declaration and shows the practical consequences for the Church. A conclusion with a concluding statement and judgment completes the work. The history of the origins and reception of the BTE cannot be discussed more closely in this paper. Rather the present significance of the Theological Declaration of Barmen must be explained…
2.1.1 Barmen in Krotke's mind
Krotke makes his theses clear already at the beginning of his explanations. Both the theses and the condemnations of the Barmen Theological Declaration have lasting relevance for today's church.[29] If the church declared the theses of the Declaration "to be yesterday's truths [...] then it would be at its end."[30] The same applies to the condemnation theses, which were formulated specifically against the National Socialist ideology, which the German Christians had adopted and which even today cannot be denied without the church giving up its role as Church of Christ.
Krotke by no means denies the lasting significance of Barmen even if he also sees Barmen's deficits - like the silence on the Jewish question, the limitation to New Testament quotations, the language that is not gender-fair as well as a missing plea for a democratic basic order - and therefore demands a critical handling of the theses and condemnations of the declaration,
Barmen for the Church.
The Church must by no means give up its identity and its freedom…[31] That is precisely what Krotke is concerned with in the Barmen Declaration. "Barmen" means: "Everything that constitutes the Christian faith, Christian life and the Church is related to Jesus Christ"[32] The Theological Declaration of Barmen marks in a completely new way - in view of the current challenges through time - the reason on which the Church stands, its identity, its freedom, and what it constitutes. To meet these challenges, it refers us to the Bible and thus to the Word of God itself[33] This is the basic function of a church confession: the interpretation of the biblical message and the critical reflection on it[34] For Krotke this is provided by the Barmen Theological Declaration.
Even if a confession may be defined and characterized differently in the churches, the main criticism of Barmen for Krotke comes predominantly from the side of a theologia naturalis[35] which postulates a "general revelation [of God], to which man has always referred in his reason, as precondition of the special revelation of salvation"[36] in Christ. "Let the word of God in Christ [be] heard and announced correctly [...] after and by listening to God's rule in nature, in history, in the people, etc."[37]
Krotke sees the theological opponents of Barmen in representatives of this natural theology.[38] At the beginning of the 20th century it was Werner Elert and Paul Althaus who attempted to connect the theologia naturalis with the popular ideology of National Socialism. [39] But natural theology also has its place in the present discourse. Both with regard to the question of the knowledge of God beyond faith in Christ - through nature, through historical events, through conscience - and also with regard to religious pluralism and the value of reason.[40] It is theologians like Brunner, Bultmann, Tillich and Pannenberg who can be referred to in this context. [41] The Barmen Theological Explanation, especially the first and second thesis, criticizes natural theology and also a two-realm doctrine understood in neo-Lutheran terms.
Krotke's concern is to show that the Barmer Theological Declaration extols Christ without denying the universal and creative work of God, which is a fundamental concern
of natural theology. [42] At the same time he tries to draw practical consequences from the Barmen Declaration and courts the public nature of theology and the church, which "must come out of itself".[43] Taking political and social responsibility for the world and the people living in it [44] is just as much a concern of public theology as witness service [46] and the proclamation of the "message of God's free grace to all people"[47]. Its legitimacy is given to the church's public commission by Christ's missionary commission (cf. Mt 28:18-20),[48] and also by the individual Christian's certainty of faith, which "is expressed by the grace of God and a trust responding to it [...] [and thus] depends on communication" [49] This communication of one's own certainty of faith, i.e. the witness service for the Gospel, is, however, dependent on bilingualism in a pluralistic society [50] and must be articulated understandably - in the church and outside of it in its own way. [51] It must by no means assume authoritative forms, but must have a discursive character.[52]
The love for human beings as the core element of the Christian message and the dignity of every human being must become visible and be preserved.[53]
In his comments on Barth's and Bonhoeffer's understanding of the BTE, Krotke deals in more detail with the orientation towards Christ as Barmen's basic credo and with the practical consequences to be drawn from it. By dealing with Barth's and Bonhoeffer's theology, Krotke also profiles his own position.
2.1.2 Barmen and Karl Barth
In the second section of the text, Krotke presents Barth's understanding of Barmen's Theological Explanation. For Barth, Barmen was not merely a confession in view of a special historical situation, but an act of the "presence of mind" of the Confession Synod[54].
Jesus Christ also works presently and permanently in his church and in the world.[55] In this respect, for Barth the BTE is a confession that has lasting significance for the future of the church. The orientation of the Church, in the one living Word of God, of which the first thesis testifies, is decisive for this future.[56] Christ is this one Word of God. In him God reveals Himself to the world.
Here he shows himself very concretely, becomes tangible and offers a personal relationship with himself. However, the first thesis by no means denies that God does not limit himself in this way exclusively to working in Christ and does not have at his disposal further manifold possibilities to act in the world. Barth calls this universal work of God "true words outside the church", [...] "parables of the kingdom of heaven" [...] [or also a] "self-testimony" of the creation"[57] However, these cannot be understood independently of Christ's work, as the theologia naturalis demands.[58]
Only in the "light of Jesus Christ [they] come to light"[59]. Only through Christ can God's universal activity be recognized and understood.[60] Only from him is God's manifold, gracious and reconciling action shown itself in the world. Thus Barth succeeds
in accepting God's universal creative work as a legitimate concern of natural theology. [61] With Barth, however, God's universal work is not abstracted from God's revelation in Christ or subordinated to it. Rather he integrates the universal nature of God's work into Christology.[62] For Barth the concreteness of God's revelation in Christ and the universal nature of his work in the world belong inseparably together.
God in Jesus Christ does not cease "to become present to his creation. The world does not get rid of the very God who revealed himself in Christ" [63] Barth justifies this with the help of the doctrine of the Trinity [64] on one hand and with the doctrine of the threefold office of Christ [65] on the other hand. On one hand it is the same, one and living God, who works in all his works and in the Father, in the Son and in the Holy Spirit turns to man in free grace.[66] On the other hand it is Christ who through his prophetic ministry reveals God's will of salvation and thus becomes a witness of the order of creation on the one hand and God's will of reconciliation on the other.[67]
As a consequence of ecclesiology, Krotke demands here the Church's public, worldly action [68] Assuming responsibility in the world and for human beings is the fundamental concern of a church listening to God’s word. God turns in many ways to the world and affirms human life in Christ.. Wolfgang Huber put it this way: The church as "community of witness and service" [69] must be "public church" [70] and become "advocate of freedom" [71]. This describes the third thesis of the Barmen theological declaration [72]
The second Barmen thesis is "God's promise of forgiveness of all our sins"[73], through which "glad liberation"[74] happens to us. "God's powerful claim to our whole life"[75], which calls us to "grateful service to his creatures"[76], belong together. Justification and sanctification or freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin and concern all areas of life.[77]
In "Barmen II" the one word of God is "understood as the event [...] which gives a clear direction to the life and behavior of the Christian and the Church." [78] Krotke rightly emphasizes this and understands the second thesis also as criticism of a New Lutheran two-kingdom doctrine, as Werner Elert represented it.[79] In his teaching, Luther distinguished between the law, which shows man his sinfulness and his dependence on divine grace, and the gospel, which promises him the unconditional, salutary devotion of God. [80]
Elert continued this distinction in a radical way and isolated the law from the gospel. Natural orders of creation paired with popular ideology thus took the place of the commandment of Christ in Elert [81] Luther, on the other hand, distinguished between law and gospel, and did not separate them, but assigned them to each other.[82] The acquittal of the gospel can only affect man if he has also heard the guilty verdict of the law.[83] At the same time, the guilty verdict of the law can only be understood as a call to conversion to the gospel.[84]
What is said for the relationship between repentence and justification applies in a similar way to the relationship between justification and sanctification. Luther had rightly maintained justification by grace alone, which excludes all human participation in this event per se.[85] Man is justly spoken by God in the forensic sense solely because of the faith that God works in man and not through works. At the same time, however, it is also true that the justification of the sunder by no means cancels the claim that the law has. [86] Jesus' commandment remains and faith must prove to be faith active in love.[87] Here too the coherence of law and gospel is evident for Luther.
While Luther, however, looked at this relationship from the point of view of man, Barth took a different view. With Barthn it is not the sunny person who is acquitted and turns to God, but the "God who turns to man"[88], who chooses man as his covenant partner and thus "at the same time places a certain demand on his behavior as an "ally"[89]. "This claim is God's law"[90], which must be heard as ""figure" [...] of the Gospel"[91]
At this point it is questionable whether Barth really takes a different position here than Luther or whether both theologians regarded the same event only from different perspectives. The "encouragement" and "claim" of God or "glad liberation" and "grateful service" of man belong directly together.[92] Thus it formulates "Barmen II" and thus takes up both thought structures.[93]
For the Church, but also for the individual Christian, Krotke concludes from this a behavior according to the Gospel "in the midst of the world of sin"[94]. But Barth had emphatically emphasized that this was not connected with the demand to realize a "religious, cultic, moral, political kingdom of God on earth"[95]. It is not about "divine justice"[96], but about "responsibility for the event of human justice"[97]. In this context Krotke cites the "eschatological references"[98] in the third and fifth Barmen thesis.
The church lives in the expectation of the return of Christ and proclaims the coming kingdom of God.[99] The actions of the church in the world are thus relativized by eschatological hope. "God's justice is alone the matter of God's already accomplished and still to come action"[100]
Barmen demands a commitment for the realization of human justice in a quite profiled way. With "her faith, obedience, message and order" [101] the church stands up for the realization of human justice and for "the message of the free grace of God"[102]. Freedom and responsibility belong together for Krotke following Barth and Barmen: [103] The "promise of God" is inner liberation from sin, law, and death and the "claim of God" is free, grateful "service to his creatures"[104]. In Krotke's mind, freedom therefore does not mean exclusively the negative freedom from something, but is positively filled as "freedom for the good"[105], which is oriented towards life and love for one's neighbor. From this responsibility, which the Church receives from the positively filled Christian freedom (cf. Gal 5:1), Krotke derives on the one hand the political responsibility of the Church, and on the other hand the witness ministry of the Church for Jesus Christ[106].
2.1.3 Barmen and Dietrich Bonhoeffer
In the third section of the text, Krotke looks at the Barmen Theological Explanation through the eyes of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. the concept of truth plays an important role in Bonhoeffer's thinking while in Barth's work, the actuality of the Barmen Declaration is founded on its orientation to Christ, who as the one Word of God works and acts permanently in his church,. For Bonhoeffer, the Barmen Theological Declaration was not only an "act of the "presence of the Spirit" of the Synod of Confession"[107], but an "event of truth"[108] on which "the church and every single Christian can and must dare to live"[109]. That truth is found in Jesus Christ, who through his work on the cross "creates a new reality in the midst of the world of sin"[110] [111].
Christ wants to claim concretely this reality, which encompasses all areas of life as the "Lord of the world"[112] and as the "Lord of the Church"[113]. He has relevance for the world and for the church. Here it becomes clear that for Bonhoeffer in Barmen it was about nothing less than the question of salvation, the question of "life or death of the Church and the world"[114].
Barmen therefore demands practical consequences, both from the church and from the world. Krotke rightly emphasizes this and draws two conclusions for the assessment of the BTE [115] On one hand, the word of God cannot be fixed in letters and sentences. In Jesus Christ - in his death on the cross, in his resurrection, in his present work in the world, in the expectation of his return - it becomes clear precisely that the Word of God is a living Word, that concretely claims man and through the "joyful liberation from the godless bonds of this world to free, grateful service to his creatures"[116] happens to us. On the other hand, Krotke stresses the need and capacity for interpretation of every confession of the church[117] This "formulates the doctrine of the church, which must always be tested anew in its validity for the whole church"[118] This test must be carried out in the biblical message and ultimately in the truth of Christ himself.
NOTES
[1] Bonhoeffer, Zur Frage nach der Kirchengemeinschaft, 668.
[2] Im Folgenden auch mit BTE abgekurzt
[3] Huber, Geleitwort des Vorsitzenden des Rates der EKD, 7.
[4] Im Folgenden auch mit EKD abgekurzt.
[5] Vgl. Strohm, Die Kirchen im Dritten Reich, 52.
[6] Theologische Erklarung, Praambel.
[7] Vgl. Schlagzeile der Wuppertaler Zeitung „Die Deutsche Bekenntnis-Synode. Ein kirchengeschichtliches Ereignis“, Sonderdruck der Barmer Zeitung, am 31.05.1934.
[8] Vgl. Heimbucher/Weth, Die Barmer Theologische Erklarung, 100-110.
[9] Vgl. Heimbucher/Weth, Die Barmer Theologische Erklarung, 80-87.
[10] Vgl. Kretschmar/Hauschild, Die lutherischen Kirchen und die Bekenntnissynode von Barmen 19341984, 461 und vgl. Busch, Die Barmer Thesen, 11.
[11] Vgl. Schilling, Die Barmer Theologische Erklarung nach 1945, 13-17 und vgl. Lasogga, Zur Rezeption der Barmer Theologischen Erklarung in der VELKD, 18-20 und vgl. Heimbucher, Zur Wirkungsgeschichte der Barmer Theologischen Erklarung in der Evangelischen Kirche der Union, 2122.
[12] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 15.
[13] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 15-62.
[14] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 12.
[15] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 13.
[16] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 15-62. Der erste Abschnitt umfasst die Seiten 15-20 und stellt Krotkes Beurteilung der BTE dar. Der zweite Abschnitt, in dem auf Barths Verstandnis der BTE eingegangen wird, umfasst die Seiten 21 -44. Ein dritter Abschnitt, der die BTE im Denken Bonhoeffers thematisiert, umfasst die Seiten 45-62.
[17] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 11 u. 17.
[18] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 11.
[19] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 11-12.
[20] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 11.
[21] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 26f. und vgl. Strohm, Die Kirchen im Dritten Reich, 51.
[22] Vgl. Der „Ansbacher Ratschlag“ zu der Barmer „Theologischen Erklarung“, Abschnitt A.
[23] Vgl. dazu Fischer, Zwischen Zeugnis und Zeitgeist, 621-628.
[24] Vgl. Althaus, Grundrih der Dogmatik I, 15 und vgl. Joest/v. Lupke, Dogmatik I, 24.
[25] Theologische Erklarung, Art. 1.
[26] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 16-17.
[27] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 17.
[28] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 18f. und vgl. Strohm, Die Kirchen im Dritten Reich, 53.
[29] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 15f..
[30] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 15.
[31] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 18f..
[32] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 16.
[33] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 18f..
[34] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 18 und vgl. dazu auch Neie, Bekenntnis, Bekenntnisstand und Bekenntnisbindung im evangelischen Kirchenrecht, 36-38.
[35] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 16f. und 26f..
[36] Joest/v. Lupke, Dogmatik I, 24.
[37] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 27.
[38] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 16f..
[39] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 27f..
[40] Vgl. Joest/v. Lupke, Dogmatik I, 23 und vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer.
[41] Vgl. Joest/v. Lupke, Dogmatik I, 24f..
[42] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 17.
[43] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 18.
[44] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 40.
[45] Vgl. zu den Aufgaben einer Offentliche Theologie auch Bedford-Strohm, Position beziehen, 47-55 und Hohne, Offentliche Theologie, 40-42.
[46] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 42.
[47] Theologische Erklarung, Art. 6.
[48] Vgl. Huber, Uber die kommunikative Freiheit hinaus, 189f..
[49] Huber, Uber die kommunikative Freiheit hinaus, 190f..
[50] Vgl. Hohne, Offentliche Theologie, 98f..
[51] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 18.
[52] Vgl. Huber, Uber die kommunikative Freiheit hinaus, 191 und vgl. Hohne, Offentliche Theologie, 65. Beispiele fur die diskursive Dimension Offentlicher Theologie nennt Bedford-Strohm, vgl. dazu Bedford-Strohm, Position beziehen, 49.
[53] Vgl. Bedford-Strohm, Position beziehen, 82 und vgl. Krotke, Barmen - BarthBonhoeffer, 18.
[54] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 22.
[55] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 22.
[56] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 25.
[57] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 34.
[58] Vgl. Barth, Das christliche Leben, 197-205.
[59] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 34.
[60] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 35 und vgl. Joest/v. Lupke, Dogmatik I, 26.
[61] Vgl. Joest/v. Lupke, Dogmatik I, 28.
[62] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 34f..
[63] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 35.
[64] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 31.
[65] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 32 - vgl. dazu auch Joest/v. Lupke, Dogmatik I, 203f.. Allerdings, dies betont Harle meines Erachtens zu Recht, ist die Lehre von dem dreifachen Amt Christi biblisch schwierig zu begrunden. Harle fuhrt demgegenuber den Mittlerbegriff ein, der uberzeugender ist und wichtige Aspekte der traditionellen Amterlehre Christi aufnimmt. Christus ist demnach Offenbarung Gottes,
Versohnung zwischen Gott und Mensch und Erlosung des Menschen durch Gott. Vgl. dazu Harle, Dogmatik, 323.
[66] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 31.
[67] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 33 - vgl. dazu auch Heidelberger Katechismus von 1563, Frage 31, 160f..
[68] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 35.
[69] Huber, Von der Freiheit, 156.
[70] Huber, Von der Freiheit, 159.
[71] Huber, Von der Freiheit, 152.
[72] „Die christliche Kirche ist die Gemeinde von Brudern, in der Jesus Christus [.] gegenwartig handelt. Sie hat [.] mitten in der Welt der Sunde als die Kirche der begnadigten Sunder zu bezeugen, dass sie allein sein Eigentum ist [...]“ - Theologische Erklarung, Art. 3.
[73] Theologische Erklarung, Art. 2.
[74] Theologische Erklarung, Art. 2.
[75] Theologische Erklarung, Art. 2.
[76] Theologische Erklarung, Art. 2.
[77] So die Verwerfung der zweiten Barmer These - vgl. Theologische Erklarung, Art. 2.
[78] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 36.
[79] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 37.
[80] Vgl. Strohm, Die Kirchen im Dritten Reich, 51.
[81] Vgl. Der „Ansbacher Ratschlag“ zu der Barmer „Theologischen Erklarung“, Abschnitt A.
[82] Vgl. Die Schmalkaldischen Artikel, 752 - hier betont Luther den Zusammenhang zwischen Gesetz und Evangelium. Vgl. dazu auch z. Muhlen, Wirkung und Rezeption, 484 und Huber, Folgen christlicher Freiheit, 41.
[83] Hier zeigt sich der usus theologicus legis - vgl. Joest/v. Lupke, Dogmatik II, 110.
[84] Vgl. Joest/v. Lupke, Dogmatik II, 148 und vgl. dazu auch Jungel, Das Evangelium von der Rechtfertigung des Gottlosen als Zentrum des christlichen Glaubens, 81-86.
[85] Vgl. Luther, Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen, 289.
[86] Hier zeigt sich der tertius usus legis - vgl. Joest/v. Lupke, Dogmatik II, 110. Im Sermon von den guten Werken zeigt sich, dass Luther sehr wohl einen dritten Gebrauch des Gesetzes gekannt hat - vgl. Luther, Von den guten Werken, 127.
[87] Vgl. Luther, Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen, 299-301 und vgl. Joest/v. Lupke, Dogmatik II, 106-108 und 150.
[88] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 37.
[89] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 37.
[90] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 37.
[91] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 38.
[92] Vgl. Theologische Erklarung, Art. 2.
[93] Auch Krotke unterstreicht ja, dass sowohl Luther als auch Barth ein dem Evangelium gemaBes Verhalten im Blick haben - vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 38f..
[94] Theologische Erklarung, Art. 3.
[95] Barth, Das christliche Leben, 456.
[96] Barth, Das christliche Leben, 456.
[97] Barth, Das christliche Leben, 457.
[98] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 39.
[99] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 39.
[100] Barth, Das christliche Leben, 456.
[101] Theologische Erklarung, Art. 3.
[102] Theologische Erklarung, Art. 6.
[103] Vgl. zum Zusammenhang von Freiheit und Verantwortung auch meine Ausfuhrungen an anderer Stelle: Prill, Stundenentwurf: Freiheit und Verantwortung, 9-17.
[104] Theologische Erklarung, Art. 2.
[105] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 40.
[106] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 40-43.
[107] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 22.
[108] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 46.
[109] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 46.
[110] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 47.
[111] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 48.
[112] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 54.
[113] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 47.
[114] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 46.
[115] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 46-48.
[116] Theologische Erklarung, Art. 2.
[117] Vgl. Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 48 und vgl. Neie, Bekenntnis, Bekenntnisstand und Bekenntnisbindung im evangelischen Kirchenrecht, 36-38.
[118] Krotke, Barmen - Barth - Bonhoeffer, 48. [...]