One of those remaining questions in Bonhoefferian scholarship is what Bonhoeffer meant in his Letters and Papers from Prison, toward the end of his life, when he wrote that Barth was unable to address the concerns of modern people. Theologians like Rudolf Bultmann, Paul Tillich, and even Bonhoeffer concerned themselves with the question of how we can proclaim the gospel in an age that cares less and less about God, the church, or theology. They searched in vain for an answer to this in Barth's works -- or, rather, they were disappointed with the answers they found. Some years later, Barth had written a letter to Bethge, after the publication of the latter's magisterial biography of Bonhoeffer, asking Bethge what Bethge thought Bonhoeffer had meant in accusing Barth of a "positivism of revelation".
The problem Bonhoefferian scholars have in appreciating Barth is that, if we take some of Barth's earliest writings alone, we can be left with the same impression. That's what makes Barth's The Humanity of God such an important little book.
There he responds to Bonhoeffer's criticism of him. Bonhoeffer had written in his letters from prison that Barth did not provide any guidance on how to interpret theological concepts for a world come of age, for nonreligious people, and so leaves the world to its own devices, ending up with a "positivism of revelation". Modern people don't understand the need for biblical proclamation and theological exposition, and Bonhoeffer thought theologians should take this seriously instead of going on their merry way. In response,* Barth says that the so-called "world come of age" only imagines itself as such, but really is not as adult as it thinks it is. He also says Christians are not outsiders to this world come of age. We are all modern people, and so whenever we proclaim the gospel, we proclaim it as modern people. One of Barth's students, while discussing certain biblical material in class, asked Barth, "But how can you make that understandable to modern man?" Barth responded, "You're a modern man. Do you understand it?"
Barth's point is that we do not need to act like we are aliens from another planet visiting earth trying to make ourselves clear. If we can groove with Christianity, that must mean others can as well, without special help from "nonreligious interpretation" (this is in line with a position Barth took in his early writing in Church Dogmatics, I.1 (pp. 154-155) and later in IV.1 (pp. 735-736) -- I think Bonhoeffer missed that bit in I.1, or at least failed to appreciate its significance). Nonreligious interpretation, for Barth, can all-too-easily lead to compromising the Word of God for the sake of the world, and so Barth wants to err on the side of proclaiming the Word of God with the language we receive from Scripture and, secondarily, from the history of the church's proclamation. Barth appeals to the inherent strangeness in the gospel message, making the point that the gospel will not measure up to the modern person's standard of comprehensibility because it is by nature an other Word to our human words.
That said, Barth incites us to make sure it is wonderfully strange, as it is a message of God's eternal love for the world. We will be heard by the world if we stay true to the Word of God in our proclamation, because the Word of God has genuine power -- indeed, it has the power of God.
In the same year, Barth published volume IV.1 of his Church Dogmatics. Here, Barth extends his criticism of the modern human being. What might seem like adulthood is really a brazen claim to privilege and lordship, when people, in truth, are utterly dependent on God and are lowly creatures. The "coming of age" is really a transvaluation of God’s order. Barth goes so far as to compare the modern coming of age to Adam and Eve succumbing to the devil in the Fall. However, Barth does not use this as an excuse to ignore unbelievers. On the contrary, he recognized the need for the church to be there for others and to be Christ's presence to and for the world. In CD IV.2, he says, "There can be no divine revelation without a human ministry of witness". Human ministry is the love of neighbors which reflects God's love for us. Neglecting this aspect of the church's task is neglecting the church's task entirely.
What strikes me is that I'm drawn to Barth because of Bonhoeffer, not in spite of him. I think Barth was right to criticize some of the "modern questions" as self-evidently more important. I think that's what Bonhoeffer is doing in Discipleship and Ethics. Modern questions are privileged because we think we're more autonomous and grown-up. But what if we're not? I think Barth was right to criticize our modern self-assertion. After all, "modern man" produced two World Wars and Adolf Hitler and Stalin. Not much has changed since.
Ultimately, I think the answer to the "nonreligious interpretation" lies in something both Barth and Bonhoeffer affirmed. When I'm struggling in my preaching -- to explain theological ideas to people using theological language -- it's because I've abstracted that preaching from living with others. That is, Christians must be there for others, serve others, and reflect the love of God to others. I think it will be in this activity that we will find a way to communicate the gospel to our secular friends and family without compromising the strangeness of it, but also without practicing a "positivism of revelation" and merely expecting them to get on board with theological concepts they might understand as outdated, or might not understand at all, or even might have bad associations with (e.g., fatherhood, lordship, obedience, etc.).
How do we interpret theological concepts for the modern person? We can only answer this by being with and being for modern people.
__________________
* The text of that book that deserves a wider reading is: "We cannot at all reckon in a serious way with real 'outsiders,' with a 'world come of age,' but only with a world which regards itself as of age (and proves daily that it is precisely not that). The so-called 'outsiders' are really only 'insiders' who have not yet understood and apprehended themselves as such. On the other hand, even the most persuaded Christian, in the final analysis, must and will recognize himself ever and again as an 'outsider.' So there must then be no particular language for insiders and outsiders. Both are contemporary men-of-the-world -- all of us are. A little 'non-religious' language from the street, the newspaper, literature, and, if one is ambitious, from the philosopher may thus, for the sake of communication, occasionally indeed be in order. However, we should not become particularly concerned about this. A little of the language of Canaan, a little 'revelation-positivism,' can also be a good thing in addressing us all and ... will often, though not always, be still better understood even by the oddest strangers. That is better than feeling compelled to approach them ... with some sort of gibberish, which, for the moment, is modern. What we have to say to them -- and first to ourselves -- is a strange piece of news in any case. Let us see to it that it really is the great piece of news -- the message of eternal love of God directed to us men as we at all times were, are, and shall be. Then we shall certainly be very well understood by them, whatever they may or may not do with it. He whose heart is really with God and therefore really with men may have faith that the Word of God, to which he seeks to bear witness, will not return unto Him void" (pp. 58-59).
The problem Bonhoefferian scholars have in appreciating Barth is that, if we take some of Barth's earliest writings alone, we can be left with the same impression. That's what makes Barth's The Humanity of God such an important little book.
There he responds to Bonhoeffer's criticism of him. Bonhoeffer had written in his letters from prison that Barth did not provide any guidance on how to interpret theological concepts for a world come of age, for nonreligious people, and so leaves the world to its own devices, ending up with a "positivism of revelation". Modern people don't understand the need for biblical proclamation and theological exposition, and Bonhoeffer thought theologians should take this seriously instead of going on their merry way. In response,* Barth says that the so-called "world come of age" only imagines itself as such, but really is not as adult as it thinks it is. He also says Christians are not outsiders to this world come of age. We are all modern people, and so whenever we proclaim the gospel, we proclaim it as modern people. One of Barth's students, while discussing certain biblical material in class, asked Barth, "But how can you make that understandable to modern man?" Barth responded, "You're a modern man. Do you understand it?"
Barth's point is that we do not need to act like we are aliens from another planet visiting earth trying to make ourselves clear. If we can groove with Christianity, that must mean others can as well, without special help from "nonreligious interpretation" (this is in line with a position Barth took in his early writing in Church Dogmatics, I.1 (pp. 154-155) and later in IV.1 (pp. 735-736) -- I think Bonhoeffer missed that bit in I.1, or at least failed to appreciate its significance). Nonreligious interpretation, for Barth, can all-too-easily lead to compromising the Word of God for the sake of the world, and so Barth wants to err on the side of proclaiming the Word of God with the language we receive from Scripture and, secondarily, from the history of the church's proclamation. Barth appeals to the inherent strangeness in the gospel message, making the point that the gospel will not measure up to the modern person's standard of comprehensibility because it is by nature an other Word to our human words.
That said, Barth incites us to make sure it is wonderfully strange, as it is a message of God's eternal love for the world. We will be heard by the world if we stay true to the Word of God in our proclamation, because the Word of God has genuine power -- indeed, it has the power of God.
In the same year, Barth published volume IV.1 of his Church Dogmatics. Here, Barth extends his criticism of the modern human being. What might seem like adulthood is really a brazen claim to privilege and lordship, when people, in truth, are utterly dependent on God and are lowly creatures. The "coming of age" is really a transvaluation of God’s order. Barth goes so far as to compare the modern coming of age to Adam and Eve succumbing to the devil in the Fall. However, Barth does not use this as an excuse to ignore unbelievers. On the contrary, he recognized the need for the church to be there for others and to be Christ's presence to and for the world. In CD IV.2, he says, "There can be no divine revelation without a human ministry of witness". Human ministry is the love of neighbors which reflects God's love for us. Neglecting this aspect of the church's task is neglecting the church's task entirely.
What strikes me is that I'm drawn to Barth because of Bonhoeffer, not in spite of him. I think Barth was right to criticize some of the "modern questions" as self-evidently more important. I think that's what Bonhoeffer is doing in Discipleship and Ethics. Modern questions are privileged because we think we're more autonomous and grown-up. But what if we're not? I think Barth was right to criticize our modern self-assertion. After all, "modern man" produced two World Wars and Adolf Hitler and Stalin. Not much has changed since.
Ultimately, I think the answer to the "nonreligious interpretation" lies in something both Barth and Bonhoeffer affirmed. When I'm struggling in my preaching -- to explain theological ideas to people using theological language -- it's because I've abstracted that preaching from living with others. That is, Christians must be there for others, serve others, and reflect the love of God to others. I think it will be in this activity that we will find a way to communicate the gospel to our secular friends and family without compromising the strangeness of it, but also without practicing a "positivism of revelation" and merely expecting them to get on board with theological concepts they might understand as outdated, or might not understand at all, or even might have bad associations with (e.g., fatherhood, lordship, obedience, etc.).
How do we interpret theological concepts for the modern person? We can only answer this by being with and being for modern people.
__________________
* The text of that book that deserves a wider reading is: "We cannot at all reckon in a serious way with real 'outsiders,' with a 'world come of age,' but only with a world which regards itself as of age (and proves daily that it is precisely not that). The so-called 'outsiders' are really only 'insiders' who have not yet understood and apprehended themselves as such. On the other hand, even the most persuaded Christian, in the final analysis, must and will recognize himself ever and again as an 'outsider.' So there must then be no particular language for insiders and outsiders. Both are contemporary men-of-the-world -- all of us are. A little 'non-religious' language from the street, the newspaper, literature, and, if one is ambitious, from the philosopher may thus, for the sake of communication, occasionally indeed be in order. However, we should not become particularly concerned about this. A little of the language of Canaan, a little 'revelation-positivism,' can also be a good thing in addressing us all and ... will often, though not always, be still better understood even by the oddest strangers. That is better than feeling compelled to approach them ... with some sort of gibberish, which, for the moment, is modern. What we have to say to them -- and first to ourselves -- is a strange piece of news in any case. Let us see to it that it really is the great piece of news -- the message of eternal love of God directed to us men as we at all times were, are, and shall be. Then we shall certainly be very well understood by them, whatever they may or may not do with it. He whose heart is really with God and therefore really with men may have faith that the Word of God, to which he seeks to bear witness, will not return unto Him void" (pp. 58-59).