Engaging Bonhoeffer: The Impact and Influence of Bonhoeffer's Life and Thought

By Matthew D. Kirkpatrick

Engaging Bonhoeffer documents the extraordinary impact of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s life and writing on later thought. Despite his lasting legacy, little substantial scholarship has been conducted in this area. In this magisterial collection, leading international scholars fill this striking gap and critically demonstrate the ways in which Bonhoeffer has been one of the most original, inspirational, and provocative writers of the twentieth century.

Bonhoeffer’s work has proved foundational for a wide variety of thinkers and movements across such areas as ecclesiology, Christology, spirituality, ethics, hermeneutics, phenomenology, epistemology, and systematic theology more generally. Whether one considers his writings to have been faithfully interpreted, critically adopted or justifiably rejected, Engaging Bonhoeffer describes those who have engaged with Bonhoeffer’s work, been inspired by his actions, and found a way to express and explain their own ideas through interacting with his life and thought. In addition to shedding light on the different theological trajectories that Bonhoeffer’s work may forge, this challenging volume offers a critical window through which to view and appreciate the ideas of many leading voices of modern theology.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Fortress Press
• Release date: Jun 3, 2016
• ISBN: 9781506410371

Book preview

1

A Tale of Two Bonhoeffers? Ronald Gregor Smith, J. A. T. Robinson, and the Dissemination of Bonhoeffer in the English Speaking World

Keith W. Clements

The transmission of the thought of Dietrich Bonhoeffer to the English-speaking world in the 1950s and 1960s owed a unique debt to two British theologians: Ronald Gregor Smith (1913–68) and John A. T. Robinson (1919–83). Bonhoeffer played an important role in their respective theologies, and they both, albeit in very different ways, brought Bonhoeffer to the fore in academic and popular debate.

Setting the Scene

As a martyr-figure under Nazism, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was highly publicized in the English-speaking world from very soon after his death in 1945. The first English editions of his major writings appeared at regular intervals from 1948 onwards, including the prison letters in 1953 and Ethics in 1955. The publication of his works was essential for his reception, but they did not, by themselves, make any immediate or decisive impact upon theology, in Britain at any rate. Here, until the early 1960s, biblical theology was the mainstream mode: The primary concern of theologians was to recover and clarify the distinctive themes and concepts of the Bible with the implication that, once so illuminated, their truth would make their own appeal to the contemporary mind, avoiding the crudities of fundamentalist literalism while contributing original insights to current ethical, philosophical, and anthropological understanding. Bonhoeffer did not acquire a role within the assumptions of such theology. A lecture series given in 1961 by the Anglican theologian Alan Richardson, and subsequently published as The Bible in the Age of Science,[1] industriously mapped the journey of theology and biblical interpretation from Schleiermacher to the contemporary scene dominated by such as Barth, Brunner, Bultmann, and Tillich. Bonhoeffer does not so much as feature in the index. This is not to say that Bonhoeffer is absent throughout the theology of the period but that, typically, where he does enter it is usually to illustrate a point being argued for within the perspective of already accepted frameworks. Eberhard Bethge points out that in Germany the arrival of Bonhoeffer’s term nonreligious Christianity prompted debate largely on whether its origins lay with Barth or Bultmann.[2] With the argument between these two figures setting the parameters for so much theological discussion, the potential of a quite independent and radically fresh approach from Bonhoeffer for theology as a whole was for a time overlooked. The same was true in Britain, even if here the Barth-Bultmann (like the Barth-Brunner) polemics were somewhat diluted, except perhaps in Scotland. In short, Bonhoeffer was seen as a bit-part player in an already established plot, rather than a character who demanded a whole new drama to be written on his terms. The same applies more broadly within the ecumenical, ecclesiological, and missiological thinking of the time.[3]

That Bonhoeffer, instead of being fitted in to the prevailing narrative, might have his own and radically new perspective on theology as a whole, was a discovery that began to be made at first quietly and then sensationally, in the period 1955–63, and it is here that Ronald Gregor Smith and John A. T. Robinson were decisive. It was Gregor Smith who as publisher, editor, and translator secured the first English editions of most of Bonhoeffer’s main writings; who as scholar and teacher was a pioneer in taking Bonhoeffer with academic seriousness; and whose book The New Man (1956) was the first British attempt to utilize Bonhoeffer’s prison writings in a radically new theological direction. It was Robinson who, while an Anglican bishop, in 1963 rocked the religious scene in Britain, and well beyond, with his book Honest to God which made striking use of Bonhoeffer’s prison thinking on religionless Christianity, bringing Bonhoeffer to a level of public prominence from which he has never completely departed. In different ways (their personal connexion was slight, though Robinson acknowledged a debt to Gregor Smith as a pioneer in Bonhoeffer studies), both were crucial in bringing Bonhoeffer to academic and popular attention. This essay will look in turn at each theologian, on their interactions with Bonhoeffer and their roles in mediating his thought, and then attempt some comparison and assessment of their contributions both to Bonhoeffer studies and theology generally.

Ronald Gregor Smith

While still a student at New College, Edinburgh, the Scotsman Ronald Gregor Smith[4] acquired an unusual competence in German, and with the encouragement of his professor, John Bailie, he made the first English translation of Martin Buber’s seminal Ich und Du[5] in 1937. Not only was the translation impressive, but the youthful Gregor Smith in his introduction wrote with assured confidence on the importance of Buber’s insight that God is not only the wholly other but the wholly present as well. Faith is a meeting, encounter with this presence of the Eternal Thou; transcendence is the boundary with this presence of God, not the remoteness of this God from the world. The implications of such an understanding of transcendence were to pursue Gregor Smith all his days together with a Kierkegaardian, existentialist view of faith. From 1939 war brought an interruption to normal academic ambitions, but Gregor Smith pursued his scholarly interests while a parish minister and army chaplain. In 1946 he was appointed education officer at Bonn University under the Allied Control Commission and so was able to return to the continental scene which was very much his intellectual home. In 1947 he became associate editor of the Student Christian Movement (SCM) Press in London, and managing director and editor in 1950. Under him SCM Press grew into the leading British theological publishing house of the time, with continental theology and philosophy of religion featuring heavily on its lists, not least books by or on Buber, Jaspers, Bultmann, Tillich, and Barth. Gregor Smith’s own writing on and advocacy of Buber and Kierkegaard continued unabated, joined by J. G. Hamann the eighteenth-century precursor of the romantic and existentialist movements.

SCM Press had already secured the English rights (shared with Macmillan, New York) to Bonhoeffer’s Nachfolge, an abridged translation of which by R. H. Fuller appeared in 1948 as The Cost of Discipleship (a complete edition did not appear until 1959). Gregor Smith was in close touch with the Christian Kaiser Verlag of Munich, the press responsible for Bonhoeffer’s works. He thus received a copy of Bonhoeffer’s prison writings Widerstand und Ergebung, edited by Eberhard Bethge, immediately on publication in 1951. The effect on Gregor Smith was instant and profound: turning the pages he repeatedly told his German wife Käthe (née Wittlake) that he had found a kindred mind and spirit. This was not surprising given the trajectory of his own thinking from his student days onwards. It was not just that, for example, he had been marked deeply by Buber’s worldly stress on meeting the eternal Thou in the human Thou, and on the hallowing of the earthly by God. Unpublished papers from the period 1938–43 reveal two overriding concerns: how to combine a Kierkegaardian attachment to the particularity of faith in Christ with embrace of the whole of human life, culture, and responsibility; and how the personalist-existentialist understanding of humanity can be expressed as history.[6] In the unpublished History Is Personal (1942) he writes that sin, forgiveness, salvation, even God are as words, long overdue a holiday[7]—a sentiment remarkably similar to those of Bonhoeffer in prison two years later—and argues that contemporary society lacks a true sense of history, and more particularly of personal history: that hidden and for the most part anonymous history which is constituted whenever a man faces God with a true sense of his responsibility. This sense of history, seen at its sharpest and clearest in the life of persons, is both the generative and controlling power for all history.[8] His wartime sermons and occasional published pieces, not to mention some of his poetry, also carry an emphasis on the human, suffering Christ as the way God’s self is revealed.[9] Above all, his unpublished reflections written in the summer of 1944, soon after becoming an army chaplain, lay bare a severe spiritual and intellectual crisis he had just undergone as to his identity as a Christian and his role as a theologian. He declared the imperative, for himself and the church, to disengage from all the unexamined prejudices, the masquerade of dogmas, the layers of easily-acquired ideas, which lie so easily and stubbornly across the path of the would-be believer,[10] and the need to face the shock of Jesus’ life in its startling freedom and humility. The churches have not understood the humility of God and all those other magnificent dialectical insights of Jesus which flow from this teaching, about strength in weakness, wisdom in folly, victory by means of the death of the cross, gain through loss, life through death.[11] It is not only striking but almost uncanny that this was being penned at exactly the same time as Bonhoeffer was writing in very similar terms in Tegel prison.

Gregor Smith immediately secured for SCM Press the English rights to the prison writings, and the first edition of Letters and Papers from Prison, translated by R. H. Fuller, appeared in 1953.[12] That same year Eberhard Bethge, Bonhoeffer’s friend, recipient of the prison letters and biographer, with his wife Renate (Bonhoeffer’s niece, née Schleicher) arrived in London as pastor of the German congregation at Sydenham that Bonhoeffer had served twenty years earlier. There quickly grew a warm and life-long relationship, the Gregor Smiths becoming the Bethges’ closest friends in Britain. Meanwhile Gregor Smith impressed on SCM Press the urgency of publishing the rest of Bonhoeffer’s works in English. Thus Life Together appeared in 1954, Ethics and Temptation in 1955. He could not however persuade his board to take Sanctorum Communio and Act and Being. It is a measure of how Gregor Smith saw the importance of these earlier works that he translated Sanctorum Communio himself and, after leaving SCM Press in 1956, saw to the publication of this and Act and Being elsewhere.[13]

In 1955 Gregor Smith gave the Alexander Love lectures at Ormond College, Melbourne, and these were published in 1956 as The New Man: Christianity and Man’s Coming of Age.[14] The timing was significant: Gregor Smith was leaving SCM Press to be professor of divinity at Glasgow University, and this was his first published full-length attempt at a constructive theology of his own, albeit indebted to several of the thinkers whose work he had been mediating for some time. The subtitle indicates just how significant Bonhoeffer in particular was now proving for him, and if The New Man marked a theological coming of age for Gregor Smith himself then Bonhoeffer was the catalyst for it. As has been noted, from his student years Gregor Smith had been impassioned by a vision of how faith, instead of directing people to some quasi-Platonic realm outside time, space, and other people, is to be seen as affirmative of human history, arising out of history and reinvigorating humanity for fresh ventures into the historical enterprise; of history as the place where humanity encounters the divine Spirit, and where God searches for humankind; of transcendence meaning not a remoteness of God but the encounter with the God who is wholly other yet wholly present. This was the intellectual framework of The New Man into which Bonhoeffer was now placed and to which he added a new dimension.

The argument of The New Man is set in the broadest historical perspective, beginning with the biblical foundation of the God who is met personally in his dealings with his people, through the medieval metaphysical construction and its undermining by the Renaissance, to the contemporary deadlock between humanism and a dogmatically defensive, heteronomous Christianity. Buber, Tillich, and Bultmann provide the main theological diagnoses of the spiritual and intellectual malaise which prevents a full recognition of the reality of God and the fullness of truly human existence. In the concluding chapter, This-Worldly Transcendence, Bonhoeffer provides the capstone to the whole book. Gregor Smith returns to his diagnosis of the contemporary situation: a deadlock between post-Renaissance humanists who cry one-sidedly for freedom, and the heirs of the Reformation who on behalf of traditional religion offer little more than rearguard actions in defence of untenable positions.[15] Meanwhile ordinary people are either bundled together into some kind of collective or isolated in individualism. In either case community is hardly known. Even friendship, or love, which are the high points of real community between persons, seems to be increasingly rare.[16] In this situation the question What must I do to be saved? can no longer be answered by Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ because this begs so many questions about who and where Jesus is today. A great deal of work is required: "an existential assessment of the Bible and the world which will uncover the almost entirely dissipated claim of real transcendence as an existent force within this world.[17] It is here that Gregor Smith introduces Bonhoeffer, and it is significant that he does so not first as promulgating any theological concepts or critiques, but as personally embodying what it means to be a Christian in historical responsibility. In these prison fragments, Gregor Smith states, you see a fine, cultured, sensitive mind, heir of all the wealth of Europe, rejoicing in its treasures, but at the same time intensely concerned with the problem of the right way through for modern man to his proper life as the heir of Christianity.[18] Moreover, when Gregor Smith starts to let Bonhoeffer speak for himself it is the very concrete proposals for a new form of the church in the Outline for a Book that he cites: the Church is her true self only when she exists for others.[19] This, says Gregor Smith, is not just another exhortation to good works but arises out of his understanding that the transcendent is to be met in this world, above all in the solicitude for others given to us in the life and way of Jesus. This has also an important negative implication, namely, that God is not to be met primarily in some assertion about him. . . God is not the idea we have of him. He is not any idea. To attempt to elevate some idea to the place of God is to make an idol and worship that instead of God.[20] The mystery of God is not an as yet-unknowable mystery but a present mystery";[21] then, having cited at length Bonhoeffer’s letter of 30 April 1944 rejecting the deus ex machina God of religious people,[22] comes a reiteration of transcendence as an encounter in the world, but this time in Bonhoeffer’s words about participation in the being of Jesus in his new life for others.[23] It is only then that Gregor Smith reverts to the 30 April letter in which Bonhoeffer attacks the religious premise and asks about the expression of faith in a religionless world. Gregor Smith does not press too hard for meaning here, recognizing that Bonhoeffer is simply asking questions and only giving partial answers. Nevertheless, he suggests, Bonhoeffer is breaking through to a fresh apprehension of the status of man and the world as something existing in their own right as the place where God loves to be.[24] This in turn leads him to affirm the significance for Bonhoeffer of the secret discipline, and that fastidious element in the Christian tradition which in tension with worldliness maintains a powerful dialectic in Bonhoeffer’s thought, of being existentially both for the world and against it.

Despite the book’s subtitle Gregor Smith, remarkably, hardly refers at all to Bonhoeffer’s descriptions of the coming of age of mankind. What he does have is his own lifelong apprehension of the calling of humans, in relationship with others, to historical responsibility which means the discernment of opportunities of grace within the given context. That for him is the heart of human maturity. Adapting Feuerbach’s argument (and disputing that it is inherently atheistic) about an historical existence of God, Gregor Smith claims: A faith which takes us not out of this world, into a sphere of arbitrary interventions, but deeper into the world in its historicity, is, it seems to me, the very crux of our belief in the Incarnation.[25] God is met at the luminous point of human existence, where the individual faces him in utter openness, receives forgiveness, and is made free[26]—always in the facing of other people in the emergent community with them. Out of the living encounter with God, in freedom, the one truly live point in the whole story of mankind new and surprising history is made. And the words with which Gregor Smith concludes The New Man could well have been his description of Bonhoeffer in his life and death, as he speaks of,

The point where a man, the full depth of his humanity, with the whole burden of his memories which we call culture and the whole burden of his failures and sin, takes to himself, in his whole life, the words of forgiveness and the invitation to faith which are the palimpsest of all the pages of history.[27]

Gregor Smith had thus found in Bonhoeffer one who both embodied such historical faith and gave him the theological language to express the reality of the this-worldly transcendence which he had pursued for so long—and gave it all a christological grounding in the being of Jesus.

What Gregor Smith called this-worldly transcendence focused for him Bonhoeffer’s chief significance, and this remained core to his exposition of Bonhoeffer for the twelve remaining years of his life. In turn The New Man encouraged others to see Bonhoeffer as not just a martyr figure to be quoted reverentially but a theologian to be brought into serious contemporary dialogue; and the prison writings as more than just striking if enigmatic utterances but as offering clues to the central theological question of how to speak of God in a world increasingly dominated by humanist assumptions. The book was probably appreciated most by those pioneering new forms of ministry and mission in society, for example in industrial mission and in higher education (in which the SCM itself of course was deeply involved).[28] More widely it gave impetus to the growing concern, especially in ecumenical circles, for a theology of the secular. A landmark event in this movement was the 1958 study conference on The Meaning of the Secular at the Ecumenical Institute, Bossey, Switzerland, at which Gregor Smith gave his paper A Theological Perspective of the Secular[29] which draws significantly on Bonhoeffer.

Gregor Smith’s advocacy of Bonhoeffer (as of Bultmann) continued during his Glasgow years, in his professorial lectures and elsewhere. He spoke about Bonhoeffer not because I want to but because I must,[30] yet also several times warned against a cult of Bonhoeffer forming especially among students. With Wolf-Dieter Zimmermann (one of Bonhoeffer’s students) he edited Begegnungen mit Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Ein Almanack (1964) a collection of reminiscences of Bonhoeffer by his relatives, students, and colleagues, which appeared in English in 1966, translated by Käthe Gregor Smith as I Knew Dietrich Bonhoeffer.[31] More substantially he edited the symposium World Come of Age[32] that included, in addition to his own introduction, essays by Eberhard Bethge, Karl Barth, Regin Prenter, William Hamilton, and Rudolf Bultmann. It was under his supervision at Glasgow that his doctoral student J. A. Philips wrote the first major study of Bonhoeffer’s Christology, The Form of Christ in the World.[33] Had he lived longer, it is highly likely that he would have devoted more time to Bonhoeffer’s Ethics with its central theme of the unity of God and the world in Christ.[34]

During his years as professor at Glasgow until his untimely death in 1968, Gregor Smith was part of the secular theology movement of the 1960s yet stood distinctively apart from much of it, whether Paul van Buren’s The Secular Meaning of the Gospel[35] or the death of God theology of such as William Hamilton and Thomas Altizer. Such thinkers, he maintained, had as well as cutting themselves off from the inner essentials of the tradition, lost sight of any notion of transcendence, which is the real source of freedom given to human existence in faith. He argued for a distinction between secularization (as an unarguable historical phenomenon of Western society), secularism (as a reductionist ideology imposed on human affairs), and secularity, that stance of consciously chosen, free responsibility for others and the future. This secularity, maintained Gregor Smith, is a product of the gospel and is the meaning of the life of Jesus who, right to the cry of dereliction from the cross, disclosed the true nature of secularity. This was the burden of Gregor Smith’s most substantial work, Secular Christianity (1966).[36] Crucial to his argument was his tenacious hold of the tension in Bonhoeffer’s striking paradox, that Before God, and with God, we live without God,[37] and right to his last, unfinished work, The Doctrine of God, Gregor Smith refused to allow Bonhoeffer to be interpreted in a wholly immanentist way.[38]

John Robinson

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was launched into unprecedented publicity throughout and beyond the English-speaking world by association with Honest to God, a relatively short (143-page) paperback by John A. T. Robinson,[39] then bishop of Woolwich, published by SCM Press on 19 March 1963. The book created a sensation, in part triggered by a front-page article from Robinson in the Observer Sunday newspaper two days previously under the banner headline our image of god must go. That headline was not of Robinson’s own choosing, but was certainly in tune with much of what followed: If Christianity is to survive it must be relevant to modern secular man, not just to the dwindling number of the religious . . . Men can no longer credit the existence of ‘gods’ or of God as a supernatural Person, such as religion has always posited. Even without such an overture, Honest to God would still have made a huge and controversial impact (it soon ran to one million copies and was translated into seventeen languages), but the article certainly aided the impression of a new iconoclasm bursting on the scene, and of Bonhoeffer as one of the chiefest image-smashers, alongside Rudolf Bultmann and Paul Tillich.[40]

At the time of writing Honest to God, Robinson was bishop of Woolwich in London. Prior to that he had taught at Wells Theological College and had been fellow and dean of Clare College, Cambridge 1951–58, establishing a reputation as a biblical scholar with acclaimed works, which included In the End, God (1950), The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology (1952), and Jesus and His Coming (1957). Robinson had always been alert to social issues and active in reforming liturgy and ordination training, and as a bishop was an outspokenly progressive voice within the counsels of the Church of England. His first really controversial foray onto the public stage came in 1960 as a witness for the defence of Penguin Books in the action brought against them for the publication of D. H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover.

When Honest to God appeared the immediate impression was of a bishop who, if he was a scholar at all, was straying from the biblical territories on which he had hitherto worked onto the waters of philosophical and systematic theology where he was at best an amateur. Indeed, Robinson himself seemed happy to paint this impression: I am not writing this book as a professional theologian: indeed, this is not my own academic field. I am deliberately writing as an ordinary churchman.[41] One would hardly guess that in fact some twenty years earlier Robinson had begun his academic career with a major work in philosophical theology, namely his Cambridge PhD thesis, Thou Who Art, on the notion of personality in relation to Christian theology, the contemporary I-Thou philosophy (of Martin Buber especially), and the doctrines of the Trinity and the person of Christ.[42] There is linkage here with Ronald Gregor Smith, for it was reading Gregor Smith’s translation of I and Thou that first aroused his interest in this area and moreover it was John Baillie, Gregor Smith’s own mentor at Edinburgh, who not only examined Robinson’s thesis but pronounced it the best he had ever read.[43] Central to its argument is its rejection of the classical, Thomist metaphysical conception of God derived from Greek philosophy: timeless being, detached from the world and not essentially in relation to it. Instead it argued for a personalist, relational view of God more in line with Hebraic and New Testament thought. To say, for instance that God is love means a fundamental shift in how all the divine attributes are to be understood:

Comprehended in these monosyllables is the whole of the Hebraic conception of the One whose Being is a completely personal relationship to every single part of creation, who has no other existence except existence in a relation of this quality, and whose every attribute is but a way of working of a single, infinite, eternal holy and omnipotent Love. For the Bible, the attributes of God are not a sum of separable qualities definable in terms of themselves (e.g. power, knowledge, goodness, etc.) and inhering in a neutral and undifferentiated substance of Pure Being.[44]

God is therefore one whose very nature is to enter into relations with humans and all his creatures, in love. God is unchanging in the sense that his love and faithfulness are constant; he is Lord of history not by dissociating himself from it but by pursuing his purposes within it.[45] We may note a certain parallel here with Bonhoeffer’s own (post-doctoral) thesis Act and Being, and its argument for the freedom of God being a freedom not from but for the human historical world.[46] The theology of the future, writes Robinson, needs a new Summa interpreting the biblical revelation in terms of a philosophy that has allowed the Bible’s categories to come to their own.[47] That, he declares, will be the task of many generations: We stand as yet only at the opening of the vista that lies ahead.[48] It is puzzling, first, why this thesis, which could have made such a constructive contribution to theology in its time, was never published; second, why nearly two decades later in Honest to God there is so little explicit trace of it beyond a few references to Buber and John Macmurray. According to his biographers, Robinson had taken to biblical studies in order to test and substantiate the scriptural basis of the main lines of his thesis—a long diversion, one might say, before he returned in Honest to God.[49]

As is well known, the basic argument of Honest to God is that whereas the bible speaks of a three-decker universe of earth set between heaven above and earth beneath, such spatial imagery has become impossible since the Copernican revolution. In our mental furniture, however, the God up there has been replaced by a God out there, a God above and beyond the world he has made, a divine Being outside us and apart from us who intervenes arbitrarily in the world. In place of the God out there Tillich’s view of God as the depth of existence is commended, for God as the infinite and inexhaustible ground of all being. And it is personal relationships that constitute the ultimate, the unconditioned, in our experience. Belief in God is the trust, the well-nigh incredible trust, that to give ourselves to the uttermost in love is not to be confounded but to be ‘accepted’, that Love is the ground of our being, to which ultimately we ‘come home.’[50]

Much has been said, fairly and unfairly, in criticism of Honest to God, Quite apart from the issue of whether the triumvirate of Bultmann, Tillich, and Bonhoeffer really formed a united voice with Robinson, or even with each other, one of the fairest questions asked is how far they were necessary at all in order to advance his argument for a new image of God. As far as Bultmann is concerned, Robinson in his biblical studies had in effect already been carrying out his own demythologizing work and to very positive effect. And whereas Tillich is usefully brought in to demolish the notion of God as a being among others, instituting ground of being as the term to replace the God out there results in a somewhat impersonal image of God, all the more anomalous if ultimate reality meets us in the form of personal relations or, in Buber’s phrase "Every particular Thou is a glimpse into the eternal Thou."[51] As Alistair Kee observes, from the time of his doctoral thesis Robinson already had to hand the tools for a reconstructed doctrine of God on personalist and relational lines, a God very much here and immersed in human historical life instead of a God out there.[52] Was there in Honest to God a certain diffidence, modesty even, that sought appeal to more illustrious names?

The role given to Bonhoeffer in Honest to God however is more complex. Robinson had first encountered the translated prison writings in prepublication extracts in 1952,[53] and so he had had a whole decade’s reflection on them. He had clearly been struck by the first of Bonhoeffer’s radical prison letters with its assertion that humankind is moving towards a time of no religion, and that the search for a religionless Christianity must begin.[54] Unfortunately, Bonhoeffer’s criticism of religion (as the garb for Christianity which must now be discarded) is the very first reference to Bonhoeffer in Honest to God and whereas Bonhoeffer himself had in mind a quite definite view of what he was rejecting as religion,[55] Robinson leaves this puzzlingly (for the uninitiated) unexplained. It is only after dealing with Bultmann’s demythologizing programme that Robinson returns to Bonhoeffer with an extensive quotation from the prison letter of 8 June 1944, on the historical developments since the Middle Ages which have led to the progressive marginalization of God from human affairs and understanding of the world, that is, the growing adulthood of the world and the reduction of God by religious people to a deus ex machina.[56] It is in the same vein, Robinson continues, that the evolutionary biologist and humanist Julian Huxley speaks of the god hypothesis being no longer of any pragmatic value for the interpretation or comprehension of nature, with gods surviving only as the last resort for unhappy and ignorant souls.[57] Robinson virtually elides Huxley into Bonhoeffer here, and to an extent understandably so for they are indeed describing virtually the same historical and cultural development. Robinson cites Bonhoeffer’s disdain for the idea of making Christianity dependent on the survivors of attenuated religion and his wish to have the world’s coming of age recognized as a given fact. He then proceeds with Bonhoeffer’s striking and paradoxical assertions that we have to live in the world "etsi deus non daretur—even if God is not there[58] and that Before God and with him we live without God, that God allows himself to be edged out of the world onto the cross and that only a suffering God can help."[59] But this means that the Huxley-Bonhoeffer elision has been too hurried, for Bonhoeffer’s interpretation of humanity’s coming of age is quite different from that Huxley. For Huxley, it means the end of belief in God, period. For Bonhoeffer, it means a quite new understanding of God and of the relations that humans may now have to God. The progressive adulthood of humankind is expressive of the divine purpose, not the divine non-existence.[60] Robinson at this point seems to have been mostly concerned to use Bonhoeffer in aid of the The End of Theism and while recognizing that for Bonhoeffer this was but a clearing of the decks for the God of the Bible, a starting point for a worldly interpretation, instead of continuing with Bonhoeffer he diverts to Tillich and his language of depth: of God not as another Being but as the infinite and inexhaustible depth and ground of all being.[61] Here Tillich and Bonhoeffer are conjoined:

What Tillich is meaning by God is the exact opposite of any deus ex machina, a supernatural Being to whom one can turn away from the world and who can be relied upon to intervene from without. God is not out there. He is in Bonhoeffer’s words the ‘beyond’ in the midst of our life, a depth of reality reached not on the borders of life but at its centre. . . . For the word God denotes the ultimate depth of all our being, the creative ground and meaning of all our existence.[62]

But it is not at all clear that Tillich’s depth and Bonhoeffer’s "Beyond in the midst of life" connote the same thing. Bonhoeffer is not speaking of an awareness of what lies deep down in our existence but of what actually encounters us here and now, in the nearestThou at hand[63] and asserting that this is the experience of transcendence. Robinson is on surer ground when a few pages later he writes:

To assert that "God is love is to believe that in love one comes into touch with the most fundamental reality in the universe, that Being itself ultimately has this character. It is to say, with Buber, that Every particular Thou is a glimpse through to the eternal Thou, that it is between man and man that we meet God. . . . [A]s Bonhoeffer insists, God is the ‘beyond’ in the midst"; "The transcendent is not infinitely remote but close at hand." For the eternal Thou is met only in, with and under the finite Thou, whether in the encounter with other persons or in the response to the natural order.[64]

Robinson here is not only letting Bonhoeffer speak with his own voice rather than as a Tillichian echo; more than at any other point in Honest to God he is himself speaking as the author of his thesis Thou Who Art and, at this point at least, returning to his native roots in personalist and relational theology in the exposition of which, we noted earlier, he was closely parallel to aspects of Bonhoeffer’s early theology as well.

If it is Bonhoeffer who here is prompting Robinson to express his own theology rather than reproducing that of others, it is also Bonhoeffer who later in the book gives Robinson a term to convey the essence of what he was trying to say in perhaps the most creative chapter, on the doctrine of Christ: The Man for Others. He returns to Bonhoeffer’s description of how the Bible points to the powerlessness and suffering of God and then, still more potently, cites Bonhoeffer’s Outline for a Book in which the divine transcendence is identified not with remoteness or with infinite power but a new life for others which comes through encounter with Jesus as the one whose only concern is for others: "Our relation to God is not a religious relationship to a supreme Being, absolute in power and goodness, which is a spurious conception of transcended, but a new life for others, through participation in the Being of God. The transcendence consists not in tasks beyond our scope and power, but in the nearest Thou at hand."[65] From this Robinson builds a picture of Jesus as the one "who is utterly open to, and united with, the ground of his being. . . For at this point, of love ‘to the uttermost,’ we encounter God, the ultimate ‘depth’ of our being, the unconditional in the conditioned. That is what the New Testament means by saying that ‘God was in Christ’ and that ‘what God was the Word was.’[66] It may be doubted how much value the Tillichian language adds to this but the potential for a new and enriching Christology was here, one which as Robinson recognized could overcome the conventional and often unrelated notions of incarnation, atonement, and the lived life of faith. The chapter concludes powerfully with an exposition, using Bonhoeffer’s great letter of 21 July 1944, of faith as participation in the life of the man for others, of sharing the sufferings of God in the world.[67] Robinson’s comment provides one of those moments of lucidity which still gives the book its appeal: And the Christian community exists, not to promote a new religion, but simply to be the embodiment of this new being as love."[68]

It is apparent that for Robinson, Bonhoeffer was crucially important for raising the questions What is Christianity, and Who is Christ for us today? and for indicating the starting points for exploring a new theology. This role of Bonhoeffer did not significantly change in the remaining twenty years of Robinson’s life during which he resumed his early quest for a personalist and relational understanding of God and humanity, in dialogue with the process theology and panentheism that by then were coming into vogue.[69] In 1973 appeared The Human Face of God[70] perhaps his most creative as well as widely appreciated work since Honest to God, and the realization of