I am reading Eric Metaxas’ recent publication: Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy; which I would highly recommend to everyone!
I am in the section of the book where Metaxas is describing the period on Dietrich’s life where he moves from merely being a confessor in the 
‘Confessing church’ — for whom he served as one of her uncomfortable leaders and theologians — into the daunting and duplicitous role of conspirator against the madman — Hitler — whom must be stopped at all costs. During this time Bonhoeffer made a daring, yet pronounced and calculating move; he published his The Prayerbook of the Bible (Das Gebetbook der Bibel) [see Metaxas, p. 367] in 1940. Which in the context wherein he was situated was making a statement; the context was of course the world where The Third Reich reigned supreme, and its ethos sought to permeate every particle of atmosphere available to its reach — in other words, it hated the Jews; and thus anything associated with them, including — and especially so — the Old Testament. So the young German theologian’s move was indeed to make a statement.
I provide all of the above context, simply, really, to comment on something Metaxas discloses about Dietrich’s thinking as relayed through this “Prayerbook.” Below I am going to quote Metaxas who is describing some of the themes that are present in Bonhoeffer’s work; as Metaxas describes Bonhoeffer’s thoughts, he, at places, quotes Dietrich directly. I found something striking — but really not surprising given Bonhoeffer’s relationship to Karl Barth — and that is the “doctrine” that we Evangelical Calvinists & Torranceans are seeking to elevate relative to Jesus Christ; viz. the Vicarious humanity and Priestly nature of Christ’s person for us. Without further delay, let me quote Eric Metaxas on Dietrich Bonhoeffer; and then I will close in brief comment:
. . . In the book, Bonhoeffer linked the idea of Barthian grace with prayer by saying that we cannot read God with our own prayers, but by praying “his” prayers — The Psalms of the Old Testament, which Jesus prayed — we effectively piggyback on them all the way to heaven. We must not confuse what we do naturally, such as “whishing, hoping, sighing, lamenting, rejoicing,” with prayer, which is unnatural to us and which we must be initiated from outside us, by God. If we confuse these two things, “we confuse earth and heaven, human beings and God.” Prayer cannot come from us. “For that,” he wrote, “one needs Jesus Christ!” By praying the Psalms, we “pray along with Christ’s prayer and therefore may be certain and glad that God hears us. When our will, our whole heart, enters into the prayer of Christ, then we are truly praying. We can pray only in Jesus Christ, with whom we shall also be heard.” (Eric Metaxas, “Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy,” 368)
I don’t think much more comment is really required. I just thought that this was really an excellent illustration and point made on how the vicarious humanity of Christ from whence we live (cf. Jn 15.5) looks when applied to the ongoing priestly duty of Christ; and the significance that this has for those of us actively particapting in Him and through Him (as our ‘Mediator’) by the Holy Spirit.
Just so you know, Metaxas’ book has been pretty universally panned by legit Bonhoeffer scholars as being very problematic in the way he presents Bonhoeffer’s life and theology. Not that that necessarily relates to the material you posted here, I just thought you might want to know. See Clifford Green’s review/takedown here:
http://www.christiancentury.org/reviews/2010-09/hijacking-bonhoeffer
The real theological Bonhoeffer at least, is not that orthodox. Note, Christ the Centre, etc. There is almost no Chalcedonian Christology in Bonhoeffer! I speak theologically, and seek not to diminish the “Christian” life and man.
@Halden,
Thank you, I’m glad you pointed this review out to me. I just read it, that’s too bad; because the book has really been engaging to read. I don’t think Metaxas’ “interpretive” work necessarily does anything to what I posted here, but now I’ll have to try and read Bonhoeffer’s “Prayerbook” for myself. Thanks for the heads up.
@Fr Robert,
Thanks. I haven’t read that much of Bonhoeffer. Only parts of his “Ethics” and then “Discipleship”.
Bobby,
I was in the Bonhoeffer Society years back (England), so I am not really just negative. And “Ethics” and “Discipleship” are profound Christian statements. But we just must confess that Bonhoeffer’s Christology and his doctrine of the Trinity are certainly liberal. The latter is almost non-existent.
Fr Robert,
I definitely need to do more Bonhoeffer research; someday π . . . sounds like you have. I know Halden has as well.
The thought I had concerning the prayerbook quote is that it appears Bonhoeffer promoted the kind of “canned” prayer that I’ve always thought actually detracted from a truly thoughtful prayer life.
It’s not that I think it is wrong to offer back God’s own words to Him from Scripture–(some Psalms have served me well in this way). But, doesn’t Bonhoeffer’s view kind of presuppose that the Spirit cannot prompt an individual to ask “in Jesus’ name”? Don’t we rely on the Spirit to both move us to say what ought to be said as well as intercede on our behalf?
Maybe I’m not understanding…
Anyhoo, I was curious as to the EC perspective on how much one’s theology bears on his condition of salvation? In other words, I know you believe it is not right to speculate and play God in this area, but there are those who would say that unless his understanding of God could be considered “orthodox”, he couldn’t possibly have a saving relationship with Christ.
Generally speaking, how far afield could a person get before his liberal/other view would slide into the realm of “heresy” and require correction or consideration that the person may not actually know Christ?
For the record, as I mentioned on my blog some time back, I thought that Metaxasβ book was one of the most over-rated and poorly-reviewed books of the year. Clifford Greenβs review, βHijacking Bonhoefferβ, published in the Christian Century, 19 October 2010, pp. 34β9, hits the nail on the head. If you’re serious about wanting to read a biography on Bonhoeffer, try Dietrich Bonhoeffer 1906β1945: Martyr, Thinker, Man of Resistance by Ferdinand Schlingensiepen.
@Heather,
I don’t think Bonhoeffer would say that all you can do is pray scripture, but that what we have in the Psalms represent many of the prayers that Jesus would have made (which I think would be a normal thing for all 1st cent. Jews).
As far as his salvation. I have no doubt that Bonhoeffer was “saved,” and I’m not as familiar as I should be on his theological dogma to give a really good answer on how he articulated the Trinity/Deity of Christ etc. Although, the fact that he agreed with Barth on Fundamental points, makes me think that clearly Bonhoeffer was Trinitarian and would have no problem affirming the orthodox creeds of the Church . . . even if his writings don’t emphasize these things (although they presuppose them) given the nature (and occasions) of his writings.
@Jason,
Unfortunately I missed your review. I saw that same book recommended via the review that Halden linked to above; thanks. It’s not that I was unserious when I started reading Metaxas’ book, it’s just that I didn’t know π .
Thanks Bobby, for both answers.
I was just curious as to the EC response concerning salvation in the case of a “liberal” theologian because it seems some Christian sects/theological frameworks require intellectual assent on all levels of doctrine before accepting an individual as a believer (with a potentially skewed viewpoint).
Bobby,
You should prehaps read Bonhoeffer’s book: Christ the Centre. I really think that Bonhoeffer refused to dicuss the origin of Christ, His relation to the Father, His two natures, or even the relationship of the two natures. Bonhoeffer appeared adamant that is was impossible to know the objective truth about the real essence of Christ’s being-nature, etc. (See, Christ the Centre, pp. 30, 88, 100-101).
He really was simply neo-orthodox in theology, if not even more liberal theologically. And even note, he questioned the virgin birth..and in theological reality denied it. (See, Cost of Discipleship, p. 215)
I like the man Dietrich Bonhoeffer, but not really his christology.
@Heather,
I don’t know that EC really has a united front on all things. We are more of a loosely associated group of folks likeminded around certain core thinking — like on Election, Revelation, Salvation etc. Of course like on any continuum of thought there is room for various expressions (like for example, I tend to be more conservative and traditional than some others who might claim to be “EC”).
@Robert,
I’ll have to check this stuff out further someday. I’m kind’ve bummed that the book by Metaxas might not be the best thing out there though π .
@ Bobby: I too started on Metaxas’ book without reading a review on it (this is my preferred way of reading anyway). His style is easy going and suited for reading on a plane (which is where I read it), partly because the book weighs little (Bethge’s biography on Bonhoeffer, by comparison, weighs in at about 3kg) and partly because the writing style is undemanding on a tired traveller. And while I did make it through to the end (it was, after all, better than the in-flight magazine!), I became increasingly aware that I was reading a piece of North American evangelical propaganda.
Jason,
“A piece of North American evangelical propaganda”? I think that may be a bit of a political statement itself! I am not sure I could go that far? π
@Jason,
Interestingly, the night I posted this — and was reading this book — I was starting to have some misgivings about what Metaxas’ was communicating. One of the things that I was wondering about was the narrator’s voice embedded in the text; in other words, it seemed that Metax. was privy to Bonhoeffer’s “inner-thinking” in an omniscient kind of a way. And then as he asserted that Bon. wasn’t a pacifist, that made red flags go up; that Bon. was really a “Fundy”; etc. So yes, there were things along the way that made me go hmmm. But, as you’ve said, it is easy reading; which is probably why I found it so “easy” π . Now I’m not sure I’m going to finish it, I only have about 100pgs left; what to do (so many books, so little time).
Bobby,
As I said, my oldest son got me this book…I have yet to read a line. Perhaps I will trade it at Borders? Jason brought out a much better read and book. Though, I do like many of Bonhoeffer’s works/books! Note his doctoral work was on the Mystical Body of Christ, and worth the read! The man was a liberal in many theological places (note the German time of theology, etc.), but he was a great ethical Christian in many ways.
@Fr Robert,
Yeah, a trade — if you can — might not be a bad idea. While I know there is some compromised reading in the book; at the same time, there is also some “good” stuff within (the history and such, in general). I’ve watched the documentary that is based on this book, which was quite good (and they didn’t really emphasize some of the less “critical” points that Metaxas gets into in the book).
Oh yeah, Bohoeffer offers some great stuff; from what I know and have read from him. And certainly, his context was “liberal,” but he veered from his “doctors” (like von Harnack et al); which his appreciation of Barth only illustrates.
Bobby,
Yeah to be honest, I think I will trade it (if I can?), but not go anything Bon.
Sounds good, I wonder what the trade policy is for books? It seems like there might be a time limit or something. Otherwise you could just read the book quickly, and then return it; kind of like a Library or something π .