Discipleship and Secularity
In the previous post I quoted from a paper that John Howard Yoder presented to the Bonhoeffer Society at the 1987 American Academy of Religion conference. There are two points that I want to highlight about this quote, which pertain to the key differences and perhaps points of convergence between the theology of Yoder and Bonhoeffer: discipleship and secularity.
In his paper Yoder explores the concept of “discipleship” in Anabaptism and in Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Yoder concludes that the concept of discipleship carried a variety of different meanings within the Anabaptist heritage. The term, discipleship, took on something of an identity marker for Anabaptists especially after Harold Bender listed it among the key “principles” of the Anabaptist vision. This is not to say that discipleship was not important to Anabaptists before Bender, only that the term itself took on a more self-identifying function after Bender. Yoder, I think, rightly asks if Bonhoeffer had some role in bringing this out for Bender, as a core “principle” of Anabaptist faith.
Now, Yoder concludes that “Bonhoeffer neither began nor ended with a vision of discipleship cognate with that of the Anabaptists.” He makes this assertion on the grounds that what motivated Bonhoeffer’s Christology was “more dogmatic than exegetical or historical.” According to Yoder, Bonhoeffer “was not driven either to concreteness about the pre-passion Jesus nor to any abiding challenge to the axioms of Constantinian political ethics.” And this is Yoder’s central challenge to Bonhoeffer’s conception of discipleship. Bonhoeffer, according to Yoder, paid more attention to the dogmatic significance of the Christian doctrine of the incarnation, while tending to sideline the concrete historical life of Jesus of Nazareth. For Yoder, if discipleship in some sense means a following after, then we must be given some clue as to what kind of person we are following. In Yoder’s interpretation, Bonhoeffer focuses heavily on the importance of obedience in his conception of discipleship. In Yoder’s words, “At the core, the issue put to a person by the ‘call to discipleship’ is a concern not first of all with how he will behave if he follows Jesus, but with the renunciation of self-determination and of one’s own reasoning.” The demand to renounce self-determination and one’s own devices is certainly a key feature of Bonhoeffer’s work, especially in Discipleship. Yet, Yoder points out that such demands could be made by any lord, or any moral teacher. Such a demand is not “intrinsically linked with how that particular master himself behaved, or with whether what he asks of me is the same as his own behavior.” Yoder does note that in Bonhoeffer’s discussion of discipleship he does speak of the importance of the cross. The disciple will suffer as Jesus suffered, by rejection. Yet, even here, Yoder does not think Bonhoeffer is concrete enough, as the discussion remains too much on the level of “existential self-understanding” and not enough on the behavior and concrete decision-making that leads the disciple to rejection and the cross. Other key questions remain for Yoder: will the disciple that follows Jesus by going to the cross be “a monk or a politician? An emigrant or a conspirator? Or does the meaning of bearing the cross exist on a level unrelated to such concrete decisions?” Even at the point when Bonhoeffer brings the Beatitudes into the discussion, it is still not concrete enough. The discussion of the Beatitudes focus more on disposition and tend to be stated by way of negations: the disciple is called to renounce power, honor, and violence, but there are no concrete examples in the affirmative about the way the disciple should then live.
In all of this, Bonhoeffer’s understanding of discipleship runs parallel to the “mystical” and “moralistic” strand of Anabaptism which manifests itself by the logic of renunciation and obedience without question. According to Yoder, however, the most “original” and “socially realistic” strand of Anabaptism is the position that the church must be ready to “give up her control over society.” In Yoder’s words, “This realism perceived that the model of Christian social participation is not simply the cross of Christ in some symbolic or emotional sense, but also the attitude toward political office which helped to bring him, the Jesus of the gospels, to the cross.”
Yoder’s concern is that Bonhoeffer’s Christology leaps “from the crib to the cross.” What is perhaps most interesting in all of this is that Yoder finds Bonhoeffer’s suggestions about a “religionless Christianity” in his prison letters to point in exactly the right direction. An awareness of the secularity of Christ, the immanence of God’s action in Christ, opens up Christological reflection to attend to the constitutive life history of Jesus. Yoder points out that Bonhoeffer’s leap “from the crib to the cross” is “precisely to leave out of one’s christology the substance of (“secular”) social living in occupied, rebellion-torn Palestine.” Thus, the much disputed meaning of Bonhoeffer’s letters about “the world-come-of-age,” “secularity,” and “religionless Christianity” is perhaps the most interesting point of contact between Bonhoeffer and Yoder.
I’m smelling thesis gold here…and a book…?
roger flyer
June 24, 2009 at 10:49 pm
granted the book will not sell like the da vinci code
roger flyer
June 24, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Certainly thesis gold. This unpublished article will most certainly constitute the main thrust of my last chapter.
R.O. Flyer
June 24, 2009 at 10:50 pm
This is fascinating; is Yoder’s essay published anywhere?
I’ve read enough of both men to think I know the answer, but simply for clarity’s sake: when Yoder insists on a continual lack of concreteness, is he simply meaning the content of Jesus’ life as told in the gospels? That to go from “Sermon on the Mount teaching” to “cross” is to miss the in-between? What is the rock-bottom concreteness Yoder wants?
Thank you for this wonderfully insightful analysis.
Brad E.
June 24, 2009 at 11:12 pm
coup
roger flyer
June 24, 2009 at 11:47 pm
I wonder how well this paper went over with the Bonhoeffer Society.
Granted it has been a long time since I read *The Cost of Discipleship,* but I would hardly describe its content as “demands” that could be made by any “moral teacher.” Indeed, it is precisely with this text, as opposed to his *Ethics,* that I would want to push back on Bonhoeffer’s alleged neglect of “the concrete” (a phrase which seems to be in vogue these days) or on exegesis.
I’m sure that you know Bonhoeffer way better than I do so I would be interested in hearing whether you think Yoder got Bonhoeffer right.
ken oakes
June 25, 2009 at 1:38 am
Ok, fine I’ll publish the book.
Halden
June 25, 2009 at 1:54 am
And what I think is most interesting about what you’re finding here is the way this might problematize Hauerwas’s attempt to establish a pretty easy concord between Yoder and Hauerwas in Performing the Faith.
Halden
June 25, 2009 at 1:57 am
Very interesting
Matt Stone
June 25, 2009 at 6:24 am
Ken, I am not at all confident that Yoder is right about Bonhoeffer. Hopefully, I’ll get a chance to post on why I think this is the case.
R.O. Flyer
June 25, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Brad, thanks for your comment. Christology, for Yoder, must be “Jesuology.” Who Christ is, what he is, what he does, and everything else, is not derived first of all from the creeds or the tradition, but from the New Testament’s witness to Jesus. Yoder contrasts his “Jesulogical” Christology with what he calls a “logological” Christology–a Christology that begins with the creeds and dogmas of the church but pays less attention to the particularity of Jesus and his history. A good example is the doctrine of the incarnation. For Yoder, the significance of the doctrine of the incarnation is not that God became man, but that God became that man, Jesus, and not Judas, not John the Baptist.
R.O. Flyer
June 25, 2009 at 7:51 pm
What do you think (know?) Yoder would have made of Robert Jenson’s work? He seems to keep a foot in both camp: the historical particularity of the canonical witness and narratives, alongside the dogmas and creeds of the church. Either way, thanks for the response.
Brad E.
June 25, 2009 at 8:11 pm
I am not aware of Yoder ever engaging Jenson, but I think they would share much in common. I am sure Yoder would take issue with some of Jenson’s conclusions, not least Jenson’s insistence on the close connection between the ascended body of Christ and the church.
R.O. Flyer
June 26, 2009 at 11:17 am
Neither of them has engaged one another. In the preface to The Royal Priesthood, though Michael Cartwright notes some similarities in their ecumenical style.
Ultimately I think that Yoder and Jenson have radically different ecclesiologies which derive from some key christological differences. There are, however some convergences, esp regarding the importance of the history of Israel and Jesus as definitive of God’s identity.
Halden
June 26, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Thanks for the helpful answers, guys. I think it would be fascinating to explore in depth (through a thesis or dissertation or whatever) the connections between them.
Brad E.
June 26, 2009 at 2:45 pm
I’ve thought that for a long time as well.
Halden
June 26, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Well, bitches, I’m doing it. And I’m always looking for help.
R.O. Flyer
June 26, 2009 at 3:11 pm
I agree with everything everyone has said so far.
I think R.O. and Yoder are right that Bonhoeffer comes closest to Anabaptism in Letters and Papers from Prison. In particular, the very last letters!
Here is a section from one of his last letters:
Conclusions: The church is the church only when it exists for others. To make a start, it should give away all its property to those in need. The clergy must live solely on the free-will offerings of their congregations, or possibly engage in some secular calling. The church must share in the secular problems of ordinary human life, not dominating, but helping and serving. It must tell men of every calling what it means to live in Christ, to exist for others. In particular, our own church will have to take the field against the vices of hubris, power-worship, envy and humbug, as the roots of all evil. It will have to speak of moderation, purity, trust, loyalty, constancy, patience, discipline, humility, contentment and modesty. It must not under-estimate the importance of human example (which has its origin in the humanity of Jesus and is so important in Paul’s teaching); it is not abstract argument, but example, that gives its word emphasis and power. (I hope to take up later this subject of ‘example’ and its place in the New Testament; it is something that we have almost entirely forgotten.) Further: the question of revising the creeds (the Apostles’ Creed); revision of Christian apologetics; reform of the training for the ministry and the pattern of clerical life.
——————————————————————————–
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison: The Enlarged Edition (ed. Eberhard Bethge; New York: Touchstone, 1997), 383.
I also think R. O. is right to think that Yoder is wrong about Bonhoeffer not being concrete or utilizing Jesus’ life in his theology. I argue in my paper that Life Together should be considered the mature Bonhoeffer along with Ethics and Letters and Papers. In it, confession to a fellow Christian, not talking about other people at all, and listening to one another are central. But Yoder is right that Bonhoeffer has a certain philosophical edge to his theology whereas Yoder’s theology has a slightly more exegetical edge. Still, the two are remarkably close.
Andy Rowell
June 26, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Now, certainly Bonhoeffer emphasizes the concrete and historical life of Jesus as the starting-point of Christology. And, I think that this actually becomes more clear in Ethics. But, I think Yoder might be on to something, nevertheless. Bonhoeffer does not spend much time on what that historical life of Jesus looked like. For specifically theological reasons, Bonhoeffer avoids entering into discussions about the historical life of Jesus. Yoder differs here. For Yoder, one cannot maintain the importance of the historicity of Christ for faith without entering into the fray of discussions of the Jesus of history.
R.O. Flyer
June 26, 2009 at 5:19 pm