Cover via Amazon
CBD Academic has a blog well worth reading where there was a guest review of Eric Metaxas’ “Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy” by Bonhoeffer scholar Joe McGarry (Aberdeen University). In it, he gives credit to Metaxas for his ability to craft a book that has become a NYTimes best seller about a dead German theologian (something I am truly happy about and is a masterful feat for anyone). The issues that McGarry raises against Metaxas presentation of Bonhoeffer essentially come down to whom Metaxas has written his book for: the general public. I will give a brief summary of my own in what follows (since it was a rather lengthy critique).
The problem isn’t that he wrote it for the general public (I for one am delighted to have more people interested in Bonhoeffer), but that he presents a Bonhoeffer who does not seem to quite match the Bonhoeffer of Bonhoeffer’s own writings. Two things that I will mention in particular that McGarry notes in his review (and they are ‘small’ but not unimportant matters in the wider scheme of Bonhoeffer studies): the influences upon Bonhoeffer’s theology and the language of Bonhoeffer.
Concerning the former, Metaxas has seemed to over-emphasize the place of the Abyssinian Baptist Church of Harlem as influencing Bonhoeffer (while neglecting the possible…even likely influence of Neibuhr and Bonhoeffer’s fellow students while he was at Union). He also plays up the influence of Karl Barth on the theology of Bonhoeffer…something I’m not altogether unconvinced of and think may be an area that has perhaps been neglected in Bonhoeffer studies in the past. But McGarry in his critique is right to note that while Barth played a part in shaping Bonhoeffer, yet Luther was ALWAYS paramount to the thinking of Bonhoeffer (whether explicitly or implicitly). Bonhoeffer seemed to continuously think in Lutheran categories and was thoroughly engaged in an internal Lutheran theological dialogue. Metaxas’ book seems to miss all of this (or at least to diminish it). This is something that the general reader who has no familiarity with Bonhoeffer would simply not know, but should.
The other issue that McGarry notes is Metaxas’ use of “God” in place of “Christ” in the thinking of Bonhoeffer. While this may seem a nit-picky thing to a non-theologian…it is a major issue when one spends time with Bonhoeffer who was radically Christo-centric in all of his writings. Bonhoeffer, does not often speak generically of the relation to “God”, but always to “Christ”. For Bonhoeffer, Christ was the very center and essence of all that gives meaning to God (not as fully expressive of all that is God, but that we only encounter God through Jesus Christ our Lord). This, again, might easily escape the general reader of this otherwise wonderfully written biography (not that there aren’t other things to take some issue with, but they are all minor).
I would still say that if you haven’t yet read “Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Prophet, Martyr, Spy”…you need to…whether you have read any of Bonhoeffer’s other works or not. He simply is one of those saints of the Church that we would do well to know better…and Eric Metaxas has done the Church a favor by making Bonhoeffer accessible and interesting to a wider audience.
The bulk of you review had me fearing the wisdom of my recent purchase of this book. Thankfully, your last paragraph justifies the purchase!
Incidentally, I wonder, how much value is there (for the general public) in explaining the theological influences on Bonhoeffer? The general public just wants to know about *Bonhoeffer’s* life and thought. As a seminarian, I recognize the value in seeing who influenced a particular theologian, but it’s probably not the same for a general audience. In fact, I wonder if perhaps in that context a move in the opposite direction would be better: that is, make limited reference to other theologians’ influence–at least not much more than a reference, certainly not a discussion of the various theologians’ theologies.
I guess what I’m suggesting is that the general public will be interested in the WHO? of Bonhoeffer. They will be less interested in the WHY? of his theology, at least in relation to other theologians, which is more a specialized question for the particularly curious.
Now, I admit that I’m just playing the “devil’s advocate” a little bit to stir up some discussion and I am not convinced either way about what I’ve just said. In fact, what I’ve just said might be complete poppycock; and I may end up agreeing with you wholeheartedly once I read the book.
Just so I am fully clear about the book….I LOVE it! Its a wonderful and delightful read. Very insightful at nearly every turn and I really appreciate the more “evangelical” take on Bonhoeffer’s life (as opposed to the more liberalized take by most Bonhoeffer theologians and historians).
I think most folks would neither notice nor care about who really influenced Bonhoeffer (but perhaps they would and this is in part why Barth plays such a role in Metaxas’ book). However, as someone who has now spent a fairly significant portion of my life in reading and thinking with Bonhoeffer…I must say it is rather shocking to not find Luther and Lutheran issues taking more of a primary focus in this biography. It would be like talking about Luther without speaking clearly about his Augustinian roots, or better still…to write a biography about John Piper and only to speak of the influence of Jonathan Edwards upon him in passing. This would be tantamount to failing to grasp the profundity of the influence that shapes the overall structures and contours of the life and thinking of the very person the biography is trying to draw for us.
I simply think Metaxas failed to do full justice to the place of Luther and the Lutheran Church and may have over-played others (and I think McGarry brings this out nicely). In some ways it creates more of a caricature…rather than a truer to life portrait. But I still think this is (aside from Bethge’s much longer and dryer volume) the finest bio I’ve read on Bonhoeffer. I have several shorter ones as well, but they are so cursory as to only be VERY introductory sketches. I HIGHLY recommend this book (and have actually encouraged quite a few people personally to buy it and read it). I don’t think these weaknesses make this book a poor bio at all, but a very fine bio. I just think it doesn’t quite capture the man….but it does a mighty fine job of it nevertheless. Its a real page-turner! Hope you enjoy it as much as I have.
I’ve been eyeing this one for quite some time. I currently have Bethge’s bio on Bonhoeffer out from the library, so I’ve been spending some time in that. (By the way, Bethge’s bio is fantastic—a massive work of scholarship yet with an unsurpassable personal perspective from the man who must have been B’s closest friend. Highly recommended too!) I’m happy (if a bit surprised) that a biography on a 20th-century German theologian has sold as well as it has, and for the most part, it seems to be a well-written and fairly balanced portrayal of Bonhoeffer’s life.
I’m surprised at the omission of Luther’s influence on B, especially since Metaxas must draw some attention to B’s Lutheran heritage. Even so, I consider the seemingly innocuous switch from “Christ” to “God” more distorting. I wonder if it was made because this is a popular bio, and “God” language is more accessible (and less offensive) than “Christ” language.
Thanks for the review. You have thoroughly convinced me to read this book.
Have you looked into the other new Bonhoeffer bio that was recently published by T & T Clark (Continuum)? There’s a preview here and a review here.
Well now…Tim Challies has written a blog post about this book, which he had previously highly recommended. He cautiously accepts other B scholars’ who suggest the Metaxas’ book is way off the mark.
http://www.challies.com/articles/counterfeit-bonhoeffer
I’m further second-guessing my purchase now.
I’ve read Tim’s post and his review where he gives a new appraisal based upon Bonhoeffer scholars (at least the major ones…who it just so happens belong to the “liberal” side of the spectrum…coincidence of course given their critiques 😉 ). I would not second-guess your purchase. Read it. Enjoy it. Know that this book as every book has “perspective” and know that Metaxas has actually offered I believe something of a more positive perspective (from a more conservative theological angle) than has been the tendency in many Bonhoeffer circles (at least in the academic ones). The book is still a wonderful resource for placing the man and his work within context and that is inestimable in my opinion. You will read this book now well informed…and appreciate it all the more now. 🙂
Speaking as someone who comes to this whole discussion about the biography of Bonhoeffer in strictly layman/general public terms, it seems that the Metaxas biography may stand as a truer testament to the ‘now’ of our own time than to Bonhoeffer’s theology. This shackling of Bonhoeffer’s life is depressingly familiar to the polarised posturing of our times.
I will read it for sure…….with bifocals!
That would be a great way to read it William. B-) I actually think that many of the scholastic “readers” of Bonhoeffer actually have done the same thing to Bonhoeffer in order to co-opt him for themselves in one manner or another…instead of just letting him be who he was.
Hello,
the christian doctrine in Germany is under attack. On the one hand the EKD ordains homosexuals to pastors and on the other hand there are a lot of re-baptizing sects (Bonhoeffer and Luther teached that re-baptism is strictly prohibited). Homosexuality is damned by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 1.
The publics gaze in Germany is fixed or focused on the “agent” Bonhoeffer. However Bonhoeffers main aim was not the resistance against Hitler, but the renewal of the German Evangelical Church (former DEK, today EKD).
Everybody must admit that the Third Reich is over but the EKD still exist with her big problems thus it would be adviceable to turn gaze on the theologian Bonhoeffer who has a lot of solutions for ecclesiastical problems.
There are evil powers in Germany trying to keep the publics gaze on the “agent” Bonhoeffer and trying to prevent that Bonhoeffers theology gets well know because this would mean their sure downfall and would bring disaster upon them. They don’t want the problems of the EKD to be solved.
I have started a website concerning this issue:
http://www.confessingchurch.wordpress.com
Bonhoeffers best book: “The Cost of Discipleship”.
A good book of Luther: “The Catechism”
Kind regards,
Rainer Braendlein (Munich, Germany)
Rainer,
I believe you are correct to state that the Church in Germany is under attack and that more often than not it seems that Bonhoeffer is misrepresented. His theology was paramount and too many of the modern scholars of Bonhoeffer prefer the sociology of what they perceive was Bonhoeffer (but I believe they’ve often created a Bonhoeffer in their own image). If you have not had the chance yet, I would highly recommend reading this particular biography of Bonhoeffer’s life. Also, you might try reading the critical edition of Bonhoeffer’s “Ethics”.
Blessings.
Hello Rick,
thanks a lot for your comment.
I have read Bethges biography about Bonhoeffer.
I suppose the basic problem we have is: some people believe that Bonhoeffer had finished his discipleship in the moment when he decided to join conspiracy, because what Bonhoeffer did, fits not into there narrow schema of christianity.
My opinion: Bonhoeffers membership of resistance and death was very part of his discipleship according to Matthew 5, 10:
“Blessed … for righteousness’ sake”.
Recently I have exchanged some e-mails with a german “christian” rejecting Bonhoeffer because of his conspiracy. I tried to expain him the issue, but he didn’t get me.
May God help Germany!
Kind regards,
Rainer
Rainer,
Bethge’s biography is certainly the more thorough of the biographies of Bonhoeffer, but Metaxas’ bio offers a slightly more “evangelical” take on Bonhoeffer’s life than has been previously published.
I agree that in actuality Bonhoeffer’s resistance was simply his living out the reality of what he had written. It was not the rejection of what he had written (though I’ve encountered many who espouse this perspective). His “Ethics” makes this clearer. He believed that the Church must take action and be responsible even when this required sometimes doing that which called for some sense of guilt (such as his involvement against the state). To fail to take action in the face of perversity is wicked itself. So the question becomes one of responsibility before the Lord to His Word.
Indeed…May God help Germany! (And may He help us all to live such responsible lives before Him!)
Blessings brother!
Rick
Rick, quick question.
Of Bonhoeffer biographies, which would you recommend most? Would you recommend Metaxas’?
I have a professor that is going to teach a “Great Christian Thinkers: Bonhoeffer” class. So I thought I would ask you and see if you would suggest Metaxas’ book or another one.
(He is going to have us read a biography and Cost of Discipleship.)
I would say of the four I’m familiar with that Metaxas is the most enjoyable read covering essentials in a still significant manner. Eberhard Bethge’s (and Victoria Barnett’s) “Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography” (updated around 2000, as I recall, to be more exhaustive) is the most significant and important biography on the life of Bonhoeffer, but not as interesting a read. “Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Spoke in the Wheel” by Renate Wind is a wonderful, but overly short biography that gives one a quick glimpse at the life of Bonhoeffer. The latest bio on Bonhoeffer written by Ferdinand Schlingensiepen “Dietrich Bonhoeffer 1906-1945: Martyr, Thinker, Man of Resistance” is not as easy of a read as Metaxas (by any means), but less “evangelical” and more genuinely historical (not nearly as much commentary as Metaxas). There are, of course, other mass-market versions, but they are overly concise and will not give as helpful of an overview and insight into the life and times of Bonhoeffer. I hope this is helpful for you. Let me know if you have any other questions as well.
That is helpful. Thank you. 🙂
I do have one other question. My professor also asked me what Bonhoeffer taught that makes him less than evangelical. (This class happens to be at a Fundamentalist school. They wouldn’t let my professor make the class to be on Karl Barth, but they conceded to Bonhoeffer. Yet he is not as familiar with Bonhoeffers foibles, if we may call them that, as well as he could be.
“The Bonhoeffer Phenomenon: Portraits of a Protestant Saint” (Stephen R. Haynes; SCM Press: London, 2004) offers helpful caricatures of Bonhoeffer from the varying theological and ideological camps. One of the chapters concerns the evangelical embrace of Bonhoeffer, but also notes a number of sharp criticisms which are intended to delineate the manner in which Bonhoeffer should not be appropriated by evangelicals: his welcome of Bultmann’s “The New Testament and Mythology”, neo-orthodox links (such as that with Karl Barth), appreciation of the works of Nietzsche, valuing higher criticism and Catholicism (particularly orders of the monks), supposed situational ethics, sacramentalism, and potential universalism. However, I personally believe most of these are either non-issues (because we can and should find value in things found elsewhere) or are (in my reading of Bonhoeffer) misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the works of Bonhoeffer. While he was certainly not an “Evangelical” in our western contemporary sense of the term, he was thoroughly evangelical (in a critical sense) in my reading.
Yet again, very helpful, thank you.
I had also suspected Bonhoeffer was mostly misunderstood (your post on his view of the Resurrection was a good example); just as I found regarding Barth.
Thank you again for your thorough answer. 🙂
The God vs. Christ observation on the Metaxas biography came as a surprise to me as one of the chief impressions of Bonhoffer I came away with after reading the book was just how Christ focused he was. I picked up no suggestion of a shift in focus away from Christ onto God, If anything, just the opposite.
It is the specific language of Metaxas which fails to appreciate Bonhoeffers Christocentric orientation and falls again and again back into generic usage of God. It may not be readily apparent to most folks. I appreciate your comments. I still think it is my favorite bio on bonhoeffer for its readability.