Dietrich Bonhoeffer and a Theology of Suffering:
An Ecumenical Catechesis

by

Michael R. Wesley

St. Norbert College

De Pere, WI

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

of

Master of Theological Studies

Approved:

__________________________________

Chela Gonzalez, Ph.D., Thesis Director

__________________________________

David Casson, Ph.D., Reader

__________________________________

Michael Lukens, Ph.D., Reader

© 2009 Michael R. Wesley. All rights reserved.

The author hereby grants to St. Norbert College permission to reproduce and distribute

publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part.

Table of Contents Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………... Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… An Ecumenical Approach ……………………………………………………………. Suffering as a Gift…………………………………………………………………….. Some Christian Perspectives on Suffering………………………….………………… The Life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer ……………………………………........................... Bonhoeffer’s Christology …………………………………………………………….. A Merging with Ecclesiology ………………………………………………………... The Gift of the Cross…………………………………………………………………. Suffering for Others…………………………………………………………………... Contemporary Examples……………………………………………………………… Thesis Project…………………………………………………………………………. Class Outline…………………..……………………………………………………… Pre-Questionnaire……………………………………………………….…………….. Post-Questionnaire……………………………………………………………………. Results………………………………………………………………………………… Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………. Prayer: In Memory of Dietrich Bonhoeffer………………………………………….. Works Cited………………………………………………..………………………….

2 3 4 7 10 15 26 31 34 37 41 44 46 47 48 50 52 53 54 55

INTRODUCTION

Everyone experiences suffering at one time or another. Those who believe in an all loving, all knowing and all powerful God, however, are faced with the obvious paradox: “How can God be predicated as such and still allow suffering to exist?” Both Catholic and Protestant sources have offered solutions to this problem. However, one of the best solutions for this paradox that I have found comes from the writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

I initially discovered this while reading through Bonhoeffer’s, The Cost of Discipleship. What surprised me were texts that seemed to be talking about vicarious suffering, or suffering for others. I was surprised because, although I am familiar with the teaching of some Catholic saints concerning this, I had never heard of a Protestant speaking about it. As I continued to read more of Bonhoeffer’s writings, though, I found its presence in several of his works. I say that, however, with the understanding that it was my interpretation of Bonhoeffer that shed light on a theology of suffering for others. That might not be specifically what he had intended at all. And yet, I do believe that there is evidence to indicate that Bonhoeffer was at least leaning in that direction. This is an important consideration because if my understanding of Bonhoeffer is correct then he offers a very meaningful answer to the paradox of God and suffering.

I have prefaced my study of Bonhoeffer with an overview of suffering from secular, Protestant and Catholic perspectives. My point in doing this is to show that suffering can be used as a means of overcoming suffering. The examples that are portrayed, in fact, show that good can come from it. They are not, however, intended to reflect Bonhoeffer’s thinking at all. Another disclaimer that needs to be made is that the examples presented from Catholic and Protestant sources in this thesis are not the maxim of either Catholic or Protestant theology. They are simply ways of dealing with human suffering that I have gleaned from sources in both camps. Nonetheless, my purpose in writing this thesis is to show that Bonhoeffer did have a theology of vicarious suffering, both Catholics and Protestants would benefit from learning about it, and because of this it would best be shared in an ecumenical setting.

The intention of this thesis is not to proselytize but rather to focus on a theology of suffering from the writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and other Catholic/Protestant sources. This will, hopefully, touch on areas that are familiar to Catholics and Protestants, give hope and meaning to one’s own suffering, and provide an answer to the question of why suffering exists at all.

AN ECUMENICAL APPROACH

What occurred to me as I discovered Bonhoeffer’s theology was that there is the need for an ecumenical catechesis on human suffering in the body of Christ. I was especially enthused about this because I have long been drawn to Jesus’ prayer in John 17.20: “…that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (Revised Standard Version). The word “catechesis” comes from a Greek word meaning “to echo” (Mongoven 19). What is echoed is the word of God. It would be incorrect to think of a catechesis as being merely a class, or a course of studies, though. It is, rather, a process of recognizing and responding to Jesus’ presence in the present moment (Catholic Church, Natl. Directory of Catechesis 40).

From a Catholic perspective this is needed because, according to the United States Bishops, “The fundamental task of catechesis is…the formation of disciples of Jesus Christ” (Catholic Church, Natl. Directory for Catechesis 59). In order for this to take place, however, adults have to meet Jesus on their level. They need to discover Jesus’ presence in the events of their everyday lives (Catholic Church, Natl. Directory for Catechesis 98). This is specifically noted in the bishops’ text on inculturation. The Natl. Directory for Catechesis defines inculturation as “…a process that brings the transforming power of the Gospel to touch persons in their hearts and cultures at their deepest levels” (82). Although, strictly speaking, “Inculturation is…the insertion of the Gospel message into different cultures” (Catholic Church, Natl. Directory of Catechesis 64), this definition can be used with anyone.

Every adult will have his own stories to share, life experiences, and ideas. Some of these will be unique to the individual, and others will be more commonly shared. The one experience that they will all have in common, though, is that suffering will have touched each of their lives in some way. It is a part of who they are. A catechesis on suffering would enable Catholics to experience Jesus’ presence within this context. And since suffering is a significant part of every adult’s experience, a catechesis on suffering would need to be presented in a way that addressed this issue along a wide continuum of spiritual development (Catholic Church, Natl. Directory of Catechesis 187).

There is also the need for a catechesis on human suffering from a Protestant perspective. The reason for this is the same as for the Catholics. In order to become a disciple of Jesus Christ a Protestant will also need to encounter him in the events of everyday life. Since suffering is an event that both Protestants and Catholics will experience, it’s logical to assume that this quest can be made together. In this case, a catechesis on suffering would need to be developed that included both Catholic and Protestant traditions. The primary benefit that would come from an ecumenical approach is that it would encourage unity in the body of Christ (Jn 17.21; Catechism of the Catholic Church 813). It would do this by helping us to learn about each other (Vatican Council II, Unitatis redintegratio #9 461), through focusing on our similarities (Vatican Council II, Unitatis redintegratio #3-4 455-456), uniting together in love (Vatican Council II Unitatis redintegratio #4 456; Catechism of the Catholic Church 815), receiving spiritual nourishment (Vatican Council II, Unitatis redintegratio #4 456) and, essentially, gaining from each other’s tradition.

Another benefit of an ecumenical approach is that it provides the opportunity for a Roman Catholic catechist to focus on a Protestant theologian like Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The life that he led, his theology, and the historical context out of which both of these were formed make him a model subject for this study. These, coupled with his subsequent martyrdom, add a richness, clarity, and credibility to his thinking on suffering. Furthermore, his focus on ecumenism makes him an apt resource in which to pursue this ecumenical endeavor.

What was important for Dietrich Bonhoeffer was not so much the institutional church as it was Jesus as Church (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 199-200). Even though as a Lutheran Bonhoeffer did have problems with Catholicism, e.g. (Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison 382), he still considered her to being among the sanctorum communio, the communion of saints (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorium Communio 269). His awareness that there would always be differences among Protestants and Catholics did not skew his belief that we are, nonetheless, “…one body in Christ” (Revised Standard Version, Rom 12.5).

In addition to our unity in Christ Protestants and Catholics both believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God who has allowed suffering to tread on both sides of the Reformation. Surely this is an area that can be studied in tandem.

SUFFERING AS A GIFT

Suffering in one form or another is something that everyone goes through. Whether it’s a child moving through the birth canal of her mother, an adolescent experiencing rejection, a young man discovering the pain of unrequited love, or an elderly gentleman experiencing the first signs of Alzheimer’s disease, suffering is the uninvited guest that is an inevitable part of the human experience. The way we normally deal with suffering is that we either try to avoid it or make its presence as painless as possible.

Paradoxically, though, there are ways in which suffering can be viewed as an ally that can help us become more fully human, more fully alive and more fully the people that God has created us to be (Rom 5.3-5). It is, as Dr. Paul Brand and Philip Yancey subtitled their book on pain: “The Gift that Nobody Wants.” Dr. Paul Brand is a medical doctor who worked for a number of years with leprosy patients in third world countries. One of the effects of leprosy is that it destroys the peripheral nerve endings which prohibit signals of pain from being transmitted from an infected area to the brain (Clayman ed. 634). In other words, leprosy-infected areas of the body don’t feel pain.

The result of this is that if someone with leprosy steps on a nail and the peripheral nerve endings on their feet are not transmitting the signals of pain to the brain, they won’t have any awareness of having stepped on a nail at all. Because of this the wound won’t get treated, it will become infected and possibly result in the amputation of a limb. Living without pain is very difficult for these people. Once Dr. Brand asked a patient who had just burned his hand on a hot lamp if he hurt himself. The man replied “You know it doesn’t hurt me! I’m suffering in my mind because I can’t suffer in my body” (Brand, Yancey 125). Leprosy patients would give anything to be able to feel pain while most of us would do anything to take it away.

Ironically, even when Dr. Brand’s patients were made aware that they had a wound that needed tending to, they frequently wouldn’t take care of themselves because there wasn’t the motivator of pain (Brand, Yancey 147). What Dr. Brand discovered was that it’s pain and not common sense that causes us to cleanse our wounds, put on antiseptic, bandage it up and go to the doctor. Without pain we wouldn’t be motivated to do any of these things. Pain is the gift that motivates us to take care of ourselves.

Another way that suffering is an ally is that it can help us to develop as human beings when it is experienced as a developmental crisis. The psychologist Erik Erikson gave eight crisis stages that take place during normal psychological development and maturity (Shields, Bredfeldt 200). If we pass through a given crisis successfully we will be able to encounter the challenge waiting for us at the next level of maturity. However, the failure to successfully pass through the crisis may result in the retardation of one’s emotional growth. The effect of the emotional lag is not necessarily permanent, though, since it can be conquered at another chronological level. Nonetheless, the crisis experience will still need to be overcome before the next stage of development can begin (Shields, Bredfeldt 200).

Erikson’s first crisis stage is (Trust versus Mistrust) which takes place from birth-1.5 years. A child at this stage will either learn to trust or mistrust others through her parents. The second stage, which takes place from 1.5-3 years, is called (Autonomy-independence versus Doubt or shame). At this time children will either be rewarded or punished for attempting new skills, such as using the toilet, feeding, and dressing themselves (Shields, Bredfeldt 201). If these attempts at independence are not encouraged the child will be hesitant about learning new things. During the fourth to fifth years of a child’s life they will be encountering the crisis of (Initiative versus Guilt). These children want to accept responsibility and be successful in the activities they participate in with their friends. Positive encounters with this crisis will enable the child to be ready to face the outside world (Shields, Bredfeldt 202). Otherwise, the child will not be confident in her own ability to make a correct decision.

(Industry versus Inferiority) is the crisis awaiting the 6-11 year old. This child will either successfully find his way through the world of school, or he will feel inferior to others. The 12 to 18 year old is faced with (Identity versus Role confusion). The crisis facing the adolescent is to discover who they are within a maze of multiple alternatives and social pressures. From the early to middle part of adulthood, 20-40 years, the challenge is either for (Intimacy or Isolation.) Adults will either focus on establishing a career, getting married and settling down, or they will begin to withdraw. (Generativity versus Stagnation) is the crisis that occurs from 40-65 years of age. Erikson says that these adults will either become more other-oriented or they will become very self-centered and discouraged with life.

Erikson’s last stage is (Ego identity-Integrity versus Despair). The crisis facing the older adult from 65 years to death is to either view life as having been fulfilled or meaningless (Shields, Bredfeldt 200-206.) It is important to note, however, that healing can always take place at whatever crisis level one may be stagnated at (Linn, Linn 9). Nonetheless, if these crisis situations are avoided, as happens with much of our suffering, we will not receive the emotional good that can come from them. This is not to say that all traumatic emotional suffering is a means of acquiring mental growth. Nonetheless, emotional suffering, like physical pain, is a sign that something is wrong and needs tending to. In this sense it too is a gift.

SOME CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVES ON SUFFERING

Suffering can help us to grow spiritually as well. In St. Paul’s letter to the Romans he writes: “…we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (Revised Standard Version, Rom. 5.3-5). The same message is given in Hebrews 12.5-6, James 1.2-4, 1 Peter 1.6-7, 1 Peter 4.12-13, Proverbs 3.11-12 and many others. Suffering, apparently, can be used by God to mold humanity into the people He has created us to be. This is not to say that God causes suffering to come into our lives but that He can bring good from the suffering that does take place (Rom. 8.28).

One way that God uses suffering is to remind us that we need Him. In his book, The Problem of Pain, C. S. Lewis writes that “…pain insists on being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pain; it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world” (Lewis 93). Suffering is the most effective tool God has for getting our attention. If it wasn’t for suffering we’d think that we were invincible and ignore God altogether. John Calvin wrote that “Even the holiest believers…would feel too secure…were they not brought to a more thorough knowledge of themselves by the trial of the cross” (qtd. in Hill 20).

Suffering is also a purifying agent that cleanses us from the attachments of sin and the allurement of materialism. This is the sentiment expressed by St. John of the Cross when he writes that what is most important to God is “…true self-denial, exterior and interior, through surrender of self both to suffering for Christ and to annihilation in all things” (Collected Works 124). The reason for this is because “Until a man is purged of his attachments he will not be equipped to possess God, neither here below…nor in heaven through the beatific vision” (John of the Cross, Collected Works 78). Offering our suffering to Jesus is a way of being purged of those things that are of this world. In her Story of a Soul, St. Therese of Lisieux confirms this when she writes that “…suffering alone gives birth to souls” (174).

The positive effect that this purification has on its recipients can be seen in the saints’ joy from receiving suffering, and their desire to experience more of it. In The Interior Castle, St. Teresa of Avila writes, “The fear (the soul) used to have of trials it now sees to be tempered…Sometimes it even desires them because there also remains a strong will to do something for God” (Collected Works 2: 332). In mirroring this attitude, when Jesus told St. John of the Cross in a vision that he would give him anything he asked for he said, “Lord, give me trials to suffer for you, that I may be despised and held in no account” (God Speaks in the Night 341). His greatest desire was to suffer for God because he knew that in this way he would be drawn closer to Him. It wasn’t the suffering itself that he prized but the opportunity it gave him to surrender himself more fully to God.

The idea of suffering providing for our spiritual good can also be seen in the writings of Protestants such as John Calvin (Hill 270), Martin Luther (Hill 269), Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Cost of Discipleship 98), Jürgen Moltmann (The Crucified God 255), and others. In spite of this fact most Christians still see suffering as an enemy to be cursed rather than a gift to be embraced. Although this is a very normal and healthy attitude to have about suffering it can lead one to ignore the good that God can work through it.

For instance, in addition to the personal benefits that can come from suffering there are also those who have discovered that suffering can be used to bring good to others. On May 13, 1917 in Fatima, Portugal, three children were asked in a vision of the Blessed Mother if they were willing to “…offer sacrifices and accept all the suffering…” they received for the conversion of sinners (Barthas and Da Fonseca, 14). There names were Lucia Santos, age 10, and her two cousins, Francisco Marto, age 9, and Jacinta , age 7 (Fox and Martins 56). They responded that they would accept the task and they proceeded to do so.

Without knowing exactly what was being asked of them, though, they improvised their response. Instead of eating the lunch that had been packed for them, for instance, they gave it to children who were even poorer than they were (Barthas and Da Fonseca, 100). When they were very thirsty they would go without water (Barthas and Da Fonseca 106-107). They had also discovered that tying a coarse rope around their waists until it hurt was another way of offering sacrifices to God (Barthas and Da Fonseca 107). The greatest sacrifices, however, were those made by Jacinta and Francisco during their bout with Spanish Influenza. This began a little over a year following the apparitions (Barthas and Da Fonseca 122), and eventually resulted in their deaths. Without ever outwardly complaining they would confide to Lucia that they were suffering very much, but they wanted to offer it to Jesus for sinners.

Although in some cases the sacrifices offered by the children of Fatima were extreme by today’s standards, (Catholic Church, Penitential Practices for Today’s Catholics) the practice of offering sacrifices for others has long been a part of the Catholic tradition. In 1943, for instance, Pope Pius X11 wrote in Mystici Corporis Christi: “This is a deep mystery, and an inexhaustible subject of meditation, that the salvation of many depends on the prayers and voluntary penances which the members of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ offer for this intention” (#44). Offering penances or daily sacrifices to God is a selfless act of sacrificial love aimed at achieving the spiritual good of others.

Another example of someone offering their sufferings for others was St. Maria Faustina Kowalska. In August of 1925 she entered the Congregation of the Sisters of Our Lady of Mercy in Warsaw, Poland. Once when Sr. Faustina was suffering from a particular sickness, “probably the beginning of consumption” (Kowalska 34), she received a locution from Jesus telling her that her suffering would give sinners the grace to turn to Him (Kowalska 34). At this time she said that her suffering was double because it had been rumored in the convent that she was only pretending to be ill. Another time Jesus told her that she was going to receive great trials and persecutions, but that many people would be saved through her acceptance of them (Kowalska 375). An example of this was once when she offered her suffering for someone who was thinking of committing suicide. She said that she suffered tremendously for a week and then suddenly the suffering was gone. Her suffering ended at the exact time that this student was freed from her desire to kill herself (Kowalska 104).

In his Apostolic Letter, Salvifici Dolores, (On the Christian Meaning of Human Suffering), Pope John Paul II also sees suffering as a means of benefitting others. He begins his letter by quoting Colossians 1.24: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” (Revised Standard Version). He then goes on to show that suffering can be equated with evil because evil is the lack of something good, and that’s exactly what suffering is (John Paul II #7). A lack of health, for instance, is suffering, a lack of emotional security is suffering, a deprivation of justice is suffering, loneliness or the lack of companionship is suffering, not having enough money to live on is suffering, and so on. So, the result of evil, which is the lack of something good, is suffering.

Then the Pope writes that “Salvation means liberation from evil, and for this reason it is closely bound up with the problem of suffering” (John Paul II #14). The purpose of Jesus’ death for us on the cross was to deliver us from evil which is suffering. Although the Pope does not believe that suffering is removed from the world, per se, (John Paul II # 15) the suffering of eternal damnation is (John Paul II #16). This is accomplished through Jesus suffering for us, and his death on the cross (John Paul II #15). As a result of this, in light of Colossians 1:24, “…not only is the Redemption accomplished through suffering, but also human suffering itself has been redeemed” (John Paul II #19).

In other words, instead of suffering being a meaningless intrusion on an otherwise comfortable life, it becomes an opportunity for us to share in the sufferings of Christ for all of humanity. The result of our participation in Christ’s suffering, from an existentialist point of view, is joy: “For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too” (Revised Standard Version 1 Cor. 1.5). There is the intellectual joy that comes from the awareness that we are participating with Jesus in his redemptive action, as well as the spiritual joy that would logically be wrought by God to encourage this behavior. What the Pope is saying is that if we see our suffering as a means of spiritually benefitting others it will give meaning to our suffering and somewhat alleviate its effects.

THE LIFE OF DIETRICH BONHOEFFER

One of the problems with using Catholic sources and Marian apparitions to prove the value in suffering for others, however, is that it will not carry much weight with a Protestant audience. However, a theology of vicarious suffering that can be used by both Catholics and Protestants is one that I have found in the writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The only way that someone can truly grasp an appreciation for his theology, though, is by knowing something about the life out of which it evolved.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s biography is a monument to Luke 12.48: “Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required” (Revised Standard Version). He was born on February 4, 1906 in Breslau, Germany into a very well-educated, prestigious and wealthy family. Dietrich’s father, Karl, was a successful psychiatrist, and his mother, Paula, home-schooled their eight children (Bethge 15-17). The order of the Bonhoeffer children is as follows: Karl-Friedrich (1899-1957), Walter (1899-1918), Klaus (1901-1945), Ursula (1902-1983), Christine (1903-1965), the twins Dietrich and Sabine (Sabine died in 1999) and Susanne (1909-1991) (Bethge 18). As a boy and throughout his adult life Bonhoeffer was very good at physical sports (Kuhns 18), and playing the piano (Bethge 25).

When Dietrich was 14 years old he decided that he wanted to study theology as a career (Kuhns 22). Initially, this didn’t set very well with his family. The Bonhoeffer’s were a very aristocratic family and it was thought that pastors came from the lower to middle echelon of society (Kuhns 22). This concern over Dietrich’s decision was especially true with his father who believed that science was a more worthwhile pursuit. Years later, though, as the German Church began to adhere to the demands of the Third Reich, his father recanted all of the misgivings that he had about Dietrich’s entry into the ministry (Bethge 37). He felt that Dietrich had definitely made the right choice. As a youth, however, his brothers would tease him by saying that the Lutheran church “…was a poor, feeble, boring, petty and bourgeois institution.” He simply responded, “In that case I shall reform it” (Bethge 36).

In 1923, at the age of 17, he entered the University of Tübingen. Besides excelling in his studies he also exhibited a marked ability for analyzing people’s handwriting. People were astounded at his accuracy (Bethge 50). Years later from his prison cell at Tegel he wrote, “I was so successful at it in my student days that it became embarrassing and I gave it up (Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers From Prison 245). After completing his first year of studies at Tubingen, Bonhoeffer took an impressionable trip through North Africa and Italy. He was especially fascinated with the Catholic churches that he encountered in Rome. He began to develop an appreciation for “…the integrity and unity of Christ’s Church” (Kuhns 28).

The following year Bonhoeffer continued his studies in theology at the University of Berlin. Two semesters later he began working on his doctoral dissertation: Sanctorum Communio, (The Communion of Saints.) After eighteen months it was finished (Bethge 81), and on December 17, 1927 Bonhoeffer received his doctorate in theology. As a part of his training for the pastorate, he ministered at a small German vicarage in Barcelona, Spain. The next year he returned to Berlin and began working on his post-doctoral dissertation, Act and Being. A couple of months after Act and Being was submitted, an edited and shortened version of his first doctoral dissertation, Sanctorum Communio was published. Act and Being was published shortly after that. The primary theme in both of his first two works was “Christ existing as church-community” (Bethge 134).

In the fall of 1930 Bonhoeffer began a one year post-doctoral fellowship at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. Here he was drawn to the music and the culture of the black community in Harlem (Bethge 150). He loved listening to Negro spirituals and reading literature written by black authors (Kuhns 49). It was also during this time that he became friends with Erwin Sutz who later arranged his first meeting with Karl Barth (Bethge 153).

After returning to Germany Bonhoeffer began teaching theology at the University of Berlin. During this time he taught a course on Christology. His students’ notes from this class were later compiled by his close friend, Eberhard Bethge, and published in a book called, Christ the Center. Also during this time he taught a Confirmation class in a poverty stricken area just outside of Berlin. He personally met with each of the families and was able to see first-hand their deplorable living conditions. This further strengthened his conviction that there needed to be a bridge between what the Church claimed to believe, and those “…who could see nothing in the Church to attract them” (Kuhns 59).

During this time the liberal theology that had earlier influenced Bonhoeffer, and many other German theologians, began to be replaced with a scripturally-based orthodoxy espoused by the teachings of Karl Barth. While liberal theology emphasized spiritual and ethical experience over dogmatism, Barth focused entirely on revealed truth. Bonhoeffer was torn between these two theologies, because he could see the importance of an experience of God in the here-now, but he was also aware of the plethora of false teaching that could emerge without a strong, biblical foundation. While Barth’s conservatism would maintain an orthodox Christianity, it tended not to answer the questions that were being faced by the families he met from the Confirmation class (Kuhns 59). In essence, what Bonhoeffer strove to do was to reconcile these two theologies (Kuhns 28).

On January 30, 1933 Adolph Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor of Germany, and within a few months he had become its dictator. In his first radio address he announced: “The national government…will offer strong protection to Christianity as the basis of our collective morality” (qtd. in Helmreich 128). This apparently meant Hitler’s perception of what “he thought” Christianity should be. On April 7, 1933,the Aryan Clauses were enacted. This prohibited anyone from the Jewish faith, or anyone married to a Jew from holding public office (Kuhns 62), or pastoring a church (Helmreich 84). As a result of this many Christian churches with anti-Semitic views, such as the German Christian Faith movement, began to gain popularity. Pastors in general were being pressured into accepting the policies of the Third Reich. Even the Vatican acquiesced to its demands by signing the Reich’s Concordat (Bethge 269). This prohibited the Church from speaking out against the Reich’s policies in exchange for the right to function as a Church (Broenkotter 348).

Hitler’s use of the German Christian Faith Movement was an initial attempt to control the Church (Cochrane 74). Their combination of liberal theology, (which focused on human experience over revelation), and the belief that National Socialism would set the German people free, made the church leaders vulnerable to the ploys of the Third Reich (Cochrane 76.) They actually believed that Hitler’s intention was for their good and the good of Germany. However, the Emergency Decree of February 28 (Bethge 263) the Malicious Practices Act (Bethge 266) and the appointment of church leaders by government officials (Helmreich 140, 155) made it increasingly clear that Hitler’s intention was for total control of Germany, including the Church. In spite of all of this evidence against Hitler, though, the Lutheran tradition of accepting the state’s authority, even that of a tyrant had been ground deeply into the German culture (Kuhns 69). This is one of the reasons why church leaders found it so difficult to openly oppose the Reich government.

Theologians like Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, however, began to sense the need to clarify to the German people, and the Nazi government what the values of the Church really were. Since the foundation of their faith was the credibility of Sacred Scripture, any contrary teaching would not be tolerated by these church leaders, even if it was imposed by the state. From this thinking came the birth of the Barmen Declaration and the Confessing Church.

Essentially, the Barmen Declaration stated that the authority of the state was not more powerful than the teachings of Jesus Christ: “Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and death. We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God’s revelation” (qtd. in Cochran 239). Basically, this declaration, that Barth and Bonhoeffer had both played a part in formulating (Kuhns 63), stated that if the Third Reich continued to make demands that were inconsistent with biblical teaching, the Church could and would not comply.

In the summer of 1933 Bonhoeffer accepted a pastorate in London, England. Although his friend Karl Barth felt that he should be staying in Germany to attend to the Confessing Church’s struggle, Bonhoeffer sensed that he needed the time to do some pastoral work and to get support for the Confessing Church (Kuhns 65). While in England, though, he received an invitation to return to Germany to direct the Confessing Church’s new seminary. The need for a seminary of their own was due to the fact that several seminaries had been closed down (Bethge 410), the professors were no longer free to teach Christian doctrine (Bethge 416), and theology students were now required to prove Aryan descent before they could take their examinations (Bethge 410.)

In April 26, 1935 Dietrich Bonhoeffer became the director of a seminary for the Confessing Church that began at Zingst but was soon moved to Finkenwalde. Bonhoeffer saw this as an opportunity to build the kind of a Christian community that he had long dreamed of. The schedule that he designed for his seminarians was almost monastic, although he saw no purpose in the cloistered life (Bonhoeffer, Life Together 27). Nonetheless, he did think that every believer should spend some time alone in order to build themselves up spiritually, thereby strengthening the community as well (Bonhoeffer, Life Together 92).

The day’s schedule began with a worship service because Bonhoeffer believed that the first sound one hears in the morning should be “…the prayer and song of the community of faith” (Bonhoeffer, Life Together 51). This included the singing of hymns, scriptural reading, silence, intercessory prayer and the Lord’s Prayer (Bethge 428). He also mandated that the seminarians confess their sins to one another (Bethge 109). Bonhoeffer spoke of this time as being the happiest in his life (Kuhns111). His stay in the seminary gave birth to two books: his critique on the Church called The Cost of Discipleship, and a book about his life at Finkenwalde called Life Together.

For a while the seminary had been unhampered by the Reich government (Bethge 420), but on December 1, 1935 the seminary was outlawed by a decree from Heinrich Himmler, the head of the Secret Police (Kuhns 113). Nonetheless, Bonhoeffer continued to meet secretly with the seminarians. He stopped meeting with them altogether, though, when the Gestapo banned the seminary a second time in 1940 (Kuhns 113). Miraculously he was never arrested for this.

It became increasingly clear to the Nazi government, however, that Bonhoeffer could not be trusted. By September of 1940 he was prohibited from speaking publicly, and he was required to see the police at regular intervals (Bethge 698). He was eventually prohibited from publishing his work altogether. This was probably due to his participation in the seminary at Finkenwalde, his involvement with the Confessing Church and his refusal to sign the Reich’s “censorship rules for publications.” (Kuhns 122). Ironically, though, in November of that same year he was assigned to the Abwehr, (the German Military Counter-Intelligence Office), through the influence of his brother-in-law, Hans von Dohnanyi (Kuhns 123). Although one would hardly expect to find a political subversive to be an employee in such an organization there were several leaders in the Abwehr, such as Dohnanyi, who were against Hitler’s policies. They could see the destruction that he was bringing to Germany, and they sought for a means of ending his reign of terror.

The reason they recruited Bonhoeffer was so that he could let the outside world know what was happening in Germany through the ecumenical contacts that he had in the Church. This would enable Bonhoeffer to travel abroad and get support for the “true Protestant community” (Kuhns 123-24). Bonhoeffer was so convinced with the correctness of the Confessing Church that he once publicly declared: “He who separates himself from the Confessing church separates himself from salvation” (Bethge 494).

At some point Bonhoeffer had been asked to participate in a plot to assassinate Adolph Hitler. Although his part in the plot was extremely limited, the fact that he was aware of it at all made him an accessory deserving of death (Bethge 622). While there are some people today who might question the morality of Bonhoeffer plotting Hitler’s execution, he believed that “What is worse than doing evil is being evil” (Bonhoeffer, Ethics 67). Allowing Hitler’s atrocities to continue would have been a greater evil for Bonhoeffer than stopping it at its source. In addition to his work with the Abwehr, Bonhoeffer also become engaged to Maria Von Wedemeyer (Kuhns 126) and he started to write a book on ethics, which he never was able to finish. Fortunately, his friend Eberhard Bethge later compiled his notes and had them published in a book known simply as Ethics.

On April 5, 1943 Dietrich Bonhoeffer was arrested (Bethge 785). An investigation that began in Prague turned up the names of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Hans Von Dohnanyi. It was suspected that they had played a part in “Operation 7” which was a successful plan to transport several Jews out of Germany (Bethge 782). This further added to the Gestapo’s suspicion of Bonhoeffer. They had already been wondering why a theologian was employed by the Abwehr.

In April of 1933 Bonhoeffer had expressed 3 responsible courses of action for the Church to take in response to the Third Reich. The first of these was simply to question the state about the morality of its actions. It needed to be pointed out to the Third Reich that their actions were not consistent with the role of a state. The second course of action was to help those people who were being affected by the state’s actions (Bethge 274-75). This could be done by feeding them, taking them to a safe location, getting them medical care, etc. “The third possibility” as is stated in the book, No Rusty Swords, “is not just to bandage the victims under the wheel, but to put a spoke in the wheel itself” (Bonhoeffer 221). It was this final alternative that Bonhoeffer chose when he agreed to be a part of the Abwehr plot. It was not for this reason that he was arrested, however, since the event had not yet taken place.

While in prison Bonhoeffer immediately became aware of his prison-mates’ need to be ministered to, especially those who were condemned to death (Bethge 849). His positive, soft spoken demeanor and the affect that he had on those he ministered to was so impressive that even the guards liked him (Bethge 848). They helped him to smuggle letters and poems out of prison (Kuhns 178) and a couple of guards had hatched a plot to help him escape. He declined their offer, though, fearing the repercussions that his family would have to face (Bethge 828).

Nonetheless, his untiring faith in God and the hopeful attitude that sprang from his soul were noticed by everyone he came in contact with. In one letter to his parents he wrote, “…I wish I could be doing useful service somewhere or other, but at present that ‘somewhere’ must be in the prison cell, and what I can do here makes its contribution in the unseen world, a sphere where the word ‘do’ is quite unsuitable (Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison 109). Bonhoeffer knew that God would work with him no matter what situation he was in (Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison 289) and because of this he was able to find joy wherever he went (Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison 378). In a letter to Eberhard Bethge he wrote, “People here keep on telling me…that I’m radiating so much peace around me, and that I’m always so cheerful…” (Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison 279).

Although Bonhoeffer had hoped that he would one day be released, the following event sealed his fate in the opposite direction. On July 20, 1944 Count Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg placed a briefcase with a bomb and a timing mechanism in it beneath the table near where Hitler was seated. Stauffenberg left the room and the bomb exploded, but Hitler had serendipitously escaped death (Kuhns 186). Following several months of investigations it was discovered that the original plot was planned by members of the Abwehr that Bonhoeffer had been a part of. Beginning with Stauffenberg, Hitler ordered that anyone who was discovered to have been a part of that plot was to be executed.

While in prison Bonhoeffer began thinking extensively about the meaning of Christianity, or “…who Christ really is for us today” (Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison 279)? What he came up with was the need for a “religion-less Christianity” (Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison 279). In this έκ-κληíα the Church would still be Jesus’ presence in the world. There would still be preaching, worship and the ministry of the sacraments (Bethge 882). The difference would be in the Church’s self-identity. Her focus would no longer be on her existence as an isolated institution, but as an integral part of the world.

The reason that Bonhoeffer saw this as an important transformation for the Church to take was because he believed that the world had “come of age” in that it no longer needed a supreme being to solve all of its problems (Bethge 876). The result of this was an increased “secularization” or “worldliness” that Christianity was going to have to become a part of (Bethge 869). Bonhoeffer could see that the reason for the world’s increased secularization was that the Church had become so focused on itself that it was not answering the needs of modern humanity. Concerning this new Christian world view that Bonhoeffer knew the Church was going to have to take he wrote, “…we shouldn’t run man down in his worldliness, but confront him with God at his strongest point, that we should give up all our clerical tricks, and not regard psychotherapy and existentialist philosophy as God’s prisoners” (Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison 346). Rather than merely preaching the Gospel to the world Bonhoeffer believed that the Church needed to start living the Gospel in the world.

For Bonhoeffer “The church is the church only when it exists for others” (Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison 382). Recognizing the Church’s failure to meet humanity’s needs, coupled with his disillusionment with the weakening of the Confessing Church (Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison 328) and the laxity that he had previously seen in his own denomination (Cost of Discipleship 57) Bonhoeffer could only see hope in a complete restructuring of the Protestant Church.

After a year and a half of prison life Dietrich Bonhoeffer was transferred from Tegel to the prison at Buchenwald, then to Flossenberg. By this time it was well known that he had been an accessory in the attempt on Hitler’s life. On April 8, 1945 Bonhoeffer had just finished holding a church service with some of his prison companions when two civilians ordered him to come with them. Everyone knew what this meant; he was going to be executed. Bonhoeffer said goodbye to his fellow prisoners took a friend aside and said, “This is the end-for me the beginning of life” (Bethge 927.) The next day he was hung on the gallows at Flossenburg. He was 39 years old.

BONHOEFFER’S CHRISTOLOGY

The foundation of Bonhoeffer’s theology of suffering can be seen in his doctoral dissertation Sanctorum Communio. He begins this work with a survey of Western philosophy’s concept of what it is to be a person. For Aristiotle, for instance, the individual is a social being, (or a political animal), who achieves his highest perfection in being consumed by the State since the State is the highest form of collectivity. To speak of this in ethical terms would be to say, that which is good for each human being is that which is primarily good for the State (Copleston 1: 332). The universal or the essential humanity is, therefore, far more important than the individuals who make it up.

For the Stoic, virtue is the adherence to reason that is in all of humanity. The individual exists but only as a part of the intellect that everyone possesses: “Hence the famous Stoic maxim, ‘Live according to nature’” (Copleston 1: 395). The Epicureans, on the other hand, believed strongly in the individual. The way that one could arrive at truth is through the senses (Copleston 1: 403) and the responsible coupling of pleasure with the avoidance of pain (Copleston 1: 408). The only importance that “others” played in the Epicurean philosophy was as a means of providing either pain or pleasure to the individual. For Epicurus the group is subordinate to the individual.

Reneé Descartes turned his search for truth into the epistemological statement: “ego cogito, ergo sum,” “I think, therefore, I am.” Here too the focus was placed primarily on the individual. After all, given Descartes’ premise, the only existence that I am really confident of is myself (Copleston 4: 103). For Kant our knowledge is based on what we perceive with our senses combined with apriori categories of knowledge (Copleston 6: 250). It is through this synthesis of knowledge that I know that I exist and that others exist as well. For Kant what is most important is the individual. Hegel’s idealism, on the other hand, postulated that the individual is ultimately subsumed within the universal spirit (Copleston 7: 171).

Bonhoeffer’s purpose in presenting each of these philosophies was to show how they fall short in their anthropology because they focus either on the individual, or on the community at the expense of the other. The reason this is a problem for Bonhoeffer is because an individual, (what he calls the “I”) can only exist in relation to an “other,” (what he calls the “You”) (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 51). If the essence of an individual is subsumed within a universal spirit, as with idealism, then the individual is seen as being less important than the universal, and vise-versa with those philosophies that are focused more on the individual.

A further problem with these philosophies is that they treat the individual and the community as two separate entities. For Bonhoeffer they are not two separate entities at all but rather two parts of the same thing. That is, that one does not exist without the other (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 50). It is important to remember that even though he sees the individual and the community as being one, with Bonhoeffer the individual is not consumed by the community at all (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 55).

Here’s how this works. First of all we have already established that the individual, or the “I,” needs an “other” or the “You” in order to exist. In other words, every individual needs to be a part of a community in order to be authenticated as a person. The mere awareness of someone else’s existence, however, does not automatically qualify them to be a “You” for the “I.” The only way that someone can become a “You” for the “I,” is by the “I” taking personal, ethical responsibility for the “You” (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 50). In other words, I cannot become a person myself until I take ethical responsibility for someone else. It is in this way that the “I” and the “You” are inseparable (Sanctorum Communio 51). Bonhoeffer defines the “You” “…as the other who places me before an ethical decision” (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 52). If no one ever put me in that situation I could never become an authentic person. But once I do take ethical responsibility for someone else then the “You” becomes “another I” because it is only through an interaction with the “You” that the “I” can exist at all.

At this point one may begin asking the question, “But what does Bonhoeffer mean by taking ethical responsibility?” This is a very good question because one of Bonhoeffer’s weak points in Sanctorum Communio is his hesitancy about giving concrete illustrations. Nonetheless, while he does not provide any examples of what it is to take ethical responsibility, he does tell us that it is only through the clashing of wills that the acceptance of ethical responsibility can take place (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 72). In other words, it is this conflict or interaction of wills that makes the “other” a “You” with whom I can become a person. In looking at this idea of a conflict, though, it need not necessarily be an altercation between the “I” and the “You,” per se. It could be that the “I” and the “You” are united in conflict. They could, for instance, both be against abortion. Whatever the case may be, there is a passion (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 49) that draws the two wills together. It is at this time that the “other” becomes a “You” that enables me to become a person. It is at this point that we begin to become a community and the individual becomes that person that God has created him to be.

Bonhoeffer has a little bit of a problem with this, however, because it seems to leave out the need for God. The idea of “…one human being the creator of the ethical person of the other,” according to Bonhoeffer, “…is an intolerable thought” (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 54). He doesn’t believe that it should be in the power of any human being to authenticate an individual as a person. In light of this then, Bonhoeffer makes the claim that “The other can be experienced by the “I” only as “You,” but never directly as I…” (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 51). I can only experience someone as being separate from me, but never a part of me. Even though I may have accepted ethical responsibility for them and our wills have become confrontationally intertwined, their “You” is still not sufficient to enliven my “I” because of a barrier that exists between us (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 49). This barrier that only God can bring us through is sin (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 107).

This isn’t too much of a problem for Bonhoeffer, though, because every human being has been made in the image and likeness of God through the Holy Spirit. In this sense then, the “other” can be experienced not only as the “You,” but also as the divine “You” (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 55). It would seem like an encounter with the divine “You” would be sufficient to enable me to cross over that barrier that is preventing me from experiencing the “You” as “another I.” A problem, though, is that not every “You” is a divine “You” even though they may have been created in the image and likeness of God (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 55). The reason for this is because it is only in my relationship with God that I can experience the divine “You” of someone else. And since I can only know God in terms of His revelation of Himself, which is love, it is only through God’s love that I can know the divine “You” as “another I,” and become the person that God has created me to be.

This experience of becoming a person by ethically relating with someone, with God’s help, isn’t something that happens only once, however. It can, in fact, take place with practically every person we meet. Therefore, the Christian is never a static person but “…exists in ever renewed coming-into-being” (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 57). In other words, a Christian person is constantly in the process of becoming.

Another way of saying this is that “…since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” (Revised Standard Version Rom. 3.23), humanity can be seen as being a collective person. Our sinful nature is something that we all have in common. It is a collective person that is in fragments, however, because of its separation from God (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 121). One of the consequences of being separated from God is that it prohibits us from truly caring about each other (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 108). And if I don’t truly care about someone then I can not experience them as “another I.” It is only in caring for and loving others that I can become an authentic person. By myself, however, this is impossible because of my fallen nature.

Jesus, however, has vicariously paid the price for our sins through his death on the cross, has thereby eliminated sin (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 155), and reconciled us with God. And it is in Jesus’ willful, vicarious action that the Church is formed (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 137). This means a lot more than the Church being a mere offshoot of the life of Christ. Jesus is the Church. He “…did not merely make the church possible, but rather realized it for eternity” (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 157). Jesus’ presence in the Church is what enables me to experience the “You” as the “other I” permitting me to be an authentic person. This awakening of “personhood” is also mentioned by Bonhoeffer in Act and Being. In using Martin Heidegger’s term for authentic being, “Dasein,” he writes, “Being in Christ…sets Dasein free” (Bonhoeffer, Act and Being 153). The Church is the collective person of Jesus Christ (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 121), and as such it is a community of love (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 243). And it is in this community of love that the individual becomes.

A MERGING WITH ECCLESIOLOGY

In this way Jesus brings the community of the Church into existence in that it and each of its individual members are a part of Christ’s body. Jesus is the Church and his presence is in the Church as well (Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center 43). In this way he is also its designer and its builder (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 139). He cares for his body. Even though Jesus cannot be directly identified with being the Church since he has ascended into heaven (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship 271), “The church is the presence of Christ in the same way that Christ is the presence of God” (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 140-41). Jesus also participates in the Church’s existence through the Holy Spirit (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 139). It is the Holy Spirit that brings Jesus’ presence to life in the members of his body. And it is through the Holy Spirit that Jesus continues his mission in the world today.

One of the benefits of being in the Church community is that, since Jesus is the community as the corporate individual, he is also very much for me, or in Bonhoeffer’s words, pro me (Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center 47). He is pro me in the sense that he stands vicariously for me before God. When I was meant to suffer and die Jesus suffered and died in my place. Furthermore, it is through Jesus that I can assume my role as the new humanity; (2 Cor. 5.17) through imitation of his life, following his teachings and receiving his grace. Jesus is at the center of who I am and who I am meant to be (Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center 60). He is the one through whom I can begin my journey towards what I was meant to be prior to the fall (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 63).

All of this can take place because Jesus is not only in the Church but he is the Church (Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center 47), and he continues to function through its various ministries. First of all, Jesus is present as the Word of God. He is the Father’s perfect revelation of Himself to humanity. It is in the Word of God that we discover the truth of who God is, and what He expects us to do as the communion of saints (Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center 50). And yet, this Word of God is much more than God revealing Himself to humanity as a set of axiomatic principles. It is God inviting His Church to respond to His Word. It is an invitation that “…requires response and responsibility” (Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center 50). The Logos, then, enters into human speech and is proclaimed to the Church through preaching. In this way the Logos enters into the experience of every believer in the congregation because “Christ as Word…is truth spoken into the concrete moment” (Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center 50).

Jesus is also present in the Church through the sacraments of baptism and Eucharist. Bonhoeffer tells us that we know Jesus is present in these sacraments because the Word (Scripture) tells us that they were specifically instituted by him. In other words, it is by God’s Word that “The elements of water, bread and wine…become sacraments” (Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center 53). What Bonhoeffer is saying is that Jesus’ presence in the Word of God is transmitted to the elements of bread, wine and water by virtue of their presence in God’s Word. Whereas Scripture and preaching reveal Jesus’ presence through human language, the sacraments make Jesus known through our corporal nature (Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center 57). For Bonhoeffer, specifically looking at the sacrament of Eucharist, Jesus is truly in the elements, but the elements do not become Jesus (Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center 56) as is believed in Catholic theology. Nonetheless, Bonhoeffer does believe that Jesus is present in the Church sacramentally.

Still another way that Jesus is present is as Church. According to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “Between his ascension and his coming again the Church is his form and indeed his only form” (Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center 58). In this sense the Church is “…not only the receiver of the Word of revelation, but is itself revelation (Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center 58). The Church is Jesus’ presence in the world today. He “…is not only the head of the Church, but also the Church itself” (Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center 59). In The Cost of Discipleship Bonhoeffer wrote that “We should think of the Church not as an institution, but as a person…” (269). That is, the person of Jesus Christ.

In addition to standing pro me Jesus also stands pro nobis; that is, he stands for us (Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center 110). Jesus stands for us in that he stands for all of humanity. He stands for the human condition. Bonhoeffer explains that if all Jesus did was perform miracles he would not be for us (Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center 111). He would be a magician or perhaps even God, but he would not be someone whom we could identify with. Jesus stands pro nobis in that he was humiliated, suffered, rejected by others and died. He experienced all of the temptations and trials that we will ever face (Heb. 4.15) and he victoriously overcame every one of them. Jesus is pro nobis in that he invites us to share in the victory that he has already won for us.

THE GIFT OF THE CROSS

The only means we have of experiencing Jesus’ victory, however, is through the cross (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship 341). There are several reasons for this. First of all, St. Paul’s exhortation to “put on the new nature” (Revised Standard Version Col. 3.10) requires a lot more than exchanging one mask for another. It means that we must begin dying to self. Hence, the first crucifixion that every Christian must embrace “…is the call to abandon the attachments of this world” (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship 99). The response to be a Christian is a decision to abandon a comfortable acceptance of the culture and to embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ (Rom. 12.2).

This is only the start however, because a Christian’s whole life is about embracing the cross. In the same way that Jesus stands for me and for us, the call of the Christian believer is to stand “for Jesus.” The greatest act of union that Jesus could have given to us was his crucifixion (Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center 48). It was in this way that he joined with our humanity in love. Our reciprocation of this gift is by joining with him in love on the cross (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship 96). It may be for this very reason that Bonhoeffer wrote, “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die” (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship 99). For the disciple the cross is not something to be feared and abhorred, but rather “…the fruit of an exclusive allegiance to Jesus Christ” (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship 98). This must not be understood, however, as a masochistic asceticism. Dietrich Bonhoeffer loved life (Kuhns 134), and he believed that blessings are a part of life that should not be ignored (Kuhns 219). From his prison cell at Tegel he wrote to his friend, Eberhard Bethge, “…if it pleases (Him) to allow us to enjoy some overwhelming earthly happiness, we mustn’t try to be more pious than God himself…” (Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison 168).

And yet, Bonhoeffer was convinced that obediently accepting our suffering is a Christian necessity (Bonhoeffer Cost of Discipleship 98) because it is then that we are forced to trust in God “…even when this seems against all sense” (Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center 110). The fruit of our faith, and one of the remarkable blessings that comes from suffering is that “By willing endurance we cause suffering to pass” (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship 158). The reason that suffering can alleviate suffering is because “Suffering willingly endured…spells death to evil” (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship 159). Since suffering is the lack of something good, which is also the definition of evil; the transference of suffering into something good subdues its effects.

This does not mean, however, that the sufferer’s pain will be eliminated, but rather that the hopelessness of bearing a meaningless burden will no longer exist. For Bonhoeffer the way to deal with the problem of suffering is by focusing not on the event itself, but on the person of Jesus Christ. In this sense, it is not so much a denial of suffering that takes place as it is a discovery of its value. Since Jesus’ suffering for us has value his “invitation” to share with him in his suffering (Rom. 8.17; Col. 1.24) gives our suffering value too.

One of the signs that Bonhoeffer gives us that our focus is on Jesus, in fact, is that we will cease “…to notice the pain of our own cross (because) we are indeed looking only unto him” (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship 97). The pain caused by the cross/suffering is still very much present and is acknowledged by its recipient, but it is a suffering that has meaning attached to it. I would compare it to an athlete who will endure all kinds of self-inflicted suffering because it has meaning for him. Although most of our suffering is not self-inflicted as it would be for an athlete, the element of meaning is still attached to it when it can be seen as an offering to Jesus, uniting our suffering with his. In light of this Bonhoeffer reminds us that “Discipleship means adherence to the person of Jesus…which is the law of the cross” (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship 96).

Jesus Christ is the perfect example of someone who embraced the cross. The primary reason he had to unite himself with us in our suffering was because of humanity’s disobedience to God (Gen 1.16-19). Jesus conquered the effects of suffering, though, by voluntarily accepting it in obedience to the Father (Lk.11.42; Jn. 4.34). He invites us to conquer the consequence of sin, (suffering and death), as well by uniting our suffering with his. The result of this is joy, not because we have eliminated our suffering per se, but because of the presence of Jesus (1 Pet 4.13). In fact, according to Bonhoeffer, bearing “…the cross proves to be the only way of triumphing over suffering” (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship 101).

SUFFERING FOR OTHERS

Dietrich Bonhoeffer then takes the idea of living with suffering a step further. In addition to uniting our suffering with Jesus’ to share in his presence as Church, we also share in his suffering for the body that makes up his Church (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship 266). In looking back at Bonhoeffer’s theology of person it is at this point where the “I,” the “You,” and the “divine “You” come together in love. It is at this point where the individual becomes a person (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 54-57), and the community becomes the “collective person” (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 77) of Jesus Christ (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship 269) because the “I” has chosen to accept ethical responsibility (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 52), or the cross, (Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio 243) for the “other.”

The result of uniting our suffering with Jesus’ is beneficial for the entire Church. First of all, rather than being concerned with their own suffering disciples will be more concerned with “…the goal of their (labours), which is the salvation of the Church” (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship 246). Secondly, if a Christian’s focus is on Jesus and the benefit of the community then the effect of suffering will be pacified by a certain existential joy. It is a joy that comes as the result of experiencing myself as the “person” that God has created me to be. That is, united with the community as the collective person of Jesus Christ, and yet as myself as well.

This experience of the authenticated person is similar to what Job experienced following God’s reprimand in chapters 39-41. His response to God was “I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees thee; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (Revised Standard Version Job 42.5-6). It was Job’s experience of God’s presence, (probably a combination of awe and joy), that caused him to repent of his accusations. In the same way, for Bonhoeffer it is the experience of Jesus’ presence that gives joy to the Christian believer. As Job discovered, the only answer that can adequately be given for suffering is God’s presence. What Bonhoeffer seems to be doing in his theology is confirming this discovery.

In the Cost of Discipleship Bonhoeffer tells us that “The cross is the only power in the world which proves that suffering love can avenge and vanquish evil” (161). In this sense we’re looking at evil and suffering as being the same thing. In light of Bonhoeffer’s statement, then, the question that naturally arises is how does all of this happen? How can suffering be the only power that abolishes suffering? Bonhoeffer’s principle answer is if our eyes are focused on Jesus and on the Church then we’re not going to notice the suffering in our own lives; at least not as much. There is, however, according to Bonhoeffer, a purpose for suffering that transforms the unwelcomed adversary into an experience of love. This is through recognizing our suffering as a means of decreasing, if not eliminating the suffering of others (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship 273-74).

While Bonhoeffer believes that Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross is the only sufficient means for our redemption, he is equally convinced that “…the Christian also has to…bear the sins of others…” (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship 100). Part of our sharing in Jesus’ presence in the sanctorum communio is to participate with him in suffering for others. The purpose of Jesus’ suffering was to take the sins of the world onto himself (2 Cor. 5.21). As a result of this we have been reconciled with God (2 Cor. 5.18). Since the fruit of sin is suffering (Gen.3.16-19) and death (Rom 6.23) the fruit of reconciliation with God should also be the alleviation of suffering and death. While Romans 6.23b does inform us that “…the free gift of God is eternal life…,” it says nothing about the removal of suffering. Bonhoeffer responds to this by saying that “…the man who suffers in the power of the body of Christ suffers in a representative capacity “for” the Church, the Body of Christ, being privileged to endure himself what others are spared” (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship 273-74); and “Such suffering is joy indeed (Col. 1.24; Phil. 2.17)” (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship 274). Jesus has allowed suffering to remain on the earth so that we can receive new life and abundant joy through uniting our suffering with his, (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship 273) and removing the suffering of others.

How come, then, since Jesus’ suffering won victory over evil, do we have to experience suffering at all? The reason is because even though Jesus has conquered evil through his suffering, death and resurrection “He has, in his grace, left a residue (ὑστερήματα) of suffering for his Church to fulfill in the interval before his Second Coming” (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship 273). The Scriptural text that Bonhoeffer uses to support this belief is the same that was used by Pope John Paul 11 in Salvifici Doloris: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is the church…” (Revised Standard Version Colossians 1:24). According to Bonhoeffer’s interpretation of this text Jesus is inviting the Church to participate with him in reconciling the world with God by sharing in his suffering (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship 273). A fruit of this reconciliation is the alleviation of our suffering. If Bonhoeffer’s interpretation of this text is correct then the theology of suffering for others that I find in his teaching is a logical possibility.

The problem, however, is that this isn’t the only interpretation that can be given. Calvin, for instance, believed that the call of Col. 1.24 is to persevere through suffering in imitation of Jesus so that we will be conformed into his image (Hill 282). William Barclay believed that the suffering that is fulfilled by the Church is the act of proclaiming the Gospel and the difficulties that can arise thereof (Barclay 109). Fr. Raymond Brown interprets this as the Christian giving their life up for the Church in the same way that Jesus did; that is, by living for the Church even to the point of death (Brown 54). The question this raises is if Bonhoeffer’s interpretation of Colossians 1:24 is not accepted then is the theology of suffering for others still a credible possibility?

My answer is that an alternative interpretation of Colossians 1:24 would not provide the Scriptural support that a theology of vicarious suffering hangs on. The whole idea of suffering for others is that we “…complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions…” (Revised Standard Version Col. 1.24). It is the Scriptural clincher for this theology. Nonetheless, the interpretation that is used by Dietrich Bonhoeffer is also that used by Pope John Paul 11 (Salvifici Doloris #29), and the Catholic Church in general (Catholic Church, United States Catholic Catechism for Adults 252). In other words, it is in good company that Bonhoeffer’s interpretation is aligned.

Although this task of enduring suffering for others is offered to the entire body of Christ it is not everyone who will accept it. This is what Bonhoeffer meant when he said “Blessed is he whom God deems worthy to suffer for the body of Christ” (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship 274). It’s not so much that God calls only a few to this exalted state as that there are only a few who actually accept it (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship 243). In Sanctorum Communio Bonhoeffer wrote that “…it is Christ’s gift that one member is able to bear the other and to be borne by the other” (243). If my interpretation of Bonhoeffer’s writing is correct then the gift of suffering for others is something that God has given to the entire body. The evidence for this is in the fact that to varying degrees everyone suffers, and everyone can offer what they suffer to Jesus for the good of others.

CONTEMPORARY EXAMPLES

One of the reasons why people might be hesitant about accepting Bonhoeffer’s theology of suffering for others is because of a fear that it doesn’t really work. This is a legitimate concern. Is it a quixotic theory that Bonhoeffer has masterfully tooled, or is it a gift that everyone can use? The first place to look for this answer is in the experience of everyday life. Are there people who have put Bonhoeffer’s theology to practice and have reaped the promised fruit? I have written below the testimonies of four people who have experienced the fruit of suffering for others as affirmative examples.

The first person I’d like to examine is Dietrich Bonhoeffer himself. Did he practice what he preached? In his book, Letters and Papers from Prison it can clearly be seen that Dietrich Bonhoeffer was no hypocrite. Although most of this has already been written about in the biography section I’ll recapitulate a couple of examples. First of all, the peace that enveloped him in prison could only have been possible if his focus was on something besides his situation. His focus was on Jesus. He knew that God was going to bring some good from his imprisonment. And even though he knew not what God was going to do, or for whom, the knowledge that God was working through him (Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison 114) was enough to fill his heart with a sense of God’s peace. “In the light of the great purpose,” he wrote, “all our privations and disappointments are trivial” (Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison 289). The great purpose to which he was speaking about was God fulfilling His will through his suffering.

And yet, despite the uncomfortable living conditions, the deplorable prison environment (Bethge 828) and his separation from family and friends (Bethge 831), Bonhoeffer was at peace (Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison 378). To his friend Eberhard Bethge he wrote, “You must never doubt that I’m traveling with gratitude and cheerfulness along the road where I’m being led” (Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison 393). He was at peace knowing that God would use his suffering for some good. He could not have embraced his cross in this manner without practicing what he preached. The life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer is a definite sign that something was motivating him on, bringing him peace and allowing him to be freer than those who had imprisoned him. It’s logical to assume that it was the fruit of his theology that gave lift to his spirit.

Another person who practiced suffering for others was C.S. Lewis. Thinking that his fiancé, Joy Gresham, was going to die soon from cancer they decided to get married in her hospital room. Returning home with C.S. Lewis (or Jack as he was fondly called), it was expected that she would shortly die. To their surprise they lived together as husband and wife for another three years. What happened was that soon after they returned home from the hospital Jack started praying that he could take Joy’s suffering onto himself. He later said to a friend, “The intriguing thing was that while I (for no discernible reason) was losing the calcium from my bones, Joy, who needed it much more, was gaining it in hers…” (qtd. in Sayer 369). Jack’s prayer was answered and while his pain began to increase, Joy was getting better. Although neither of them was ever totally free of pain this “…was the happiest period of their lives” (Sayer 369).

C.S. Lewis’ experience of suffering for others was a little different than the kind of vicarious suffering that Bonhoeffer was advocating. Whereas Bonhoeffer was offering the suffering that he had for the Church, Lewis was asking God to transfer his wife’s suffering to him. The fruit, however, was the same; healing and common joy. The basic idea is the same too: “God grants one man the grace to bear special suffering in place of another, and this suffering…is joy indeed” (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship 274).

Although in each of the aforementioned situations the one offering the sacrifice still maintained their illness, I do believe that God can use the suffering we offer Him for our own healing as well. One entry in St. Faustina’s diary reads: “Once when I was being crushed by these dreadful sufferings, I went into the chapel and said from the bottom of my soul, ‘Do with me what You will with me, O Jesus; I will adore You in everything. May Your will be done in me, O my Lord and my God, and I will praise Your infinite mercy.’ Through this act of submission, these terrible torments left me” (Kowalska 104). She simply offered her suffering to God and it left her.

I had a similar experience myself. For about a year and a half I had quite severe pains in my lower back, my left hip and my left leg. Although the use of a statin drug was eventually discovered to have been the culprit, at the time I was diagnosed as having a pinched nerve. Sometimes I could barely walk due to the pain.

One night when I was walking in the parking lot of a mall the pain suddenly became so unbearable that I didn’t think I was going to be able to make it back to the car. And then I remembered about Dietrich Bonhoeffer and offering our sufferings for others. So, I offered the pain for an elderly gentleman I knew who really was suffering from a pinched nerve, and wasn’t able to walk at all. The very second I offered my pain for him it was taken from me. Within a couple of days, however, the pain did return. This didn’t bother me, though, because I didn’t think that God was trying to give me a prescription for my own pain as much as He was encouraging my offering. It can be argued, of course, that the timing of my relief was merely coincidental, and that may be true. Nonetheless, it was proof to me, as was St. Faustina’s experience for her, that God may even bring healing to us when we offer our suffering for others.

THESIS PROJECT

These are only a few examples of people who have offered their sufferings for others, but it does lend credibility to the benefit of this practice. Another way to investigate this theory is to present it to modern day people, ask them to practice using it and tabulate the results. Since the time constraints on my thesis did not permit me to do a longitudinal study, though, I evaluated the effect that a presentation on the positive attributes of suffering would have on participants. In order to do this I held a one session, two hour class on Dietrich Bonhoeffer and a theology of suffering for others.

My hypothesis was that if participants were introduced to a theology of suffering that attached meaning to it, especially from the perspective of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, that it would have a positive effect on the participants’ attitude on suffering. I further hypothesized that an improved attitude about suffering would increase the participants’ ability to cope with their own suffering as well. Unfortunately, time constraints prohibited me from testing this secondary hypothesis.

At the beginning of the class I gave each of the participants a Yes-No questionnaire. What I wanted to find out was the participants’ present attitude about suffering. Did they see it as an enemy to be avoided at all costs or did they recognize its potential for being an ally? Towards the end of the class I gave the participants a post-questionnaire. There were 26 questions in each questionnaire with 13 statements indicating a positive response to suffering and 13 statements indicating a negative response. Both of these questionnaires and the percentage of each response follow the class outline. The answers that I believed to be positive responses to suffering are in bold type. For interest’s sake I included the percentage of responses for each question.

CLASS OUTLINE

1) Welcoming, opening prayer, and basic introductions.

a. Pre-Questionnaire: This is given to the participants as they enter the classroom

b. An overview of suffering.

c. An ecumenical approach to suffering.

11) Various perspectives of human suffering

a. Physical suffering

b. Erik Erikson’s 8 stages of crisis development

c. Suffering from a Scriptural perspective

111) Suffering as a means of spiritual growth

A. C.S. Lewis

B. John Calvin

C. St. John of the Cross

D. St. Therese of Lisieux

E. Martin Luther

F. Dietrich Bonhoeffer

G. Jürgen Moltmann

H. Joni Erikson Tada

I. Corrie Ten Boom

1V. A theology of suffering for others

A. The Fatima children

B. St. Maria Faustina Kowalska

C. Pope John Paul 11

V. An introduction to Dietrich Bonhoeffer

A. Bonhoeffer’s biography

B. Bonhoeffer’s theology of community

C. Bonhoeffer on suffering for others

1V) Contemporary examples of suffering for others

A. Dietrich Bonhoeffer

B. C.S. Lewis

C. St. Faustina

D. The author

V) Post-Questionnaire

Pre-Questionnaire

Circle One

1. I frequently experience suffering in my life.	Yes .62	No .38
2. I would do anything to avoid suffering.	Yes .23	No .77
3. Sometimes suffering is a good thing.	Yes .93	No .07
4. The existence of suffering sometimes causes me to doubt the existence of God.	Yes .15	No .85
5. I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.	Yes .93	No .07
6. I am excited about studying with other denominations.	Yes .71	No .29
7. God intervenes in the events of everyday life.	Yes .92	No .08
8. Suffering is an evil that should be avoided at all cost.	Yes .08	No.92
9. All suffering is caused by the devil.	Yes .14	No .86
10. Suffering in life can be conquered.	Yes .71	No .08
11. I wish I could help someone else with their suffering.	Yes .92	No .08
12. God causes some people to suffer more than others.	Yes .54	No .46
13. My religious beliefs have nothing to do with anyone else.	Yes .23	No .77
14. God answers every prayer in His way and in His time.	Yes .85	No .15
15. I honestly believe that God works in all things for the good.	Yes .93	No .07
16. I don’t believe that miracles are possible.	Yes .31	No .69
17. Jesus is still ministering in the world today.	Yes .93	No .07
18. Jesus was a great moral teacher, but nothing more.	Yes .21	No .79
19. I would love to ease someone else’s suffering.	Yes .86	No .14
20. I am responsible only for myself and my family.	Yes 0.00	No 1.00
21. We should only help others when it doesn’t demand too much of ourselves.	Yes .08	No .92
22. Suffering can be a gift from God.	Yes .93	No .07
23. There is no purpose to suffering.	Yes .08	No .92
24. Everything that happens in life has a reason.	Yes 1.00	No 0.00
25. God may have created the universe, but now He lets everything run on its own.	Yes .15	No .85
26. My relationship with Jesus Christ is a very important part of my life.	Yes .93	No .07

Post-Questionnaire

Circle One

1. I believe that suffering can be used as a means of bringing relief to someone else.	Yes .92	No .08
2. I got a lot more out of this class than I original thought I was going to.	Yes .93	No .07
3. Bonhoeffer’s idea of suffering for others is idealism to the point of absurdity.	Yes 0.00	No 1.00
4. There is no benefit that is worth suffering for.	Yes .14	No .86
5. God allows suffering to enter our lives for a reason.	Yes .93	No .07
6. Suffering for someone else is a waste of time.	Yes .86	No .14
7 A class like this should be taught in the Church.	Yes 1.00	No 0.00
8. There is a purpose for suffering and I don’t want to waste it.	Yes .93	No .07
9. It is a cruel God who allows suffering	Yes 1.00	No 0.00
10. There are some things that are worth suffering for.	Yes 1.00	No 0.00
11. Euthanasia should be allowed for people who think they are too old or too ill to be of any use.	Yes .91	No .08
12. Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s idea of suffering for others is worth trying.	Yes 1.00	No 0.00
13. I trust that God can work in all things for the good.	Yes .93	No .07
14. Good can come from suffering	Yes 1.00	No 0.00
15. I didn’t get very much out of the class.	Yes ..07	No .93
16. Sometimes suicide is a better choice than suffering.	Yes 0.00	No 1.00
17. I would like to help someone avoid suffering even if it meant suffering myself.	Yes .93	No .07
18. Religion has no place in the real world. 19. I have a responsibility to help others.	Yes 0.00 Yes 1.00	No 1.00 No 0.00
20. God does not answer every prayer.	Yes .46	No .54
21. I attended all 3 classes.	Yes 1.00	No 0.00
22. God does not expect me to suffer for someone else.	Yes .38	No .62
23. As long as I pray, read the Bible and go to church I’m doing okay.	Yes .31	No .69
24. To a certain degree God has called everyone to offer their sufferings for others.	Yes .92	No .08
25. I would rather die than have to suffer for a long time.	Yes .07	No .93
26. I found it awkward working with different denominations	Yes 0.00	No 1.00

RESULTS

The class was held on January 20, 2009 at 7:00 PM at the Catholic Charismatic Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I had originally intended for the class to last for at least 3 sessions providing ample time for discussion and group activities. I knew that there was a lot of material that I was going to present and that the participants would need time and opportunity to assimilate it. I opted for the one, two hour class, however, because I wanted to make sure that the same people who filled out the pre-questionnaire also completed the post-questionnaire. I felt that there was a high probability that this would not take place if the class met on 3-4 separate days. Knowing that there was a lot of material to be covered, though, I incorporated an extensive PowerPoint presentation into the teaching to maintain interest, and to facilitate learning. A copy of the text and the PowerPoint slides used in this presentation can be found in a CD on the back page of the thesis.

There originally were 15 participants who attended the class: fourteen Catholics and one Protestant. Since one of the Catholic participants left half way through the presentation due to a family emergency I eliminated her pre-questionnaire from the sample. This enabled me to compare an equal number of pre and post-questionnaire responses.

Although in some cases the material presented in the class was identical to what I have in the thesis, in other places it was different. For instance, the material on the holocaust, Corrie Ten Boom and Joni Erikson-Tada were additions that were not addressed in the thesis. I included them in the presentation, though, because they are contemporary sources that I felt would be meaningful to everyone. On the other hand, I did not include in the presentation Bonhoeffer’s thinking from Christ the Center. The information contained in this source, I believed, would have been overkill for those attending the class on suffering.

The questions in the pre and post-questionnaires were designed to indicate whether the participants’ attitude about suffering had been changed as a result of the one session class on Bonhoeffer/suffering or not. The questions in the pre-questionnaire were similar, but different than those in the post-questionnaire. Although another tester might disagree with my choice of certain affirmative responses the high percentage of agreement in the pre and post questionnaires indicates that the responses selected were generally shared among the participants. My hypothesis was that there would be a greater percentage of responses that indicated a positive attitude about suffering in the post-questionnaire than in the pre-questionnaire. This would be due to the participants’ exposure to Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the theology of suffering for others.

In the pre-questionnaire 84% of the participants’ responses indicated a positive attitude about suffering and 16% were negative. In the post-questionnaire 92% indicated a positive attitude about suffering and 8% were negative. This was an 8% gain in the respondents’ looking at suffering in a positive way. Based on these percentages the class on Bonhoeffer/suffering did have a positive effect on the respondents’ attitude about suffering.

Since I had forgotten to eliminate question #21 in the post-questionnaire (I attended all 3 classes) I marked every questionnaire “Yes” for this response. In this way I could still average the total responses by 26 as in the pre-questionnaire. When a question was not answered I eliminated it from the total number of responses on that particular questionnaire and divided by the remaining number of responses. Although this may have skewed the responses in a more positive direction the 8% gain in positive responses does indicate that the presentation on suffering for others did have a positive effect on the participants’ attitude about suffering.

DISCUSSION

What I discovered in giving this class on Bonhoeffer/suffering was that it should definitely be given in at least 4, two hour sessions. For instance, one class could be devoted to suffering in general, the second class to Bonhoeffer’s biography, the third class to his writings that deal with suffering and the fourth class to everyday examples. In this way the facilitator would be able to implement various activities to enrich the content, and give the participants time to assimilate the information. For instance, variations on Family Feud, Jeopardy and other games, small group discussion, art activities, guest speakers, comparing historical events with current affairs and videos could all be used to help participants become a part of the learning process.

This is important because, as was pointed out in the beginning of the thesis, “The fundamental task of catechesis is…the formation of disciples of Jesus Christ” (Natl. Directory for Catechesis 59). Using a lecture or an academic model of instruction tends to make adults feel that the purpose of religious education is to provide them with information and nothing more. On the contrary, “Adult catechesis…is the lifelong (permanent) process of deepening our relationship with Jesus” (Reichert 121). This needs to be the primary focus of any religious education including a seminar on suffering. Although the participants’ response to the seminar was good (see post-questionnaire #’s 2, 7 and 15) I didn’t think that the theology of suffering truly became a part of their lives. It wasn’t so much that they had rejected it as they simply were not given enough time and experience to fully grasp the concept.

One final remark that I would like to make about my study is that it does not prove nor disprove my interpretation of Bonhoeffer’s theology. My particular slant on his thinking may or may not be what he had in mind when he wrote the texts that I have drawn from. Furthermore, the idea of uniting our suffering with Christ’s to alleviate the suffering of others is still under speculation. I have provided a theology and given some examples that lends credibility to this theory. Whether it actually works or not remains to be seen. Nonetheless, I do believe that this teaching should be offered to people as a means of dealing with their own suffering. If nothing else it will at least give a sense of meaning to a suffering incurred. It might also, however, prove to be a true means of bringing healing to others.

CONCLUSION

There are many things that both Catholics and Protestants have in common. One of these is our experience of suffering. We have both dealt with it on a theological level and have found similar ways of finding God’s grace in it. One of the greatest advantages of sharing with each other, though, is being able to learn from teachers who are outside of our own tradition like Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Although at a certain point Catholics will always have problems with this Lutheran theologian, as Protestants will with those of the Catholic tradition, we should never cut ourselves off from listening to what God is saying to the Church. This is especially true when the area being studied is something that Protestants and Catholics both have in common; like suffering. And with a response of 100% in favor of having a class like this taught in the Church (see #7 post-questionnaire) it would behoove all Christian traditions to take further steps in this direction.

I concluded my presentation by passing out laminated copies of the prayer written below. This is a prayer that I had written in honor of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, with a little help from the master himself.

A Prayer

In memory
of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(Feb. 4, 1906 – April 9, 1945)

Lord Jesus, I offer to you all my

sufferings of this day. Whether
they be of a physical, emotional
or spiritual nature I ask that my sufferings may be united with yours to relieve the suffering of others. Thank you for allowing me to participate with you in this act of love. Grant me also the grace to “…think, not about (my) own way, (my) own sufferings and (my) own reward, but the goal of (my) labours, which is the salvation of the church.” -.Amen

“Quote” taken from
The Cost of Discipleship (246)

Works Cited

American Medical Association. The American Medical Association Home Medical

Encyclopedia. Ed. Charles B. Clayman. New York: Random House, 1989.

Barclay, William. The Sufficient Christ. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961.

Barthas, Chanoine C. and Da Fonseca, Père G. Our Lady of Light. Milwaukee:

Bruce, 1947.

Bethge, Eberhard. Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography. Minneapolis: Harper-Collins,

2000.

Bokenkotter, Thomas. A Concise History of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday,

1990.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Act and Being: Transcendental Philosophy and Ontology in

Systematic Theology. Trans. H. Martin Rumscheidt. Ed. Wayne Whitson Floyd Jr.

Minneapolis: Harper-Collins, 1996.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Christ the Center. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship. New York: Macmillan, 1963.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Ethics. New York: Touchstone, 1995.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Letters and Papers From Prison. New York: Macmillan, 1978.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Life Together. Trans. Daniel W. Bloesch and James H. Burtness.

Ed. Geffrey B. Kelly. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. No Rusty Swords. London: Wm. Collins Sons, 1977.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Sanctorum, Communio: A Theological Study of the Sociology of

the Church. Trans. Reinhard Krauss and Nancy Lukens. Ed. Clifford J. Green.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

Brand, Paul and Yancey, Philip. Pain: The Gift Nobody Wants. New York. Harper-

Collins, 1993.

Brown, Raymond E. The Churches the Apostles Left Behind. New York: Paulist,

1984.

Catholic Church. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Catechism of the

Catholic Church. 2^nd Ed. United States Catholic Conference Inc. Washington: USCCB,

1997.

Catholic Church. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. National Directory for

Catechesis. Washington: USCCB, 2005.

Catholic Church. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Penitential Practices for

Today’s Catholics. “United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Web Site.” 4 June

2009. http://www.usccb.org/dpp/penitential.htm

Catholic Church. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. United States Catholic

Catechism for Adults. Washington: USCCB, 2006.

Cochrane, Arthur C. The Church’s Confession Under Hitler. 2^nded. Pittsburgh:

Pickwick, 1976.

Copleston, Frederick. Greece and Rome from the Pre-Socratics to Plotinus. New

York: Doubleday, 1993. Vol. 1 of A History of Philosophy. 9 vols.

Copleston, Frederick. Modern Philosophy: Descartes to Leibniz. Garden City.

Doubleday, 1963. Vol. 4 of A History of Philosophy. 9 vols.

Copleston, Frederick.. Modern Philosophy from the French Enlightenment to Kant.

New York: Doubleday, 1994. Vol. 6 of A History of Philosophy. 9 vols.

Copleston, Frederick. Fichte to Nietzsche. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Vol. 7 of

A History of Philosophy. 9 vols.

Fox, Robert J. and Martins. Antonio Maria. The Intimate Life of Sister Lucia.

Alexandria: Fatima Family Apostolate, 2001.

God Speaks in the Night. Trans.Kieran Kavanaugh. Ed. Silvano Giordano. Washington:

ICS, 1991.

Helmreich, Ernst Christian. The German Churches Under Hitler. Detroit: Wayne State

UP, 1971.

Hill, Joseph. John Calvin: Suffering-Understanding the Love of God. Darlington,

England: Evangelical, 2005.

John of the Cross. The Collected Works of Saint John of the Cross. Trans. Kieran

Kavanaugh. Washington: ICS, 1979.

Kowalska, Maria Faustina, Saint. Divine Mercy in My Soul: Diary of Saint Maria

Faustina Kowalska. Stockbridge: Marian, 1987.

Kuhns, William. In Pursuit of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. New York: Doubleday, 1967.

Lewis, C.S. The Problem of Pain. New York: Macmillan, 1962.

Linn, Mathew, and Linn, Dennis. Healing the Eight Stages of Life. New York:

Paulist, 1988.

Moltmann, Jürgen. The Crucified God. 2^nd ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.

Mongoven, Anne Marie. The Prophetic Spirit of Catechesis: How We Share the Fire in our

Hearts. New York: Paulist, 2000.

Pope Pius XII. Mystici Corporis Christi. 29 June 1943. “Vatican Web Site.” 4 June 2009.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-

xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

Pope John Paul II. Salvifici Doloris. 11 Feb. 1984. “Vatican Web Site.” 4 June 2009.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-

ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris_en.html.

Reichert, Richard J. Renewing Catechetical Ministry. Mahwah: Paulist, 2002.

Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition. The Catholic Biblical Association of Great

Britain. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1966.

Sayer, George. Jack: A Life of C.S. Lewis. Wheaton: Crossway, 1994.

Shields, Harry, and Bredfeldt, Gary. Caring for Souls. Chicago: Moody, 2001.

Teresa of Avila. The Collected Works of St. Teresa of Avila. 3 vols. Washington:

ICS, 1980.

Vatican Council 11: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents. Ed. Austin Flannery.

Northport: Costello, 1988.

Wind, Renate. Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Spoke in the Wheel. Trans. John Bowden. Grand

Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1992.