[May 2000 journal entry
It seems to me that, if Bonhoeffer prior to 1939 considered his theology during his Confessing Church years to have been essentially true, then he would have been pressured either (1) to stay in the United States in 1939 where he could have maintained such theology or (2) to turn away from resisting the Nazis upon his return to Germany (i.e., taking ‘the inner line’ which, in the smuggled prison letters, he criticized the Confessing Church for adopting). Was Bonhoeffer, therefore, questioning the validity and credibility of his pre-1939 theology by criteria separate from whether or not the Confessing Church could/would put non-violent leverage on the Nazi regime? Or did he assess the credibility and validity of theological ideas/views (including his own) by the criterion of the Confessing Church’s ability to put non-violent leverage on the Nazi regime? I think that, in reference to my following a ‘non-religious’ path, the answer is ‘both-and’ rather than ‘either-or’. In other words, the ‘religious’ thought world did not for me prove to be intellectually/academically credible. Additionally and centrally, the ‘religion’ failed/died for me due to its incapacity to respect and to be truly present with the victims of tragic/innocent human suffering.
It seems to me that, if Bonhoeffer prior to 1939 considered his theology during his Confessing Church years to have been essentially true, then he would have been pressured either (1) to stay in the United States in 1939 where he could have maintained such theology or (2) to turn away from resisting the Nazis upon his return to Germany (i.e., taking ‘the inner line’ which, in the smuggled prison letters, he criticized the Confessing Church for adopting). Was Bonhoeffer, therefore, questioning the validity and credibility of his pre-1939 theology by criteria separate from whether or not the Confessing Church could/would put non-violent leverage on the Nazi regime? Or did he assess the credibility and validity of theological ideas/views (including his own) by the criterion of the Confessing Church’s ability to put non-violent leverage on the Nazi regime? I think that, in reference to my following a ‘non-religious’ path, the answer is ‘both-and’ rather than ‘either-or’. In other words, the ‘religious’ thought world did not for me prove to be intellectually/academically credible. Additionally and centrally, the ‘religion’ failed/died for me due to its incapacity to respect and to be truly present with the victims of tragic/innocent human suffering.
