Studia Theologica 54 (2002), pp.

64± 75

G. W. F. Hegel’s Impact on Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Early Theology
Jacob Holm

Introduction
The time has come when we can no longer examine the contributions of beloved theologians within our Christian tradition in phrases such as natural or dialectical theologies, theologies of consciousness or theologies of church or other oppositions that come to our mind. The reason is that we often overlook aspects of the theological tradition that we oppose. I think this has been the case when the opposition between Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s early dialectical theology of church and G. W. F. Hegel’s philosophical theology has been uncritically accepted in Bonhoeffer-research until the 1980s. This opposition often disregards the fact, that both kinds of theology contribute in different ways to modern Christian theology. As I wish to examine Hegel’s impact on Bonhoeffer’s theology I have therefore located them in a common European tradition within the ® eld of modern philosophical theology. It then becomes easier to discover the legacy of their different contribution to the making of modern theology and their common critical project: a theological critique of modernity. In this article I therefore intend to focus more on the theological similarities in method and intentions than on the differences as I undertake a theological examination of Hegel’s impact on Bonhoeffer’s early theology, especially Bonhoeffer’s dissertation Sanctorum Communio. Eine dogmatische Untersuchung zur Soziologie der Kirche from 1927. 1 Two decades ago it was almost impossible to ® nd research on Bonhoeffer’s theology that recognized Hegel’s impact on Bonhoeffer’s theology at all. In 1985 Oswald Bayer’s article, `Christus als Mitte. Ethik im Banne der Religionsphilosophie Hegels’, introduced a shift within Bonhoeffer-research. Bayer claimed that Hegel’s philosophical theology played a great roll in Bonhoeffer’s late theology as found in Ethik (1938±

and Bonhoeffer-reader. especially part three on `Consumate Religion’ was available to Bonhoeffer when he wrote Sanctorum Communio. Hegel’s positive impact on Bonhoeffer’s earliest theological departure in Sanctorum Communio is still not fully recognized. In my contribution to a clari® cation of this matter I shall ® rst outline the dif® culties of my project. Bonhoeffer’s critique of this philosophical theology of church is in Sanctorum Communio primarily based on his perception of the penetrating nature of sin. Finally I shall formulate my conclusion. because of the climate of Hegel research in general in the philosophical and theological circles in the 1920s. Even though the volume is based on Bonhoeffer’s student Frenc Lehel’s reconstruction of his own and his classmates’ confusing notes. It is a complicated matter to trace theological similarities in method and intentions between Hegel and Bonhoeffer. 3 However. Charles Marsh. I shall argue that Hegel’s impact is to be found in relation to Bonhoeffer’s theological approach to the social sciences in Sanctorum Communio. Dif® culties in tracing Hegel’s impact on Bonhoeffer’s Sanctorum Communio Hegel and Bonhoeffer are to be understood in different historical contexts with differing theological central themes. has examined the way Bonhoeffer reads his own idea of Christian community against Hegel’s in Bonhoeffer’s dissertation and his habilitation-work. this period being the historical context of Bonhoeffer’s own interpretation of Hegel. Akt und Sein. In 1933 Bonhoeffer appreciates Hegel as a theologian who thinks von oben and whose theology is to be `judged as a whole’. For this and other reasons Bonhoeffer’s lectures on Hegel’s Philosophy of Religion given in Berlin 1933 were made available to the public in 1988.2 In the 1990s the Barth. A mature Chalcedonian modi® cation of Hegel’s philosophical theology of church traced in Ethik (1938± 42) will be brie¯ y outlined because it gives another perspective on Hegel’s impact on Bonhoeffer’s early theology of church.Hegel’s Impact on Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Early Theology 65 42). and that his central concept of `Christus als Gemeinde existierend’ is to be understood in relation to his modi® cation of what I propose to be Hegel’s philosophical theology of church. it makes us aware that Hegel’s Philosophy of Religion. The climate is in¯ uenced by the great shift towards the transcendent Other among theologians started by Karl Barth’s Ro È merbrief (1922) as well as the turning towards the concrete human Other among philosophers and sociologists. especially within the Philosophy of . Transzendentalphilosophie und Ontologie in der Systematischen Theologie (1929).

® nd their end and their beginning. according to Hegel. their truth. the examination is also made complicated by Bonhoeffer himself.5 Other classics often mentioned are Ernst Troeltsch’s The Social Theaching of the Christian Churches (1911) and John Milbank’s Theology and Social Theory (1990). community.66 Jacob Holm Dialogue. Finally. political interest ¼ all these interests have their center. the sciences. in one thought. Fichte. As a human-godly spirit the social scientist can. Hegel is evaluated as a `Geistmetaphysiker’ whose philosophical theology is caught in `immanentism’. Hegel’s theological approach to the social sciences has a positive impact on Bonhoeffer’s project in Sanctorum Communio. any theory of society. the doctrine of sin in chapter 4 and ® nally the doctrine of reconciliation in chapter 5. Hegel and others) that links the project of philosophy and theology to the epistemological problems of modernity is heavily criticized in this shift. Bonhoeffer’s Hegelian approach to the social sciences in Sanctorum Communio Today Bonhoeffer’s Sanctorum Communio is regarded as one of the classical writings when it comes to illuminating the relation between theology and the social sciences.4 On these reasons Hegelian traits in Bonhoeffer’s approach to the social sciences in Sanctorum Communio (1927) are also dif® cult to trace. the doctrine of creation in chapter 1± 3. and a ª speci® c Christian . which breathes life into ¼ their existence’. In his dissertation he is highly polemical and almost give the impression that he rejects Hegel’s contribution to modern theology. in the thought of God’.6 A similar perspective is found in Hegel’s Philosophy of Religion: `The revealed human thought gives rise to manifold images and con® gurations. For this purpose Bonhoeffer chooses the school of social philosophy and of systematic sociology in outlining a ª Christian sociologyº in general. when he chooses to let concepts and de® nitions from the social sciences illuminate the three central doctrines within western Christianity.e. i.7 For this reason the social sciences were Geisteswissenschaften . as is his positive impact on Bonhoeffer’s theology from the early beginning. In this critique Hegel’s contribution to modern theology and his theological critique of modernity on modern premises is often neglected. As has been pointed out in recent theological research on religion. The legacy of German Idealism (Schelling. economy or even secularization can also be regarded as a theological problem linked to the proces of theorizing itself. the arts. produce concepts in which God is `the sustaining center.

baptism and the Eucharist). however. As a result theologizing seems impossible on behalf of a sociology of religion and its inherent theorizing view of religion and church in a social context. when it comes to Bonhoeffer’s project as a whole. From beginning to end Bonhoeffer is theologically motivated when deconstructing the social concepts in order to reconstruct their ecclesio-centric meaning in a `speci® c Christian sociology of church’ seen in relation to the social functions of `Christ existing as community’ (preaching.9 But Bonhoeffer’s approach to the social sciences is ± contrary to Berger’s claim ± not motivated by a rejection of empirical data and a poor choice of two schools within sociology as such. Berger regards this theological enterprise as an unnecessary `theological extension’. Bonhoeffer’s focus is. Bonhoeffer’s point of departure is an abstract `ethical-social re¯ exive concept of person’ which Bonhoeffer relates to transcendence. namely a dogmatical inquiry into the sociology of the church. that Bonhoeffer makes a poor choice in choosing the abstract. This theological approach to the social sciences shares similarities with Hegel’s approach to the sciences in Philosophy of Religion . but the results. not on religion and the form it takes in empirical consciousness. are inadequate from a theological perspective. counselling. Hegel’s way of relating empirical and religious consciousness in `Empirical Observation’ and `The speculative concept of Religion’ in part two of his Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion has certainly had an impact on Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer’s approach is theologically motivated. In his very in¯ uential article from 1962 Peter Berger has quite rightly pointed out. In particular.Hegel’s Impact on Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Early Theology 67 sociology of the churchº that serves his ecclesiological focus.8 According to Berger.10 I therefore wish to argue for the legacy of Bonhoeffer’s approach to the social sciences in general and its similarities with Hegel’s theological approach. To Berger Bonhoeffer’s approach is `essentially Hegelian’ because it leads to `speculative systematizing that has little to do with empirical data of any kind’. so-called formalistic school of systematic sociology instead of a more historically focused Weberian sociology. subject to scienti® c understanding’. Nevertheless Bonhoeffer still shares Hegel’s revelational premise in . The results of Berger’s critique of Bonhoeffer have uncritically been accepted among theologians in American Bonhoeffer-research and they thereby diminish Bonhoeffer’s theological project as a whole including his Hegelian heritage. Berger’s examination is a milestone in research when it comes to an analysis of Bonhoeffer’s use of sociological schools. Berger’s evaluation forcefully tries to isolate speculative theologizing from `the real world.

In Bonhoeffer methodology. In this way a Hegelian in¯ uence can be traced in Bonhoeffer’s theological approach to the social sciences. Nonetheless. Even this main ecclesiological concept. but ± in Bonhoeffer’s words ± `a modi® cation of Hegel’s concept’. This also means that knowledge of community is `more’ than just empirical or social knowledge.11 Therefore the concept of empirical community is also as much a theological problem for Bonhoeffer as empirical consciousness is for Hegel. The social sciences are also a science of God to Bonhoeffer. i. This does not mean that the exclusiveness of Gods reconciliation in Christ is out of focus according to Hegel.14 Bonhoeffer modi® es Hegel’s theocentric concept of church into a christocentric concept of church. that the community [Gemeinde] is the place of humanity’s reconciliation with God. Bonhoeffer’s modi® cation of Hegel’s philosophical theology of church in Sanctorum Communio Hegel.12 To both Hegel and Bonhoeffer the social concepts sui generis without any revelational center are theologically impossible. is similar to Hegel’s philosophical theology of church in Philosophy of Religion. As an example consider chapter 3.e. To Hegel (and Bonhoeffer) the church is in-itself .13 These Hegelian patterns of thinking motivates Bonhoeffer in his project being an outline of the social consequences of `Christus als Gemeinde existierend’. but from the perspective of church in-and-for-itself. Bonhoffer and Hegel share the same theological premise. is not primarily concerned with ecclesiology. Hegel outlines his understanding of church in Philosophy of Religion part three on `Consummate Religion’ and it is possible to trace theological impact on Bonhoeffer’s formation of ecclesiology. de® nitions and concepts from the social sciences are regarded as theological problems in themselves as they are in Hegel. it is always already a knowledge of God. unlike Bonhoeffer. the heart of Bonhoeffer’s early theology. Bonhoeffer’s central concept of `Christ existing as community’ in Sanctorum Communio (1927) does not indicate any rejection of Hegel’s theological concept of church. not from the perspective of thinking in-and-for-itself as in Hegel. `Gott als Gemeinde existierend’ outlined in Philosophy of Religion. introduced by the headline: `The Primal State and the Problem of Community’. From this perspective Bonhoeffer’s deconstruction and reconstruction of the sociological insights in `a Christian philosophy’ in chapter 1± 4 in Sanctorum Communio makes sense.68 Jacob Holm the preliminary construct ion of a Christian (or theological) sociology: this being that the relationship between the human and the godly community is mediated.

To Bonhoeffer this means that the locus of reconciliation is exclusively located in Church. Hegel avoids locating the reconciliation in Christ exclusively in the church.19 To Bonhoeffer this is to place revelation in total possession of thoughts and concepts. In this sense. on the other hand.15 The reconciliation of God in Christ exists in history in Hegel’s and Bonhoeffer’s theology. `Reconciliation is philosophy’. `Christ existing as community’ and not Christ existing as the unity of human and godly consciousness in humanchurchly thinking. He turns Hegel’s theory on it’s head: What is necessary is revelation. But what then marks the difference between Hegel and Bonhoeffer? To Bonhoeffer `Christ existing as community’ is the centre. In the church the unity of human and godly nature is brought to existence foritself. however. Hegel teaches us. he does so in order to `replace’ Hegel’s philosophical theology of consciousness (community). that God has shown himself to be reconciled with the world. But again this `replacement’ of Hegel’s idealistic philosophy is not a rejection but a modi® cation because theological similarities can be traced between Hegel’s philosophical .20 Does.Hegel’s Impact on Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Early Theology 69 the manifestation of the reconciliation in Christ. In the church the incarnate is therefore revealed as the reconciler of God and the world.16 To both Hegel and Bonhoeffer God exists as a reconciled reality in church. is the unity of the human and godly consciousness in-itself and is comprehended as far as God is present in God’s community for itself (`Gott als Gemeinde existierend’). because in the church Christ is told to be the god-man. Hegel easily continues `¼ thus it will be evident. in `dieser Einheit der Anderssein’ the consciousness of the church exists. Revelation is never theologically in possesion or existent `in a concept as such’ in Sanctorum Communio because of sin.18 Christ exists as the reconciliation of human and godly consciousness in the process of thinking `God existing as community’. Within human thought the one revealed thought of God is grasped. the concept of God is the centre.17 To Hegel. because sin penetrates human thinking and consciousness. It is then possible for Hegel to suggest. to cite Hegel. that a doctrine of God is to be ¼ taught only as the doctrine of [the Christian] religion’. but Bonhoeffer’s focus is God in the person of `Christ existing as community’ and Hegel’s focus is God (Spirit) in the consciousness of Christ. the incarnate. God existing as community. Both Hegel and Bonhoeffer relate reconciliation and church. that the unity (reconciliation) of the human and godly consciousness (church) exists in human consciousness in itself. When Bonhoeffer outlines what he calls a `Christian [social] philosophy’. Bonhoeffer reject the theological relevance of human thinking in his theology? The answer is no. not religion. Christ.

according to Bonhoeffer. that the social sciences as a .22 Bonhoeffer does not uncritically take over the dialogical understanding of person from the Philosophy of Dialogue. One main difference is that revelation. but only in revealed church . From a Hegelian perspective one can argue that the center of Christian religion in Bonhoeffer is his concept of `Christus als Gemeinde existierend’. with the invention of the isolation of formal and material knowledge of God. is not linked to the doctrine of religion in the human-godly outline of the concept of God transmitted in church tradition. church.23 One of the consequences is therefore.70 Jacob Holm theology of the church and Bonhoeffer’s (social) philosophical theology of the church. In Bonhoeffer revelation is exclusively linked to actual faith and church outside human consciousness (extra me). `Christ existing as community’. whereby he grasps God’s revelation in Christ within the process of religious christologizing! Moreover Bonhoeffer’s static division of godly and human knowledge. because his theological approach to a social concept of `person’ has certain points in common with Hegel’s theological approach to the concept of consciousness: to Bonhoeffer the concept of person is related to his own theological understanding of human existence. not in God’s being consciousness. According to Bonhoeffer the world. as it is according to Hegel. human beings and their intellectual abilities are converted into status corruptionis because of sin. world and God.21 The real personal nature of the social community is in God’s being Allperson. The consequence is that concepts do not have their possible human-godly existence in revealed thought . Let me exemplify what I mean. Bonhoeffer also invents a static distinction between the `formal’ and `material’ knowledge of revelation to legitimatize this radical exclusivity. Instead sin becomes the basis of Bonhoeffer’s early critique of Hegel. For Bonhoeffer sin makes `the Hegelian theory impossible’. seems to hide Hegelian patterns of thinking in Bonhoeffer’s philosophical theology. according to Bonhoeffer. In Sanctorum Communio God is not consciousness [Geist] but All-person [All-person] when Bonhoeffer outlines the doctrine of creation. church and God. But this is also the case for Hegel in relating the concept of consciousness to his understanding of human existence. according to Bonhoeffer’s preliminary outline of a Christian philosophy of person in Sanctorum Communio. Bonhoeffer’s understanding af sin and the impossibility of the Hegelian theory In Sanctorum Communio Bonhoeffer outlines the penetrating nature of sin.

that theorizing within the social sciences and sciences of religion must be understood as the eternal opposition to the unity of godlyhuman thought within the church alone. For Bonhoeffer sin is understood as the breach of (`Bruch’) any possible `immanent synthesis’ between human and godly thinking and the process of conceptualisation. 24 I shall argue. because he still is able to to outline a `speci® c Christian sociology of Church’ by locating revelation in the church of Christ in chapter 5. which means a turn towards the `total’ Other. But Bonhoeffer’s dialectical sublation [Aufhebung] of concept of church in church init-self is realistic even though sin makes any concept of God/church impossible. In other words: just as human thinking is . This means means. The reason for the impossibility of the Hegelian holistic approach to the sciences is not the commonly known multiplicity of the social sciences or the natural expansion of knowledge in the sciences in general. static and unmediated manner as is the case in Sanctorum Communio? Is Bonhoeffer’s apriori isolation of revelation and the process of conceptualisation immune to sin itself? What is Bonhoeffer’s constructive intention? According to Bonhoeffer it is possible to `locate’ the general construction of a `Christian sociology’ (chapter 1± 3) in Sanctorum Communio in church.Hegel’s Impact on Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Early Theology 71 science of God is impossible. Revelation is thereby also linked to the concept of church in Bonhoeffer. faith and religion are mutually exclusive categories in Sanctorum Communio. but the very corruption of thinking itself. Bonhoeffer himself modi® es this radical claim when he develops his christology in 1933 (`Christus pro me’). that the concepts from the social sciences are reconstructed (`reconciled’) in a speci® c Christian way in chapter 5. but the empirical concept of church is sublated into church (or empirical community existing as a revelational form of Christ). that Bonhoeffer modi® es Hegel by turning his dialectial sublation on its head: Church is not sublated into concept of church (or empirical consciousness of church). Also Bonhoeffer is founding his theology upon a concept namely the concept of church. This means. As a result Bonhoeffer himself believes he has succeeded in isolating revelation and concept of church. The ® nal evaluation must be. A Hegelian question would be why the reality of sin ± status corruptionis ± is possible in such a realistic. even though the intellectual capabilities of human thinking are converted into status corruptionis in chapter 4. Therefore revelation and the epistemological. whose possible existence in history is substantialized in church extra me in Sanctorum Communio. Christ. Bonhoeffer’s own justi® cation of his approach is the turn towards eschatology. that Bonhoeffers dialectical thinking about seperation is itself unmediated.

The state is not. Bonhoeffer’s strong awareness of sin is directed against any `glori® cation of church’ and any `identi® cation of the Holy Spirit and church’ (God. It is then possible for Bonhoeffer to avoid the .25 As far as I see Bonhoeffer rejects on the one hand a totalitarian concept of society where God is sublated in `total’ society in history as de® ned in Hegel’s and post. What Bonhoeffer truly rejects is some of the consequences of Hegel’s thinking. that God and humanity is a unity in Jesus Christ himself. 15.72 Jacob Holm `reconciled’ in Hegels philosophical theology. existing as Community). This is why the church of Christ.20± 28). without confusion or separation because the two `persons’ can be distinguished. Society (`staat’) as the sublation ± in the sense of ® nal goal or purpose ± of `God existing as community’ in history is rejected. so are personal experiences of God or another human being `reconciled’ in the church. Other human-godly communities of creation (Bonhoeffer mentions family. `the real God’ and is therefore not the ® nal form of church in history because of sin. This is. is communio peccatorum and is only reconciled in its totality in spe. On the other hand he rejects a totalitarian concept of church where God is sublated in an absolute church in history (ecclesia triumphans). in the words of Chalcedon.Hegelian social theory. Kor. Bonhoeffer thereby modi® es his early exclusivism ± or in the language of Chalcedon his thought of separation. according to Bonhoeffer. the eschatological moment where all communities truly and fully exist as `Christus als Gemeinde’ and Christ hands over his Kingdom to God. according to Bonhoeffer’s reading of Hegel. The center of reconciliation. the Spirit. Only beyond history can society or the church exist in their total identi® cation with `Christ existing as community’. This does not mean that Bonhoeffer abondens his earlier view of what was central to Christian religion. Bonhoeffer’s Chalcedonian modi® cation of Hegel’s philosophical theology of church in Ethik In Ethik (1938± 42) Bonhoeffer avoids a ® nal choice between what one might call a modern dialectical thinking of forceful synthesis (Hegelianism) or forceful separation (Barthianism) when he links the two models of theological thinking to the famous Chalcedonian re¯ ections on the reconciled unity of the world and God in Christ. so that God ± as all-person ± may be all in all (1. This means. work and state) may exist as communities of reconciliation in history. `Christ existing as community’ is in Ethik balanced in dynamic relation to me ± pro me not extra me ± when I am outside the church in other social communities. in accordance with Bonhoeffer’s emphasis.

to Bonhoeffer the . Creation is not apriori divided from reconciliation and forcefully turned into a permanent status corruptionis because of sin. Bonhoeffer from a modi® ed christological perspective. Bonhoeffer conceives creation and reconciliation in a dynamic unity. The reason behind this alternative theological model of thinking is. family or other social reductions. I have suggested that Bonhoeffer’s approach to the social sciences shares similarities with Hegel’s theological approach to the different sciences of his age. Another positive in¯ uece is linked to the fact that both Hegel and Bonhoeffer connect God’s reconciliation with church. as possible forms of the reconciliation in Christ. because otherwise the reconciliation of Christ is separated from Church. one can distinguish between social communities and the speci® c Christian community. but in different ways: For Hegel the concept of God is incarnated in the human thought and taught in the doctrine of religion. so that the communities of creation may exist as ministeries of reconciliation outside the church of Christ.26 Other communities are not forcefully sublated ± or confused ± into `Christ existing as community’. Still. Instead creation and reconciliation is considered to be a reconciled unity in Christ. here and now. as stated in Hegel’s Philosophy of Religion. sources and mediators of real. Instead other communities may exist in history as ministeries [Mandaten] of reconciliation next to the church.27 Communities may then.Hegel’s Impact on Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Early Theology 73 early tendency to ecclesiological exclusivism in Sanctorum Communio where communities of creation only exist as personal (`reconciled’) communities through the church. Still he wishes to link them to the church of Christ. but one should not separate them. To summarize this means that the human-godly communities of creation may exist as communities of reconciliation. especially in relation to Sanctorum Communio. for. In Bonhoeffer’s own words the communities of creation and church exist `with-. because reconciliation inclusively exists in history as `Christ existing as community’. Hegel from a theocentric perspective. Still. personal existence. be perceived as concrete forms of salvation in Christ. and confused with society (as in Hegel). Conclusion In this article I have traced Hegel’s impact on Bonhoeffer’s early theology. I argued that the incarnate is the centre in the theologies of both of them. `Christ existing as community’.and against-each-other’ as a reconciled unity in Christ. In Ethik he avoids ± in Chalchedonian wording ± confusing the church and other communities. that Bonhoeffer’s christology is more developed and linked to creation in Ethik.

thinking and epistomology. Jacob Holm Faculty of Theology Institute of Systematical Theology Taasingegad e 3 DK-8000 Aarhus C Denmark Tel. Hegel offers us a theological critique of the total turning towards the human subject and subjectivity in modernity. In this article I have placed special focus on the theological intentions and similarities in order to show that both Bonhoeffer and Hegel contribute to modern theology in responding to the theological problems of their different historical situations. as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. In this modi® cation the focus becomes the social Christ. Hegel reacts against the modern. In these ways Hegelian patterns of thougts have a great impact on Bonhoeffer’s early theology.74 Jacob Holm center of the christian religion is `Christ existing as community’. social relation and sociality instead of Hegel’s focus on the subjective Christ. Godly-human communities of creation may therefore exist as reconciled ± personal ± communities of Christ. Finally I claimed that Bonhoeffer modi® es Hegel’s philosophical theology of church in his own socialphilosophical theology of church. I have argued that Hegel’s theology of consciousness revealed in Jesus Christ and present in the consciousness of community (`Gott als Gemeinde existierend’). I claimed that Bonhoeffers early exclusiveness (or thought of separation) based on his realistic approach towards `the Other’ in social philosophy and theology . Bonhoeffer reacts against the latemodern self-suf® cient thinking of `the social’ from within the nature of `the social’ itself.dk . In relation to Ethik I opted for an alternative Chalcedonian modi® cation of Hegel’s philosophical theology of church. and Bonhoeffer offers us a theological critique of the total turning towards the other and sociality in late-modernity. shares similarities with Bonhoeffer’s theology of personality.: ‡45 8942302 E-mail: jholm@teologi. I have argued that Bonhoeffer’s late theological model of church avoids a static understanding of sin and the static exclusivity of the other communities of creation as found in the theological model of church in Sanctorum Communio. and present in the community. self-suf® cient thinking of the human being from within the nature of human thinking itself.au.was primarily directed against a totalitarian concept of the social in Hegel’s theological understanding of society.

19. p. in Peter C. p. Edinburgh 1997. Day: Convivality and Common Sense: The Meaning of Christian Community for Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Montana 1972 (new edition: A Theology of Sociality. p. . Kaiser 1986± 99. Hg. p. 59. Ilse To 137 3.): The Place of Bonhoeffer. 5. Roberts. `The social Character of the Question Concerning Jesus Christ.: Religion als Thema der Theologie. W. 250± 1) 16. Translations are my own. 20. 427± 48. 131± 32. 25. Chr. `Der Urstand und das Problem der Gemeinschaft’. Peter Berger. von Joachim von Soosten. 143. Quoted from Hegel’s Preface to the Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion (1824). New York 1962. p. 18. p. W. p. p. DBW 1. p. p. 126. DBW 1. DBW 1. Dietrich Bonhoeffers early Theology 1927± 33. 8. 37± 51. DBW 1. Bonhoeffer gives a reference to Hegel’s Rechtsphilosophie § 258. 7. So Richard H. 131± 132. Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Sanctorum Communio. where he outlines. New York 1975. DBW 1. Walther Jaeschke (hg. 11. Hegel cited from the Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion (1824). 279ff. Vorlesungen u È ber die Philosophie der Religion.): G. B. Especially Thomas I. DBW 1.Hegel’s Impact on Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Early Theology 75 Notes 1. In this article I quote Dietrich Bonhoeffer in: Dietrich Bonhoeffer Werke. 132.) Dietrich Bonhoeffers Hegel-Seminar. Green: The Sociality of Christ and Humanity. Eine Dogmatische Untersuchung zur Soziologie der Kirche (1927) . p. p. È dt (Hg. 269. Eerdmanns 1999). Hegel.) G. 10. p. 177± 270 (especially p. 700± 719. 397f. Hegel. 173. 22. 23. p. Grand Rapids: W. DBW 2. p. Sociology and Ecclesiology’ . Peter Berger (1962). Hegel. Geschichte. 26. 17. `Vollendete Religion’ (1827). DBW 1. 37. È b’s articles in: Wilhelm von Gra È b 6. DBW 1± 16. 173. Oxford University Press 1994. 12. from E. DBW 1. 51± 80. Kaiser 1992. Hegel. Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Christologie. Hodgson (Ed. This reverse Hegelianism is Bonhoeffer’s focus in Akt und Sein. Chr. also Clifford J. Chr. DBW 1. 239. 27. 51. 392f. 26. DBW 1. Kaiser 1986. 4. p. p. 29. Chr. that the unity between godly and human thinking exists as `Kirchlichen Denken’. 2. DBW 6. DBW 12. Especially Christian Link’s and Wilhelm von Gra (Hg. 14. DBW 1. p. F. 174. Hegel: Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion (1824). Marty (ed. Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Ethik (DBW 6). Hodgson (1997). 21. Theologian of the Spirit. p. p. Chr. and `Human community and Divine Presence: Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Critique of Hegel’ in: Scottish Journal of Theology (1992). Transzendentalphilosophie und Ontologie in der Systematischen Theologie. Kaiser 1999. 9. 13. p. p. p. Blackwell Publishers 1997. in Peter C. p. `Theology and Social Sciences’ in: The Modern Theologians. Kaiser 1988. Charles Marsh: Reclaiming Dietrich Bonhoeffer ± The Promise of his Theology. Standpunkte und Perspektiven theologischer Religionskritik und Religionsbegru È ndung. 15. Teil 3: `Vollendete Religion’ (1827). 29. `Vollendete Religion’ (1827). F. Problems and Possibilities in his Thought . 24. p.