You are on page 1of 13

Studia Theologica 54 (2002), pp.

64 75

G. W. F. Hegels Impact on Dietrich Bonhoeffers 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 Bonhoeffers early dialectical theology of church and G. W. F. Hegels 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 Hegels impact on Bonhoeffers 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 Hegels impact on Bonhoeffers early theology, especially Bonhoeffers dissertation Sanctorum Communio. Eine dogmatische Untersuchung zur Soziologie der Kirche from 1927. 1 Two decades ago it was almost impossible to nd research on Bonhoeffers theology that recognized Hegels impact on Bonhoeffers theology at all. In 1985 Oswald Bayers article, `Christus als Mitte. Ethik im Banne der Religionsphilosophie Hegels, introduced a shift within Bonhoeffer-research. Bayer claimed that Hegels philosophical theology played a great roll in Bonhoeffers late theology as found in Ethik (1938

Hegels Impact on Dietrich Bonhoeffers Early Theology

65

42). For this and other reasons Bonhoeffers lectures on Hegels Philosophy of Religion given in Berlin 1933 were made available to the public in 1988. Even though the volume is based on Bonhoeffers student Frenc Lehels reconstruction of his own and his classmates confusing notes, it makes us aware that Hegels Philosophy of Religion, especially part three on `Consumate Religion was available to Bonhoeffer when he wrote Sanctorum Communio. In 1933 Bonhoeffer appreciates Hegel as a theologian who thinks von oben and whose theology is to be `judged as a whole.2 In the 1990s the Barth- and Bonhoeffer-reader, Charles Marsh, has examined the way Bonhoeffer reads his own idea of Christian community against Hegels in Bonhoeffers dissertation and his habilitation-work, Akt und Sein. Transzendentalphilosophie und Ontologie in der Systematischen Theologie (1929). 3 However, Hegels positive impact on Bonhoeffers 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. I shall argue that Hegels impact is to be found in relation to Bonhoeffers theological approach to the social sciences in Sanctorum Communio, 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 Hegels philosophical theology of church. Bonhoeffers critique of this philosophical theology of church is in Sanctorum Communio primarily based on his perception of the penetrating nature of sin. A mature Chalcedonian modi cation of Hegels philosophical theology of church traced in Ethik (1938 42) will be brie y outlined because it gives another perspective on Hegels impact on Bonhoeffers early theology of church. Finally I shall formulate my conclusion.

Dif culties in tracing Hegels impact on Bonhoeffers Sanctorum Communio


Hegel and Bonhoeffer are to be understood in different historical contexts with differing theological central themes. It is a complicated matter to trace theological similarities in method and intentions between Hegel and Bonhoeffer, because of the climate of Hegel research in general in the philosophical and theological circles in the 1920s, this period being the historical context of Bonhoeffers own interpretation of Hegel. The climate is in uenced by the great shift towards the transcendent Other among theologians started by Karl Barths Ro merbrief (1922) as well as the turning towards the concrete human Other among philosophers and sociologists, especially within the Philosophy of

66

Jacob Holm

Dialogue. The legacy of German Idealism (Schelling, Fichte, Hegel and others) that links the project of philosophy and theology to the epistemological problems of modernity is heavily criticized in this shift. In this critique Hegels contribution to modern theology and his theological critique of modernity on modern premises is often neglected, as is his positive impact on Bonhoeffers theology from the early beginning. Finally, the examination is also made complicated by Bonhoeffer himself. In his dissertation he is highly polemical and almost give the impression that he rejects Hegels contribution to modern theology. Hegel is evaluated as a `Geistmetaphysiker whose philosophical theology is caught in `immanentism.4 On these reasons Hegelian traits in Bonhoeffers approach to the social sciences in Sanctorum Communio (1927) are also dif cult to trace.

Bonhoeffers Hegelian approach to the social sciences in Sanctorum Communio


Today Bonhoeffers Sanctorum Communio is regarded as one of the classical writings when it comes to illuminating the relation between theology and the social sciences.5 Other classics often mentioned are Ernst Troeltschs The Social Theaching of the Christian Churches (1911) and John Milbanks Theology and Social Theory (1990). As has been pointed out in recent theological research on religion, any theory of society, community, economy or even secularization can also be regarded as a theological problem linked to the proces of theorizing itself.6 A similar perspective is found in Hegels Philosophy of Religion: `The revealed human thought gives rise to manifold images and con gurations, i.e. the sciences, the arts, political interest all these interests have their center, nd their end and their beginning, their truth, in one thought, in the thought of God. As a human-godly spirit the social scientist can, according to Hegel, produce concepts in which God is `the sustaining center, which breathes life into their existence.7 For this reason the social sciences were Geisteswissenschaften . Hegels theological approach to the social sciences has a positive impact on Bonhoeffers project in Sanctorum Communio, when he chooses to let concepts and de nitions from the social sciences illuminate the three central doctrines within western Christianity, the doctrine of creation in chapter 1 3, the doctrine of sin in chapter 4 and nally the doctrine of reconciliation in chapter 5. For this purpose Bonhoeffer chooses the school of social philosophy and of systematic sociology in outlining a Christian sociology in general, and a speci c Christian

Hegels Impact on Dietrich Bonhoeffers Early Theology

67

sociology of the church that serves his ecclesiological focus, namely a dogmatical inquiry into the sociology of the church. 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, counselling, baptism and the Eucharist). This theological approach to the social sciences shares similarities with Hegels approach to the sciences in Philosophy of Religion . In his very in uential article from 1962 Peter Berger has quite rightly pointed out, that Bonhoeffer makes a poor choice in choosing the abstract, so-called formalistic school of systematic sociology instead of a more historically focused Weberian sociology.8 According to Berger, Bonhoeffers point of departure is an abstract `ethical-social re exive concept of person which Bonhoeffer relates to transcendence. Berger regards this theological enterprise as an unnecessary `theological extension. To Berger Bonhoeffers approach is `essentially Hegelian because it leads to `speculative systematizing that has little to do with empirical data of any kind.9 But Bonhoeffers approach to the social sciences is contrary to Bergers claim not motivated by a rejection of empirical data and a poor choice of two schools within sociology as such. Bonhoeffers approach is theologically motivated. Bergers evaluation forcefully tries to isolate speculative theologizing from `the real world, subject to scienti c understanding. 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. Bergers examination is a milestone in research when it comes to an analysis of Bonhoeffers use of sociological schools, but the results, when it comes to Bonhoeffers project as a whole, are inadequate from a theological perspective. The results of Bergers critique of Bonhoeffer have uncritically been accepted among theologians in American Bonhoeffer-research and they thereby diminish Bonhoeffers theological project as a whole including his Hegelian heritage.10 I therefore wish to argue for the legacy of Bonhoeffers approach to the social sciences in general and its similarities with Hegels theological approach. In particular, Hegels 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. Bonhoeffers focus is, however, not on religion and the form it takes in empirical consciousness. Nevertheless Bonhoeffer still shares Hegels revelational premise in

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.11 Therefore the concept of empirical community is also as much a theological problem for Bonhoeffer as empirical consciousness is for Hegel. In Bonhoeffer methodology, de nitions and concepts from the social sciences are regarded as theological problems in themselves as they are in Hegel. As an example consider chapter 3, introduced by the headline: `The Primal State and the Problem of Community.12 To both Hegel and Bonhoeffer the social concepts sui generis without any revelational center are theologically impossible. This also means that knowledge of community is `more than just empirical or social knowledge; it is always already a knowledge of God. In this way a Hegelian in uence can be traced in Bonhoeffers theological approach to the social sciences. The social sciences are also a science of God to Bonhoeffer; not from the perspective of thinking in-and-for-itself as in Hegel, but from the perspective of church in-and-for-itself. From this perspective Bonhoeffers deconstruction and reconstruction of the sociological insights in `a Christian philosophy in chapter 1 4 in Sanctorum Communio makes sense.13 These Hegelian patterns of thinking motivates Bonhoeffer in his project being an outline of the social consequences of `Christus als Gemeinde existierend. Even this main ecclesiological concept, the heart of Bonhoeffers early theology, is similar to Hegels philosophical theology of church in Philosophy of Religion.

Bonhoeffers modi cation of Hegels philosophical theology of church in Sanctorum Communio


Hegel, unlike Bonhoeffer, is not primarily concerned with ecclesiology. Nonetheless, Hegel outlines his understanding of church in Philosophy of Religion part three on `Consummate Religion and it is possible to trace theological impact on Bonhoeffers formation of ecclesiology. Bonhoffer and Hegel share the same theological premise, i.e. that the community [Gemeinde] is the place of humanitys reconciliation with God. Bonhoeffers central concept of `Christ existing as community in Sanctorum Communio (1927) does not indicate any rejection of Hegels theological concept of church, `Gott als Gemeinde existierend outlined in Philosophy of Religion, but in Bonhoeffers words `a modi cation of Hegels concept.14 Bonhoeffer modi es Hegels theocentric concept of church into a christocentric concept of church. This does not mean that the exclusiveness of Gods reconciliation in Christ is out of focus according to Hegel. To Hegel (and Bonhoeffer) the church is in-itself

Hegels Impact on Dietrich Bonhoeffers Early Theology

69

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

70

Jacob Holm

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

Bonhoeffers understanding af sin and the impossibility of the Hegelian theory


In Sanctorum Communio Bonhoeffer outlines the penetrating nature of sin. According to Bonhoeffer the world, human beings and their intellectual abilities are converted into status corruptionis because of sin. For Bonhoeffer sin makes `the Hegelian theory impossible.23 One of the consequences is therefore, that the social sciences as a

Hegels Impact on Dietrich Bonhoeffers Early Theology

71

science of God is impossible. 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, but the very corruption of thinking itself. This means, 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. Therefore revelation and the epistemological, faith and religion are mutually exclusive categories in Sanctorum Communio. A Hegelian question would be why the reality of sin status corruptionis is possible in such a realistic, static and unmediated manner as is the case in Sanctorum Communio? Is Bonhoeffers apriori isolation of revelation and the process of conceptualisation immune to sin itself? What is Bonhoeffers 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. Revelation is thereby also linked to the concept of church in Bonhoeffer, 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, even though the intellectual capabilities of human thinking are converted into status corruptionis in chapter 4. Also Bonhoeffer is founding his theology upon a concept namely the concept of church. This means means, that the concepts from the social sciences are reconstructed (`reconciled) in a speci c Christian way in chapter 5. Bonhoeffers own justi cation of his approach is the turn towards eschatology, which means a turn towards the `total Other, Christ, whose possible existence in history is substantialized in church extra me in Sanctorum Communio. As a result Bonhoeffer himself believes he has succeeded in isolating revelation and concept of church. But Bonhoeffers dialectical sublation [Aufhebung] of concept of church in church init-self is realistic even though sin makes any concept of God/church impossible. The nal evaluation must be, that Bonhoeffers dialectical thinking about seperation is itself unmediated. Bonhoeffer himself modi es this radical claim when he develops his christology in 1933 (`Christus pro me). 24 I shall argue, 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), but the empirical concept of church is sublated into church (or empirical community existing as a revelational form of Christ). In other words: just as human thinking is

72

Jacob Holm

`reconciled in Hegels philosophical theology, so are personal experiences of God or another human being `reconciled in the church. What Bonhoeffer truly rejects is some of the consequences of Hegels thinking. Bonhoeffers strong awareness of sin is directed against any `glori cation of church and any `identi cation of the Holy Spirit and church (God, the Spirit, existing as Community). The state is not, according to Bonhoeffers reading of Hegel, `the real God and is therefore not the nal form of church in history because of sin. Society (`staat) as the sublation in the sense of nal goal or purpose of `God existing as community in history is rejected.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 Hegels and post- Hegelian social theory. On the other hand he rejects a totalitarian concept of church where God is sublated in an absolute church in history (ecclesia triumphans). This is why the church of Christ, in accordance with Bonhoeffers emphasis, is communio peccatorum and is only reconciled in its totality in spe. Only beyond history can society or the church exist in their total identi cation with `Christ existing as community. This is, 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, so that God as all-person may be all in all (1. Kor. 15,20 28).

Bonhoeffers Chalcedonian modi cation of Hegels 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. This means, in the words of Chalcedon, that God and humanity is a unity in Jesus Christ himself, without confusion or separation because the two `persons can be distinguished. This does not mean that Bonhoeffer abondens his earlier view of what was central to Christian religion. The center of reconciliation, `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. Bonhoeffer thereby modi es his early exclusivism or in the language of Chalcedon his thought of separation. Other human-godly communities of creation (Bonhoeffer mentions family, work and state) may exist as communities of reconciliation in history. It is then possible for Bonhoeffer to avoid the

Hegels Impact on Dietrich Bonhoeffers Early Theology

73

early tendency to ecclesiological exclusivism in Sanctorum Communio where communities of creation only exist as personal (`reconciled) communities through the church. In Ethik he avoids in Chalchedonian wording confusing the church and other communities. Instead other communities may exist in history as ministeries [Mandaten] of reconciliation next to the church, as possible forms of the reconciliation in Christ. Still, one can distinguish between social communities and the speci c Christian community, but one should not separate them.26 Other communities are not forcefully sublated or confused into `Christ existing as community. The reason behind this alternative theological model of thinking is, that Bonhoeffers christology is more developed and linked to creation in Ethik. Creation is not apriori divided from reconciliation and forcefully turned into a permanent status corruptionis because of sin. Instead creation and reconciliation is considered to be a reconciled unity in Christ. Bonhoeffer conceives creation and reconciliation in a dynamic unity, so that the communities of creation may exist as ministeries of reconciliation outside the church of Christ. Still he wishes to link them to the church of Christ, because otherwise the reconciliation of Christ is separated from Church, `Christ existing as community, and confused with society (as in Hegel), family or other social reductions. To summarize this means that the human-godly communities of creation may exist as communities of reconciliation, because reconciliation inclusively exists in history as `Christ existing as community. In Bonhoeffers own words the communities of creation and church exist `with-, for- and against-each-other as a reconciled unity in Christ.27 Communities may then, here and now, be perceived as concrete forms of salvation in Christ; sources and mediators of real, personal existence.

Conclusion
In this article I have traced Hegels impact on Bonhoeffers early theology, especially in relation to Sanctorum Communio. I have suggested that Bonhoeffers approach to the social sciences shares similarities with Hegels theological approach to the different sciences of his age, as stated in Hegels Philosophy of Religion. Another positive in uece is linked to the fact that both Hegel and Bonhoeffer connect Gods reconciliation with church; Hegel from a theocentric perspective, Bonhoeffer from a modi ed christological perspective. Still, I argued that the incarnate is the centre in the theologies of both of them, but in different ways: For Hegel the concept of God is incarnated in the human thought and taught in the doctrine of religion; to Bonhoeffer the

74

Jacob Holm

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

Hegels Impact on Dietrich Bonhoeffers Early Theology

75

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