Bonhoeffer and "La Labor de Nuestras Manos"

Gustavo Gutiérrez and Lisa Dahill offer critiques of Dietrich Bonhoeffer that commend his self-sacrificial witness while questioning whether Bonhoeffer’s account of suffering is sufficiently nuanced or particular. In contrast to these observations, Bonhoeffer, in reflections like “The View from Below,” indicates that his understanding of history is rightly informed by the experience of suffering. With that in mind, I undertake a critical analysis of Bonhoeffer’s account of oppression based on the aforementioned critiques. I first consider how Bonhoeffer’s biography and theological influences both aid and impede a full-blooded understanding of modern injustice. I then consider how those tensions influence Bonhoeffer’s articulation of suffering in his late theology. Finally, I offer methodological recommendations for theologians inspired by Bonhoeffer’s life and witness. These suggestions affirm Bonhoeffer’s example while relying on Christ’s self-revelation through the Spirit towards a better reckoning with the particular blind spots that impede the work of our hands.

Gustavo Gutiérrez argues that Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s theology offers a critical diagnosis and laudable exemplar of both the possibilities and limitations of modern Protestant theology in its incomplete analysis of the abuses of power, class, and economic exploitation that lie at the heart of the western, capitalistic enterprise. This paper therefore offers a radical, social reading of Bonhoeffer’s 1933 Christology lectures via Gutierrez in order to recontextualise Bonhoeffer’s idea of the “proletariat Christ” in the context of indigenous-settler relations today. Specifically, it takes Gutiérrez's diagnosis of Bonhoeffer as axiomatic for those of us who participate in theology as white settler peoples in the lands now called Australia and New Zealand. Such modern (settler) theology can only go so far when it fails to take seriously the depths of the injustice and violence which such settler societies are built upon within the histories of European colonisation and displacement of First Peoples.

Arendt’s and Bonhoeffer’s thoughts, once reconstructed via a critical dialogue, can provide much-needed insight into applying religious truth claims to politics. Arendt emphasizes the role of plural voices for free politics. For her, a solution to the spread of misinformation is to establish and maintain a robust public sphere. For Bonhoeffer, though, this method is limited and incomplete. He argues that Christians must see the world as a space of solidarity among the oppressed, and a Christ-reality that resists both theocratic legalism and vulgar voluntarism must guide their actions. However, Arendt’s sharp judgment of the dangers of a modern society suggests that even a modest version of religious practice cannot remain intact in the face of modern socioeconomic forces. Through a novel interpretation of their political theologies, this paper investigates a way for religion to be a conscientious voice in politics yet eschew becoming a tyrannical force itself.

This paper tries to examine if Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s general insights deepen the ethical reflection of political decision-making today – exploring the issue of humanitarian interventions. Therefor one can highlight Bonhoeffer’s ideas as general orientation marks: 1. Identifying a situation to be one of “complimentary culpability”, 2. Failing to realize an ideal, such as a fundamentally pacifist attitude, 3. Taking responsibility for acting unjustified pending only on one’s conscience and 4. Proving the last necessities.

Bonhoeffer's life and his theology are closely interwoven. Therefor Bonhoeffer’s contemporary context and situation need to be considered. Thus, the time immediately before Bonhoeffer's imprisonment can be considered the creative period of his theological insights, which ethically reflect on the aspect of culpability in hopeless situations. These “situations of complementary culpability” can be generalized as situations of ethical dilemmas. Bonhoeffer’s deep theological insights lead to an anti-principled ethical stance.