^{page 268 note 1} Woelfel, J. W., Bonhoeffer's Theology—Classical and Revolutionary. (Nashville, 1970)Google Scholar, chap. x. One of the fascinating things about Bonhoeffer interpretation is the variety of stress on the importance of contemporary events on this thought. Ironically those who wish to stress the changes can be those who wish to use the later BonhoefTer as a jumping-off ground for radical development or those who see the period in prison as an aberration to be discounted.

^{page 269 note 1} For support that Bonhoeffer was fundamentally consistent cf. Bethge, E., ‘The challenge of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's life and theology’, in Smith, R. G., World Come of Age (London, 1967)Google Scholar and Dumas, A., Bonhoeffer: Theologian of Reality (E.T., London, 1971), pp. 165–167.Google Scholar

^{page 269 note 2} The works of Bonhoeffer referred to below, with abbreviations (all E.T. published in London):

Sanctorum Communio (1963)—S.C.

Act and Being (1962)—Act

Christology (1966)

No Rusty Swords (1965)—Swords

The Way to Freedom (1966)—Freedom

Creation and Temptation (1966)—Creation (being a combination of Creation Fall and Temptation)

Ethics (1955)

Letters and Papers from Prison (Enlarged Edition) (1967)—Letters.

^{page 269 note 3} Act.There is very little on history, bearing out Moltmann's remark that Bonhoeffer's theology seems more ‘spacial’ than ‘dynamic’. But cf. pp. 130—4 which includes a discussion of the relation between ‘act’ and ‘being’. Act comes from being (Aristotle) but also being comes from act, i.e. I become as the other creates me. Thus we have the circle: ‘I am borne (pati), therefore I am (esse), therefore I believe (agere)’. This is the I-Thou relationship and the basis of history. The importance for our purpose is the reference to the first stage (pati): I am borne. The theologia crtcis of the suffering of Christ is linked therefore to the Messianic sufferings of the initial creative act by which I become, and through which others, by my bearing, can become. The suffering may be due to sin but the kenosis of servantship is essential. Cf. Moltmann, J. and Weisbach, J., Two Studies in the Theology of Bonhoeffer (E.T., New York, 1967), pp. 51 and 54Google Scholar; A. Dumas, op. cit., for a sustained interpretation of Bonhoeffer in his dialogue with Kant and Hegel.

^{page 272 note 1} cf. ‘A theological basis for the World Alliance’ in Swords, pp. 157–173Google Scholar; and Ethics, sections III and VII. The controversy is discussed in Woelfel, op. cit., chap. 9.

^{page 273 note 1} S.C., p. 61. For a critique of Bonhoefier's sociological method cf. Berger, P., ‘The social character of the question concerning Jesus Christ’, in Marty, M. E., The Place of Bonhoeffer (London, 1963).Google Scholar

^{page 274 note 1} cf. Dumas, op. cit., pp. 222f., also pp. 190–7 where the Christological statements in the Letters are accused of being Hegelian.

^{page 274 note 2} cf. Moltmann, op. cit., p. 43f.

^{page 277 note 1} cf. Dumas, op. cit., pp. 141–2, also H. Müller, ‘The Problem of the reception and interpretation of D. Bonhoeffer’, in R. G. Smith, op. cit. This is a ‘Marxist’ interpretation. One suspects that he has missed the point of concrete revelation as against Hegel (which is as valid contra Marx) by confusing ‘worldliness’ with immanence. Marx is a realist but he also reduces history to natural forces. It is also interesting to recall that Barth appeals to Feuerbach contra Hegel, while Bonhoeffer relates to Nietzsche; cf. Woelfel, op. cit., pp. 68–70.

^{page 277 note 2} cf. Phillips, J. A., The Form of Christ in the World (London, 1967), pp. 141–142Google Scholar, for the suggestion that the logic of Bonhoeffer's thought is the virtual disappearance of the Church. But the emphasis on the ‘hidden discipline’ and the outline of the projected book counter this. Bonhoeffer's critique of the Church starts in S.C., pp. 155–97 and continues in his defence of the Confessing Church (Freedom, pp. 75–96) and later his disappointment (Letters, 8th June 1944).

^{page 281 note 1} cf. S.C., p. 198 for reference to Ranke against Hegel, and Letters, 9th March 1944. Chrislology, p. 66, for Christ as centre of state. For an elaboration of the argument about the link between Christianity and Western culture and history cf. van Leeuwen, A. Th., Christianity in World History (E.T., London, 1964)Google Scholar. Phillips, op. cit., p. 136 sees the Ethics as Bonhoeffer's first indication of interest in world history and a return to his rejected liberal education (p. 50), cf. pp. 145–6 where the concern in history is thought to undermine his Christology.

^{page 283 note 1} For completeness reference ought to be made to the section: History and Good (Ethics, pp. 185ff). The opening part argues that goodness cannot exist as an abstraction which operates on history from outside or beyond. It must have historical embodiment, though not in pure form.

^{page 283 note 2} Distinction must be made between ‘worldliness’ and 'secularism’. The former central to Bonhoeffer's Christological position—that God is and acts in the world. The latter is the theory that God is excluded from an autonomous world (Dumas, op. cit., p. 154). W. Hamilton, ‘The letters are a particular thorn’ in Smith, op. cit., argues for a progressive worldliness in the Letters and suggests it points a theology without a doctrine of God. The historical description of secularisation is also given in Letters, 8th June 1944, but here without differentiating the strands. It is not possible to read much into this in what is after all only an introduction to another aspect of the problem, viz. the theological reaction.