^{page 427 note 1} Barth, Karl, Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century Translator not given. (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1959), p. 396.Google Scholar

^{page 427 note 2} Barth, , Protestant Thought, p. 283.Google Scholar

^{page 427 note 3} Hegel, , The Phenomenology of Mind. Translated by Baillie, J. B. (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1967), p. 804.Google Scholar

^{page 427 note 4} Rorty, Richard, Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, p.Google Scholar

^{page 427 note 5} Barth, , Protestant Thought, p. 296.Google Scholar

^{page 428 note 6} Barth, , Protestant Thought, p. 303.Google Scholar

^{page 428 note 7} Barth, , Protestant Thought, p. 286.Google Scholar

^{page 428 note 8} Although Bonhoeffer refers occasionally to the Philosophy of Right and the Encyclopedia, his critique is primarily engaged with Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit and the Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion.

^{page 428 note 9} Jorg Rades notes that Bonhoeffer's phrase came from Professor Seeberg's Christliche Dogmatik II, Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung Erlangen, 1925, p. 299. Rades, Jorg, ‘Bonhoeffer and Hegel from Sanctorum Communio to the Hegel Seminar with some perspectives for the later works,’ unpublished essay, St Andrews University.Google Scholar

^{page 429 note 10} The recent edition of Bonhoeffer's 1933 Hegel seminar is informative. The Hungarian student Ferenc Lehel recalls his surprise at Bonhoeffer's sympathetic reading of Hegel's Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion. Unlike much contemporary anti-idealist theology, Bonhoeffer recognized an undeniable value in Hegel. Lehel writes, ‘In a way Dietrich Bonhoeffer handled Hegel eclectically to the extent that he examined and emphasized that which to him — to the theologian — appeared useful’ (Lehel, p. 10 in Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Hegel-Seminar 1933, edited by Todt, Ilse. Munich: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1988)Google Scholar.

^{page 430 note 11} Hegel, , Phenomenology of Spirit Translated by Miller, A. V. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), p. 474.Google Scholar

^{page 430 note 12} Hegel, , Phenomenology of Mind, p. 218.Google Scholar

^{page 431 note 13} Hegel, , Phenomenology of Mind, p. 781Google Scholar.

^{page 431 note 14} Hegel, , Phenomenology of Spirit, p. 476.Google Scholar

^{page 431 note 15} Hegel quoted in Bernard Reardon, M. G., Religion in the Age of Romanticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p. 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 432 note 16} Hegel, , The Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion. Edited by Hodgson, Peter C.. Translated by Brown, R. F., Hodgson, P. C., and Steward, J. M. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), Volume III, p. 140Google Scholar.

^{page 432 note 17} Hegel, , Philosophy of Religion, Volume III, pp. 211–223Google Scholar,

^{page 432 note 18} Hegel, , Philosophy of Religion, Volume III, p. 237.Google Scholar

^{page 432 note 19} Hegel, , Phenomenology of Spirit, p. 477Google Scholar. One such cognitive representation would be Kant's categorical imperative. Cf. Hegel, ‘Christianity and Its Fate’.

^{page 432 note 20} Hegel, , Philosophy of Religion, Volume III, p. 135.Google Scholar

^{page 434 note 21} Hegel, , Philosophy of Religion, Volume III, p. 180–182Google Scholar.

^{page 434 note 22} Bonhoeffer, , Sanctorum Communio. Translated by Smith, R. G. (London: Collins, 1963), p. 37.Google Scholar

^{page 435 note 23} Bonhoeffer, , Sanctorum Communio, p. 158.Google Scholar

^{page 435 note 24} Bonhoeffer, , Sanctorum Communio, p. 140.Google Scholar

^{page 435 note 25} Bonhoeffer, , Sanctorum Communio, p. 136.Google Scholar

^{page 436 note 26} Bonhoeffer, , Sanctorum Communio, p. 127.Google Scholar

^{page 436 note 27} Bonhoeffer, , Sanctorum Communio, p. 54.Google Scholar

^{page 437 note 28} Hegel, Realphilosophie, quoted in Hyppolite, Jean, Genesis and Structure of Hegel's ‘Phenomenology of Spirit’. Translated by Cherniak, Samuel and Heckman, John (1Evanston, II.: Northwestern University Press, 1974), p. 568.Google Scholar

^{page 437 note 29} Hegel, , Philosophy of Religion, Volume III, pp. 64–65Google Scholar.

^{page 437 note 30} Hegel, , Philosophy of Religion, Volume II, p. 109.Google Scholar

^{page 437 note 31} Karl Rahner gets to the heart of the distinction between unity and identity in an interesting comment on Cardinal Hoffner's proposition at the Würzburg Synod of 1974 that ‘Jesus of Nazareth is God’. Rahner says: ‘Of course, that is a Christian, irreversible, finally binding truth, but one can misunderstand this sentence too. While other sentences with the verb to be express an identity of a simple type with the content of the predicate, such an identity between the humanity of Jesus and God's eternal logos does not exist. A unity exists here, not an identity.’ Imhof, Paul and Biallowons, Hubert, Editors, Karl Rahner in Dialogue. Translated by Egan, Harvey D. (New York: Crossroad, 1986), p. 250Google Scholar.

^{page 438 note 32} Kirkegaard, Soren, Fear and Trembling. Translated by Hannay, Alastair (New York: Penguin Books, 1985), p. 61.Google Scholar

^{page 440 note 33} Bonhoeffer, , Act and Being, p. 92.Google Scholar

^{page 440 note 34} Bonhoeffer, , Act and Being. Translated by Noble, Bernard. New York: Octagon Press, 1960), p. 93.Google Scholar

^{page 440 note 35} Importantly, Bonhoeffer is responding to Barth's dialectical literature in the two dissertations.

^{page 440 note 36} Bonhoeffer, , Act and Being, p. 92.Google Scholar

^{page 440 note 37} Bonhoeffer, , Act and Being, p. 136.Google Scholar

^{page 440 note 38} Bonhoeffer, , Act and Being, p. 136.Google Scholar

^{page 441 note 39} Bonhoeffer, , Act and Being, p. 93.Google Scholar

^{page 441 note 40} Bonhoeffer, , Ethics. Translated by Smith, Neville Horton (New York: Macmillan, 1955), p. 202.Google Scholar

^{page 441 note 41} Bonhoeffer, , Ethics, p. 202.Google Scholar

^{page 442 note 42} Reardon, , Religion in the Age of Romanticism. (New York: Cambridge, 1985), p. 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 442 note 43} Reardon, , Religion in the Age of Romanticism, p. 84Google Scholar.

^{page 442 note 44} Reardon, , Religion in the Age of Romanticism, p. 84Google Scholar.

^{page 443 note 45} Hegel, , Philosophy of Religion, Volume III, p. 93.Google Scholar

^{page 443 note 46} Hegel, , Philosophy of Religion, Volume III, p. 326Google Scholar.

^{page 443 note 47} Bonhoeffer, , Ethics, p. 205.Google Scholar

^{page 444 note 48} Bonhoeffer, , Ethics, p. 198.Google Scholar

^{page 444 note 49} Bonhoeffer, , Ethics, pp. 198–199Google Scholar.

^{page 444 note 50} Bonhoeffer, , Ethics, p. 34.Google Scholar

^{page 445 note 51} Bonhoeffer, , Ethics, p. 34Google Scholar.

^{page 445 note 52} Bonhoeffer, , Ethics, p. 34.Google Scholar

^{page 445 note 53} Bonhoeffer, , Act and Being, p. 181.Google Scholar

^{page 445 note 54} Bonhoeffer, , Act and Being, p. 13.Google Scholar

^{page 445 note 55} Bonhoeffer, , The Cost of Discipleship. Translated by Fuller, Reginald H. (New York: Macmillan, 1959), p. 62.Google Scholar

^{page 446 note 56} Bonhoeffer, , The Cost of Discipleship, p. 62.Google Scholar

^{page 446 note 57} Bonhoeffer, , Ethics, p. 35.Google Scholar

^{page 446 note 58} Bonhoeffer, , Ethics, p. 55.Google Scholar

^{page 447 note 59} Eberhard Jüngel, Evangelische Kommentare 2, quoted in Küng, Hans, The Incarnation of God: An Introduction to Hegel's Theological Thought as Prolegomena to a Future Christology. Translated by Stephenson, J. R.. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987), p. 552.Google Scholar

^{page 447 note *} Of course, there are resonances of Hegel in Bonhoeffer's proposal. In the ‘Tübingen Essay’ of 1793 Hegel protests the arid scholasticism of his Lutheranism by distinguishing between subjective and objective or positive religion. The former is alive in the ‘inwardness of our being’ and ‘active in our outward behavior;’ (484) the latter is derivative and abstract — it is ‘cold reflection’. While the distinction is interesting for my comparative-critical essay, Bonhoeffer resists the turn to subjectivity. It remains the other — whether as person, community or God — whose claim on the I draws it out into responsible selflessness. Also, Hegel's early essay on the positivity of Christianity (1795) delineates morality, i.e. Kantian ethics, as the essential content of the religion of Jesus, a religion which immediately lost its originary freedom to the authoritarian bondage of personality, institution and doctrine. Again while there might be loose structural affinities with Bonhoeffer's program, the capabilities of the autonomous moral agent have no room in his theology. More to the point of Bonhoeffer's critique is Hegel's later view that ‘ethical life is the most genuine cultus’ (Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, Appendix, p. 451, 1831). Peter Hodgson remarks, ‘That is, when the subjective appropriation of reconciliation that occurs in the cultus takes on objective, ethical structure or substance, the true and universal actualization of divine-human reconciliation is achieved’ (p. 451). This point is deserving of greater treatment. However, one noteworthy qualification in ascribing Hegel's view to Bonhoeffer is that Hegel investigates this correlation in terms of the orders of creation which represent organic extensions of the cultus. Further, Bonhoeffer is not equating community with ethical life. Ethics as formation is not primarily about the person's conformity to Christ — although the active conformation to Christ is not relinquished — but about Christ's becoming real and taking form in the person. (See Love, Robin, ‘Biographical Context’ in New Studies in Bonhoeffer's Ethics. Edited by Peck, William J.. Lewiston: Edwin Mellin Press, 1987), p. 205.Google Scholar) In other words, formation amplifies new possibilities of conformation. Bonhoeffer says, ‘Ethics as formation, then, means the bold endeavour to speak about the way in which the form of Jesus Christ takes form in our world, in a manner which is neither abstract nor casuistic, neither programmatic nor purely speculative. Concrete judgments and decisions will have to be ventured here’ (Ethics, p. 79).

^{page 448 note 60} I wish to thank Merold Westphal, James Buckley and the members of an NEH summer workshop at Fordham University for helpful comments on this essay.