Interpreting Bonhoeffer 1
=========================
Whenever I find myself confronted with the challenge of
interpreting an obscure text of Bonhoeffer's or for that matter,
a perplexing comment from one of our contributors,
a couplet from one of Goethes most pagan literary compositions,
his "Westoestlicher Divan" comes to mind:
"Denn dasz ein Wort nicht einfach gelte,
Das sollte sich doch von selbst verstehen."
.PP
The very term "dogmatic" is sometimes held to imply
that a given statment should be accepted at face value.
I anticipate an objection to the effect that Bonhoeffer,
of all theologians, does not need interpretation,
that certainly his later writing is sufficently unambiguous
to speak for itself,
that Bonhoeffer's dogmatic theology 
requires not to be interpreted or construed
but accepted and believed.
.PP
This objection poses no real difficulty.
I have no difficulty with this objection.
Students of Martin Luther understand
the spiritual significance of interpretation.
Jonathan Mengs, in the novel "Die Andere" says
it very succinctly:
.PP
"Ich bin, wissen sie, Herr Professor, in einem protestantischen
Glaubensbekenntnis auferzogen worden. Man hat mich ueberzeugt,
dasz die Bibel das Wort Gottes sei, und dasz des Menschen
Beziehung zu Gott darauf beruhe, dasz ihm die Moeglichkeit
gegeben ist, dieses Wort Gottes fuer sich selbst, auf eigene
Weise zu deuten. Sehen sie, Herr Professor, es ist doch genau
dies was wir in unserem Berufe zu leisten beanspruchen. Hat nicht
die Reformation das Literaturverstaendnis zur Religion erhoben,
und die Religion als Literaturverstaendnis gedeutet?"

(I was brought up, sir, in a protestant confession. I was persuaded
that the Bible is the word of God, and that man's relationship to God
is premised on the possibility of his interpreting this word of God
for himself, in his own way. You see, sir, it is exactly this which
we presume to accomplish in our profession. Did not the Reformation
glorify the interpretation of literature as religion, and construe
religion as the interpretation of literature?)

I hear someone object
that the presumption to interpret dogma
betokens a lack of faith.
But the opposite argument seems to me more persuasive.
The need to interpret is an expression of faith.
One may memorize a text, venerate it, repeat it
without ever taking its meaning seriously;
without ever making it ones own.
The interpretation of texts may indeed be difficult.
There a times when one must wrestle with them as with angels.
The text is not an end in itself.
It is a means to an end,
a path which leads to what is beyond the words.

The alternative is to receive the text as a mantra,
as a magic phrase to be thoughtlessly,
uncritically repeated, over and over again.
Faith in the text implies doubt of the reality.
But faith in the reality is reflected
in scepticism concerning the text.
To the extent that interpretation entails doubt
concerning the meaning of a word or a sentence,
it is an assertion of faith in a reality beyond the word.
Let us be sceptical about the text,
in order that we may be the more certain
of the reality which it reflects.
Belief in a reality beyond entails a sceptical reading of the text.
One either believes in the text or in the reality to which it points.
If one puts ones faith in the text,
the text blocks the view of what is beyond it.
If one puts ones faith in the reality beyond
the text, one has to wrestle with it, as with the angel.
It seems to me that there is little difference
between wrestling with the messenger
and wrestling with the message.