Formation in Christ is a curious doctrine when considered dogmatically or

systematically. This is because a doctrine of spiritual formation might be considered

a downstream doctrine, as it incorporates prior theological categories. One
operatesexplicitly

or

implicitlywith,

among

others,

specific

doctrines

of

pneumatology, anthropology, holiness, Christology, ecclesiology, and sanctification

because, systematically considered, formation in Christ lies at their intersection.
Today, I will specifically address one of those upstream doctrinesanthropology
its relationship with theologies of Christian formation, and the downstream
consequences of upstream development. We begin with anthropology because, in
many ways, it sets parameters regarding what formation in Christ can and cannot
become; anthropology asks, What is human being, that it may be formed in
Christ?
To assist the conversation and highlight the specific contributions to
theologies of formation, this essay will make a distinction between theological and
philosophical anthropology. Theological anthropology will be humanity considered in
reference to the biblical categories of humanity in Adam and humanity in Christ.
Though the biblical text speaks at considerable length regarding humanity and
human being, affirming our body, mind, spirit, and soul, it is somewhat silent
regarding how these complex aspects of human being interact. Theological
anthropology is primarily concerned with what it means for humanity to be fallen in
Adam, renewed in Christ, and living in anticipation of Christs return. Specifically
delineating how body, spirit, mind, and soul interact is more properly a philosophical
investigation, and I will speak of philosophical anthropology as the discipline which
addresses the aspects of human being, body, spirit, mind, and soul, their
interaction, and how we talk about it. Consequently, a theology of formation in

Christ necessitates both a theological and philosophical anthropology, even if such a

differentiation is rarely made, as it attempts to articulate how body, spirit, mind,
and soul exist and relate in Adam in sin then renewed in Christ, and function within
Christian life as humanity awaits Christs return.
As it now stands, treatments of spiritual formation almost universally work
from an Aristotelian or Thomistic philosophical body/soul metaphysic which speaks
of the soul being shaped through specific behavior. The haibitswith their point of
reference at the level of beingtransform us being into certain types of people.
This assumed anthropology is reflected in theologies of theosis, the work of the
reformers, and the more popular work of Dallas Willard and Richard Foster. But what
happens when a philosophical anthropology moves beyond Aristotle? What happens
when you go upstream and reconsider some of this work and begin with a formal
ontology that, a-priori, refuses the categories believed most germane to spiritual
formation?
Today, through an unfortunately brief foray into Dietrich Bonhoeffers
technical theological and philosophical anthropology, I hope to accomplish two
concurrent tasks. Initially and most importantly, I hope to demonstrate this to be a
substantial issue within theologies of spiritual formation: how does anthropology
hang together with formation, and what if youre unconvinced by the Greeks? If and
when one moves beyond what one might consider this classic Thomistic or
Aristotelian philosophical anthropology, in which the soul as a specific thing is
shaped

and

developed

through

intentional

habit,

significant

downstream

implications suddenly emerge which force us to reconsider formation in Christ.

Secondly, I hope to show that, in specific, Dietrich Bonhoeffers work and his

consequent treatment of Christian formation provides a stimulating way forward.

We begin with a brief overview of Bonhoeffers thought.
Dietrich Bonhoeffers oft misunderstood and at times confusing work Act and
Being has had a muddled reception over the decades as interpreters have struggled
to come to terms with what exactly he is attempting to achieve through the text.
The text is a highly provocative work of philosophical and theological anthropology.
Specifically, Bonhoeffer is deeply interacting with Martin Heideggers work as he
wrestles through the philosophical implications of his Christology.
Consequently, in order to grasp Bonhoeffers work, a very brief and
incomplete overview of central aspects of Heideggers work Being and Time is in
order. Published in 1927, Being and Time had an immediate impact on the
philosophical world because Martin Heidegger radically altered how philosophy
approached the question and meaning of being. No longer debating the
metaphysical substance of being, Heidegger questions the place of dialogue
regarding metaphysical substance in the first place. He challenged the very
discourse as he insisted that all we can talk of is the way of being which he calls
being-there, or Dasein.

Heideggers great philosophical achievement in Being

and Time was shifting the field of conversation from the substance and metaphysics
of being into the interpretation and hermeneutics of existence. Being is. But it can
exist in many ways, and all we can do is interpret the multifaceted shapes existence
takes. Thus, Dasein is not a thing as if it could be considered in abstraction from a
located and interpreted existence, let alone a thing with a soul that can be shaped
or formed. Additionally, we must note Heideggers evaluative criteria by which he
interprets lived existence: authenticity or inauthenticity. For Heidegger, as the
individual chooses her particular way of being humanthe shape her existence

takesshe does it with reference to how she understands herself to be able to exist
in any given moment. What this means is that existence, and therefore human
being, is interpreted in reference to its specific way of existing and in dialogue with
what it could have become at any given moment.
Thus, a few central aspects of Heideggers project in Being and Time become
quite important for Bonhoeffers work, and will tease out in his doctrine of formation
in Christparticularly his use of Dasein in reference to being.

As I mentioned,

Dasein is the being of the subject who is interpreting his existence, knowing himself
living either in authenticity or inauthenticity to his potential to exist in the world.
Bonhoeffer puts it like this, Dasein is already its possibility, in authenticity or
inauthenticity. It is capable of choosing itself in authenticity and of losing itself in
inauthenticity. The decisive point is, however, that it already is in every instance
what it understands and determines itself to be. And again, Dasein, has no selfexistent natureits not a thing which can be spoken of in abstraction. It already
is in reference to what it understands itself as to be capable of being, and you
cannot discuss Dasein apart from the interpretation of being found in the present,
reflective, moment. This means, quite significantly, that human being has no preexistent metaphysical composition. It is not some-thing to be considered, andvery
importantlyis not some-thing which can be shaped, molded, or formed, let alone
transformed into Christlikeness. Heideggers great achievement is shifting the field
of conversation away from a substance metaphysics of being into the interpretation
and hermeneutics of concrete existence.
Bonhoeffer memakai pemikiran Heidegger bukanlah tanpa persalan. Secara
khusus, walaupun Heidegger menyatakan bahwa pendekatan Dasein adalah nontheistik membiarkan Heidegegr berbicara tentang ada tanpa referensi kepada Allah,

Bonhoeffer

mendorong Heidegger berbicara mengenai ada dalam referensi

kebangkitan Kristus. Konsekuensinya, ada transenden apa Consequently, there is a

transcendent what of being which Bonhoeffer must acknowledge; his Christology
and theology of the resurrection hold that Christ renewed all humanity and human
being through the resurrection. And yet he must address it without either making it
a possibility for the form human being can take, or treating it as an external object
of knowledge which could be treated in abstraction. In effect, Bonhoeffer has to
acknowledge the theological transcendent reality of all humanity in Christ without
making living in reference to this reality something philosophically or existentially
possible prior to Gods revelation. Just as Dasein isnt some-thing, Bonhoeffer has to
treat this-thingall human being renewed in Christas if its no-thing until and
unless the person encounters Gods revelation in Christ.
Act and Being, therefore, portrays a theological anthropologythe reality of a
transcendent metaphysicthrough a philosophical anthropology that denies its
existence.

Bonhoeffer maintains the tension through an appreciation of the

Lutheran doctrine of the bound will, understood in reference to a term he coins,

Wiesein. Wiesein (how-being which corresponds to Daseins there-being) draws
upon the relationship between Daseins existence and its potential-to-be in any
given moment; how we are determines the possibilities we see our Dasein to be
able to take and, therefore, the shape and form of existence. The heart turned in
upon itself believes its only possibilities to exist is from the self, thus binding the
individual away from any transcendent possibility-to-be. Life in reference to the self
binds the individual, forbidding them to live in reference to their transcendent
reality in Christ. Thus, humanitys transcendent reality is genuinely inaccessible
because it isnt a possibility for the form Dasein can take. The person is truly bound,

and cannot be free apart from the inbreaking Word of God in Jesus Christ. This is
why vision plays such a key role in Bonhoeffers theology, particularly in the
conclusion of Act and Being. You cannot live in reference to Christ until you see him
beyond yourself. Prior to Gods revelation, Wiesein binds Dasein to only be able to
exist in reference to the selfwhich Bonhoeffer calls being in the mode of Adam.
After revelation of reality in Christ, Wiesein can exist in reference to its
eschatological potential-to-be in Christwhich he calls being in the mode of Christ.
When this occurs, the individual exists in the mutually constitutive unity of act
(Wiesein) and being (Dasein), as both are ordered in Christ.
Bonhoeffers complex, theological and philosophical work has a few important
downstream considerations. Theologically, all human being is completely renewed
in Christ through the resurrection, and this necessarily removes all talk of progress,
growth, and formation away from any reference to being in Christian life. Precisely
because all humanity is already new humanity, complete and entire in Christ.
Positively stated, there is no place to grow to because one is already everything in
Christ. Philosophically, Bonhoeffer reflects the fullness of humanity at the level of
being through his use of Dasein. Human being cannot be treated with respect to
progressively developmental categories because it is a conceptual unity in Dasein.
Even moreso, his conscious adoption Heideggers categories tacitly rejects
metaphysics in the first place. The way of being is key for Dasein, not the stuff of
being. The how of being, not the what. Looking downstream, this implies
Bonhoeffer will not call formation in Christ the shaping of the soul, or the inner
dimension of the self, as if it was a thing that could be treated apart from the rest of
the aspects of being (mind, spirit, body), or had anywhere to progress to.

Consequently, by the time he speaks of growth and con-formation to Christ,

his conceptual die has already have been cast, so to speak, and many common
categories are already off the table. Formation in Christ simply cannot talk about
developing habits that shape the soul, or work through categories of progressive
development of human being because the theological and philosophical categories
deny that from the outset. I believe this reflects the genuinely unique aspect
Bonhoeffers theology brings to spiritual formation discourse: what is Christian
formation if youve rejected the Greeks?
So how does Bonhoeffer hold these points and still have a developed
theology of formation? Broadly stated, he accomplishes it in two ways. First, by
theologically articulating progress in Christian life in reference to a way of being,
instead of in reference to being itself. Secondly, he treats formation as an ecclesial
concept and speaking of Christ taking a specifically social form. He treats formation
as Christ taking form in the church and thus gives it a primarily social shapeas the
church exists in a certain way that corresponds to its being in Christ. Which, it
seems to me, is the precise logical appeal Paul makes in the pastoral epistles. You
are in Christ, therefore act in a way which faithfully corresponds to your
being in Christ.
Here, Ill transition into a brief overview of how Bonhoeffer understands
Christian formation as the precise way Christ exists as community. Bonhoeffers
doctoral

dissertation,

Sanctorum

Communio,

explores

the

theological

and

sociological nature of community. Among other things, the text theologically

interprets a central sociological insight regarding the relationship between
individual will and its role in structuring community. It spends considerable time
developing the concept of will within the church, specifically highlighting its renewal

in Gods justification. In justification the will to self is renewed as the will for God
and for neighbor, and his argument investigates the relationship between individual
will and community, showing community to be, essentially, the community of wills.
A sociological mark of community is this common, unified, communal will towards
something. Just as individuals possess a will which can be exercised in daily life, so
too does the community. As an examplethink of a the common will the Chicago
Bears defense possesses on a Sunday afternoon, and how this unified desire in the
same direction allows them to be treated as The Defense, instead of simply
naming off all 11 players at the same time. This notion of a collective person is quite
important in the text. It underscores a significant point for Bonhoeffer, that,
sociologically speaking, communities can become collective persons and be treated
as people. Looking forward, we can note Bonhoeffers theological insight that a
collective person that wills can will itself either in harmony or conflict with the will of
God and therefore emerge as a certain kind of collective person.
Bonhoeffer ties his comments regarding will and collective into the
sociological concept of a communitys objective spirit. He is drawing attention to
another insight, namely that, where wills unite, a structure is createdthat is, a
third entity, previously unknown, independent of being willed or not willed by the
persons who are uniting.

Through the way in which persons originate and

communal wills are identified, both being sociological insights, a third entitywhat
he calls the objective spiritemerges and encapsulates the social ethos defining
the communitys will. And, a communitys objective spirit can be treated as a
collective person and given a personal characterthe ethos behind the will. So you
might think of the 1974 Pittsburgh Steelers Steel Curtain defense, and what
values it stood forkindness and gentleness are not among them.

All of this is crucial because it allows him to speak of communities as a

person and, importantly, shows how community can be treated as an individual.
This is particularly relevant as he considers how Christ takes form in the world as a
collective individual borne through the communal will of the church. And, again, it is
significant to note that none of this formation has anything to do with human being
in and of itself.
Bonhoeffer demonstrates the theological significance of these sociological
realities by putting them in conversation with the biblical categories of humanity in
Adam and humanity in Christ. Humanity in Adam is the collective individual
representing the bound will as objective spirit. Individually, and as community, the
human race was created to will Gods will, the will to community and the will to
embrace Gods purpose. Instead, the individual defies the divine will in service of
the self. Bonhoeffer portrays this self-willing objective spirit as Adam existing as
community: fallen humanity as collective person.

In rising up against God in

rejection of her created will, the individual fragments herself from the community,
making Gods community (the collective person who wills the very will of God)
impossible.

This is precisely the philosophical dynamic he described through

Wiesein in his Habilitation. The will-to-self as objective spirit is humanity in Adam

bound to itself and existing as a collective person.
This allows him to position Christs work as the second Adam, renewing
through obedience what Adam destroyed through disobedience, and thus to reflect
the biblical symmetry of Romans 5. Christ, as the second Adam, renewed human
being and took it into himself, establishing the church in his body through the
resurrection. Additionally, through justification, the individuals will is renewed and
can now begin willing Gods will, individually and communally, such that a new type

of collective individual takes form in the world. This is the formal, ontological,
structuring of the church as collective individual and is the transcendent metaphysic
he works around in Act and Being. Christs resurrection brought all humanity into
himself; the church, as Christs body, takes a specific shape as it exists in space and
time through the collective spirit of humanity renewed in Christ and willing Gods
will. The church is Christ existing as community, precisely because (at a formal,
ontological, level) it is Christs body, and (sociologically understood) it is the
collective individual emerging through the objective spirit of the renewed will.
Christs presence as community is a deeply theological concept which
permitted a sociological interpretation that opens a series of conceptual paths for
him to develop his unique theology. He possesses theological tools to develop an
extensive theology of formation in Christ without any reference to being. Act and
Beings anthropological fine tuning sets the parameters Discipleship and Ethics built
upon as Bonhoeffer developed the social form of Christ in the world. Though he
never returns to a proper sociological investigation of the church, he also never
departs from the primarily social understanding of Christs presence in the world.
This is how he can treat ethics as formation, because Christ takes form through the
behavior of the church. From early to late, Bonhoeffer notes that Christ takes form
among us. As he says in the Ethics, He who bore the form of the human being can
only take form in a small flock; this is Christs church. Formation means, therefore,
in the first place Jesus Christ taking form in Christs church.
This is how Bonhoeffers upstream work cashes out, as he puts forth an
elaborate and extensive theology of formation in Christ that speaks of progress (as
Christ increasingly takes form in the world through the church) through a specific
way of existing in the worldwilling the will of God for God and neighbor. But, he

does all this from a categorically different metaphysical presupposition. And this is
where, I believe, Bonhoeffers theology can be most instructive for those doing
constructive work in the relationship between anthropology and formation in Christ.
Particularly for those theologians working from a post-Aristotelian/Thomistic
philosophical anthropology, Bonhoeffer reinforces that formation need not be soul
shaping after virtue or that being shaped in Christlikeness means growing in Jesuss
character. One can speak of developing certain ways of being, we can be more
faithful to our holy character in Christ. but being remains static, secured in Christ
through the resurrection. The soul doesnt have to grow anywhere. Thus, on
aggregate, Dietrich Bonhoeffer can become a very helpful conversation partner. He
not only illumines requisite systematic issues underneath a theology of formation,
articulating theological loci to be worked through, but his particular contribution is
quite provocative as we consider formation within the local church.