PLEASE POST ON NEW SITE
A popular interpretation. Let's dialogue.
Marginally ironic because I just mailed off a copy of "Cost of Discipleship" to an Anglican friend.
I recall that at HWS I once quoted Bonhoeffer and was told in response that "he wasn't our type of Lutheran", presumably that meant his confessional hive and I don't care to untangle all that.
Let's dialogue.
Thanks for the invitation, but I swear it's not what I intended by posting this. It's just I picked up that book (an old favourite) for the first time in ages, turned to that day's entry, really liked that bit in bold, and wanted to put it on my blog so I could find it in future. And I think Bonhoeffer's point still holds regardless of the direction in which you then proceed to take Peter's confession and its precise significance for the later church.
Peter the fisherman is nobody; Peter the one who confesses Jesus as the Christ becomes a man who helps turn the world on its head (and who either does, or doesn't, or does but not in the way some people think, become the rock on which the church of Christ is built). Just as Mary the peasant-girl is nobody, but Mary the one who says (by God's grace), "Let it be to me according to your will" becomes a woman of eternal significance.
Don't get too shirty about Lutheran ambivalence towards Bonhoeffer. He was equally ambivalent towards the historic Lutheran confessions. I'm sure there are plenty of Roman Catholics out there who you can disagree with, not wish to have painted as truly representative of Roman Catholicism, and yet admire and recognise their greatness and significance (Pascal?). But I really must get hold of a full copy of his Letters and Papers from Prison some time - the abridged copy I have abridges all the good bits. :-(
Mind you, Lutheran ambivalence towards Bonhoeffer would go some way to explaining the deafening silence in response to this post. 
Interestingly, the Presbyterians are featuring Bonhoeffer on their website:
http://www.pcusa.org/
Whodathunkit?
John H:
You'd find less ambivalence to him in the states, particularly the ELCA. Is the fact that ELCA pastors are often enamored with him part of their problem or part of the solution? Well, I'm not much of a Bonhoeffer scholar myself, but his teachings about costly grace seem at odds with what ELCA is going to do in August.
I would be curious to hear some of said dialogue re: Peter.
I don't know what Greg means by saying he's not "our sort of Lutheran" at HWS. Well, I suppose someone might have said that, but it's not some kind of party line. (Do we have a party line over there? I hope not).
The reason I didn't respond is because I'm kind of Catholic/Lutheran polemiced-out right now. But if you want my opinion . . .
The key elements in the passage in Mat. 16 are the binding and loosing and the Peter as foundation. The power of binding and loosing is given to the congregation (whereever two or three are gathered) in Mat. 18 and to the twelve apostles in John 20. The analogous power to judge (Israel, world, angels, etc.) is also given to the twelve apostles collectively in Mat. 19:28, and to the congregation in 1 Cor. 6:2-3.
As for the foundation, this metaphor is used for Christ and apostles and prophets together in Eph. 2:20, and the twelve apostles Rev. 21:14.
Now, the same hermeneutic that allows us to insert "Peter's successor" for Peter in Mat. 16 would presumably allow us to insert John and Thomas and Andrew and James and . . . all twelves's successors in John 20 and Eph. 2 and Mat. 19, and Rev. 21. So if Mat. 16 argues for the indefectability of Peter, then those other passages argue for the indefectability of all twelves apostolic sees (the Thomas Christians in India, Thaddaeus/Addai in Iraq, the Christians church of John and Timothy at Ephesus, Titus in Crete, Andrew in Patras, not to speak of Antioch, which also claimed Peter and Paul as founders and so on). It is an unfortunate historic fact however that these apostolic sees are not all in communion and have not been since the fifth century. In fact, not a single see that can plausibly claim apostolic-era foundation (St. James of Campostela, and St. Andrew in Scotland don't count) is currently in undivided communion with Rome. So has the prediction that the twelve apostles would together be the foundation of the church failed? Was Peter alone the foundation and Eph. 2 and Rev. 20, and John 20 a mistake? And if we say, well Mat. 16 establishes a prediction of indefectability about Peter's successors, but those other passages don't establish a prediction about the indefectability of the other apostles' successors, then on what textual basis would one say that.
Which means that inserting "and his successors" after the mention of an apostle's foundational role leads to an insoluble dilemma.
OT but hopefully John won't mind:
What's Your Theological Worldview?
http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870
Which Theologian Are You?
http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=44116
hat tip:
http://blog.revmike.us/
Interesting. There aren't any Lutherans on this quiz. So I came up:
You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan.
I am? That's news
You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists.
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 86%
Neo orthodox 71%
Fundamentalist 64%
Roman Catholic 61%
Reformed Evangelical 57%
Emergent/Postmodern 43%
Charismatic/Pentecostal 43%
Classical Liberal 39%
Modern Liberal 7%
To which I ask: What does this mean?
Commenting by HaloScan
