Divine Preservation in Schleiermacher and Bonhoeffer

Unlike the doctrines of Creation or Redemption, which are more about existence as a given, the doctrine of Providence concerns both God’s sovereignty and human freedom. Consequently, Providence is perhaps the most politically charged Christian doctrine, while also being one of the most readily co-opted for imperialist and totalitarian purposes. In an era when many are reluctant to affirm outright that every event is caused by the will of God, how can Christian theologians speak about Providence without merely dismissing such skepticism as a lack of faith?

This essay responds to that question by examining the work of two German Protestant theologians: Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834) and Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906–1945). In their mature thought, both Schleiermacher and Bonhoeffer offer innovative proposals for this traditional theological task, each providing deep insight into human freedom in concrete life. While scholars have acknowledged certain similarities between them, relatively little literature has examined them together.[1] This essay seeks to bridge that gap by focusing on their concept of divine preservation—a term they both preferred over Providence. Regarding divine preservation, Schleiermacher and Bonhoeffer differ significantly in their contexts, concerns, and methods. Schleiermacher, engaging with the long-standing discussion on the Law of Nature since the seventeenth century,[2] approaches the issue through his key concept of self-consciousness. In contrast, Bonhoeffer takes a more Barthian approach, radically emphasizing God’s revelation in Christ. However, unlike Barth, Bonhoeffer remains more sympathetic to human freedom and experience from the outset of his theological work and approaches divine preservation with a primary concern for the concrete form of God’s commandment.[3]

While preserving the distinct elements of each theologian’s understanding of divine preservation, this essay takes a comparative and constructive approach. It focuses on the later works of Schleiermacher and Bonhoeffer, particularly the second edition of Schleiermacher’s Christian Faith and Bonhoeffer’s posthumously edited Ethics. This study argues that, in different ways, both theologians offer a vision of divine preservation that resists biological reductionism and ideological distortion. Moreover, without compromising Christianity’s particularity, their perspectives—one centered on internal experience, the other on external reality—complement each other, providing a common framework for both believers and non-believers.

The essay is structured into three main sections, each examining a key aspect of their perspectives on divine preservation. The first section explores their distinctive understandings of the relationship between preservation and redemption, emphasizing their shared focus on this-worldliness and a soteriological lens. The second section examines their views on original sin, particularly Bonhoeffer’s engagement with Schleiermacher’s connection between individual culpability and the collective guilt of humanity. This discussion highlights how both thinkers move beyond a purely biological notion of human nature, instead framing preservation within an ethical-social framework. The third section examines their differing approaches to human freedom. While their methods diverge, both maintain that divine sovereignty and human freedom coexist and that theological reflection on preservation must account for both. Their perspectives, though distinct, ultimately contribute to a theological vision that includes both believers and non-believers. The essay concludes by proposing a vision of divine preservation that fosters solidarity and ethical responsibility in the world.

[1] Christiane Tietz’s essay is a significant contribution, though it focuses solely on Bonhoeffer’s critical appreciation of Schleiermacher from his own perspective, including possible misunderstandings. See Christiane Tietz, “Friedrich Schleiermacher and Dietrich Bonhoeffer,” in Bonhoeffer’s Intellectual Formation: Theology and Philosophy in His Thought, Religion in Philosophy and Theology, 29 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 121–43. Other essays include:  A. S. Jensen, “Schleiermacher and Bonhoeffer as Negative Theologians: A Western Response to Some Eastern Challenges,” St. Marks Review 215 (2011): 7–21. Jonas Lundblad, “Polyphonic Love: A Common Theme in Schleiermacher and Bonhoeffer,” in Beyond Tolerance, vol. 184, Theologische Bibliotek Töpelmann 184 (Germany: Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 2019), 51–74. David S. Robinson, “Princes of the Church: Two-Kingdoms Resistance in Friedrich Schleiermacher and Dietrich Bonhoeffer,” A Journal of Church and State 65, no. 1 (2023): 90–109.

[2] A brief historical overview of the development of the doctrine of Providence in the early modern era can be found in Mark W. Elliott, Providence Perceived: Divine Action from a Human Point of View, Arbeiten Zur Kirchengeschichte, Band 124 (Berlin Boston: De Gruyter, 2015), 194–201.

[3] Pangritz rightly observes that Bonhoeffer’s discussion of the “orders of preservation” aims to address a gap in Barth’s theology—specifically, the need for a theological foundation for the binding proclamation of peace and social justice as concrete commandments. See Andreas Pangritz, Karl Barth in the Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, trans. Barbara Rumscheidt and Martin Rumscheidt, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 44.