A Future for Bonhoeffer's Christology?

Rowan Williams has connected Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s christological reflections with those of Sergius Bulgakov. He notes that they share a view of Chalcedon’s “negative” function. I will argue that Bulgakov can elucidate more than only this aspect of their respective Christologies. Whereas Bonhoeffer’s interest is in minimising the “how” question in favour of the “who” question, Bulgakov explicitly seeks to address how the incarnation is possible through his metaphysical and ontological discourse, sketching a hinterland missing from Bonhoeffer’s account. If Bonhoeffer’s christological insights are to have a future theologically, they need further grounding. It is not enough that it is Jesus Christ today who is pro me; we must also be able to describe how this is so, trusting that the God revealed in Christ is in fact Love (the Trinitarian pro me), so that we can maintain a plausible and credible worldly witness of love in our fragmented times.