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 doctrinesanthropologyits 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 self-existent 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 pre-existent 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 non-theistik 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.