View
105
Download
3
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Book Review of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Ethics
Joshua Gale
October 2012
Page 2
After stating brief distinction between the tasks of Christian ethics and secular
ethics, Dietrich Bonhoeffer writes, “Christian ethics discerns a falling away from the
origin.” 1 Bonhoeffer insists that, “the first task of Christian ethics is to invalidate this
knowledge of good and evil…[which] seems to be the aim of all ethical reflection.”2
Being one with God, that is the aim of Christian ethics for this knowledge of good and
evil, or, as Bonhoeffer writes, the concept of the moral and immoral, valuable and
valueless or of actual or proper being and not actual or proper being only signifies our
separation from God. It is through this knowledge that humanity has further turned its
back to God and embraced what can be proven by human means; that is by process or
procedure, or by law, or by science, or by systematics. As God says in the book of
Genesis, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.” 3 To worry
one’s self with these things means to remove God from the Judgment seat and to take his
place instead.
In concern with Christian ethics, Bonhoeffer bases the heart of his arguments
upon two main events, that which is referred to as the Fall and the incarnation of God
through Christ. It is in these events that we find substance to his writing and in these
events that Bonhoeffer fully discerns what he believes to be God’s relationship to that of
the world, in which Bonhoeffer truly finds his grounding and emphasizes throughout the
book. This juxtaposition between man and God becomes the life stream of his critiques
about the church, patriotism, morality, faith, and what purposes these things have served
1 Quoted in Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1955), 21.2 Quoted in Ethics, 213 Gn. 3:22 (NIV)
Page 3
through history. It is our disunion with God that Bonhoeffer interests himself in and
explores in his book Ethics.
“Instead of knowing himself solely in the reality of being chosen and loved by
God, he must now know himself in the possibility of choosing and of being in the
origin of good and evil…because he acquires this knowledge only at the price of
estrangement from the origin, the good and evil that he knows are not the good
and evil of God but the good and evil against God.” 4
This, according to Bonhoeffer, is the root of the problem. In the invalidation of
this knowledge of good and evil, one must look to the source of humanity, its origin.
Through the devil’s deceit, man sinned and became self-aware, displacing himself away
from his true origin. At our core we know one reality, and that reality is God. To be
anchored in origins is to be anchored in God. In this awareness that we have come to
know outside of God, in this becoming like God, “man has become a god against God.” 5
Bonhoeffer uses the example of the Pharisee to further illustrate this point, stating
that he thought the Pharisee to be a man solely concerned with this knowledge of good
and evil. Everyday at any point in time the Pharisee becomes concerned with more than
that of God, and instead focuses attention on laws, procedures, and rituals. This is the
epitome of a man being at odds with God, relying upon his humanistic intuitions to guide
transform his faith and to, ultimately, lead to his salvation. It is this such topic that and in
this context that Christ tells us the story of the good Samaritan and offers to us the
greatest commandment, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your
soul and with all your mind.” 6 The death of the Pharisees is that they had become blind
4 Quoted in Ethics, 235 Quoted in Ethics, 23.6 Mt. 22: 37 (NIV)
Page 4
to the will of God and could no longer distinguish the difference between that will of God
and the will of man.
To be in the center of the will of God, Bonhoeffer says, is the only way to truly
overcome the disunion of man in good and evil. To be in the center of the will of God
means that at point of conflict in one’s life, there is no actual decision to be made because
God’s reality is our one true reality. It is from God’s will that Christ gained his
confidence and it is from there that our origin is recovered. This will, which is proved by
the renewing of one’s mind, may remain at the bottom of an array of potential
circumstances. It is important that one not confuse the will of God with a matter of the
heart, yet it is also important the note the ever-changing quality of God’s will.
“The will of God is not a system of rules which is established from the outset; it
something new and different in each different situation in life…for this reason
there arises every day anew the question how here, today and in my present
situation I am to remain and to be preserved in this new life with God, with Jesus
Christ.” 7
Perhaps to better understand the will of God by explaining where it is not,
Bonhoeffer further clarifies that when outside the will of God, where shame lives as
Christians have invented it, we pick up masks. These masks that cover our shame are
necessary signs of our disunion with God, and for that reason they must be respected.
“The covering of shame conceals everything nascent that proceeds from the man’s
yearning for the reattainment of the unity which he has lost.” 8 Not to be confused with
remorse, to feel sorry, or embarrassment, shame is more original than both of those,
7 Quoted in Ethics, 41, 43.8 Quoted in Ethics, 26.
Page 5
which is why the removal of such masks, exposing such shame, a man is left bare before
God, just as he once was at his origin. This is the purpose of Christ, to merge the scars
and memories of the past with a future secured in the salvation of Christ in one present
moment.
This second significant event on which Bonhoeffer places so much emphasis now
comes to surface. The disrobed man who rests naked without God is one that humanity
cannot bare, for it was who God breathed life into the soil and created man; the
nakedness of man is the death of man, and also his moment of salvation. When God was
incarnated through Christ, God became married to humanity. The God man, “who found
no shelter in the world…under whose protection [the naked] now seek sanctuary, and
who thereby for the first time displays the full extent of His power,” 9 the power of the
cross. This, the body of Christ, says Bonhoeffer, is the point of departure for Christian
ethics.
At the hardened point of this departure comes the redemptive mediator between
lost and found, of death and revival, which is grace. The salvific charge of grace that
allows man to lose his balance and to even yet again regain his momentum centralizes all
of Bonhoeffer’s discussions of God and man, union and disunion, and natural and
unnatural. The gravity of the subject is weighted so heavily that grace, through God’s
connection with the world, which is through Christ, is like the honey of a hive, without it
Bonhoeffer’s arguments would be void. In fact, Bonhoeffer states that, “The ‘world’ is
thus the sphere of concrete responsibility which is given to us in and through Jesus
9 Quoted in Ethics, 61.
Page 6
Christ…one’s task is not to turn the world upside-down, but to do what is necessary at
the given place with a due consideration of reality.” 10
Because of God’s prevenient grace, because of Christ’s already outstretched
hands, one can come to know of God and God’s will for his life. Guilt is the foremost
way in which one is spurred towards this grace and must be recognized as a complete
defection from Christ. This grace, though, must not be cheap, an end without the means.
As much as Bonhoeffer emphasizes the redemptive qualities of this grace, he thinks it to
be even more important that something precede grace, something penultimate.
“Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance,
baptism without church discipline. Communion without confession. Cheap grace
is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus
Christ.”11
This penultimate thing before the last is what allows one to accept the grace that
Christ has to offer. Incurred guilt, a contrite heart, or a broken spirit presupposes it. The
justification that is found through Christ requires something of us, something such as
faith. In this way, it is by, both, faith and grace each alone that one is justified. Faith
“means being held captive by the sight of Jesus Christ, no longer seeing anything but
him…being set free by Jesus Christ” 12 Faith, accomplished by love and hope, is the
foundation that leads the way to grace. As one is responsible for all that ensues his initial
journey of faith, it is in his immediate context and state of reality that one will find the
10 Quoted in Ethics, 229, 230.11 Quoted in Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1966).12 Quoted in Ethics, 121.
Page 7
ultimate, which is grace. It is in this way that both faith and grace are dependent upon
one another yet remain separate.
In Bonhoeffer’s theology, an emphasis is placed upon reality, which is the one
reality of God, as opposed to an emphasis upon the divine. This means coming from the
perspective that Christ’s incarnation leveled the playing field, not because men became
holier but because God became part of the world. The ethical implications of Christianity
when approached in this way require that one naturally progress to the next step that is
questioning the balance and unity between man and God. Bonhoeffer poses that one
must stop thinking of each of these things in this way, as if they are all separate from one
another. “There are not two realities, but only one reality, and that is the reality of God,
which has become manifest in Christ in the reality of the world.” 13 Through Christ, we
stand in both the reality of God and the reality of the world, with Christ being able to
encompass both God and the world. Henceforth, it is important that we articulate this
relationship that is of Christ and the world, Christ and the church as one, as this becomes
the soul of Bonhoeffer’s writings.
In this expression of Bonhoeffer’s approach to the church, and to the state, it is of
the utmost importance that one understands his cultural context. Through this lens one
may better understand the circumstances in which Bonhoeffer is writing and, too, that
one may understand more fully the realistic and theological extent of his written
expressions. If one is to remove himself from the metaphysics of Bonhoeffer’s theology
and launch into a pursuit of application, he should begin in this same way, by examining
the framework of which Bonhoeffer was working. This requires a basic understanding of
world history, his own personal background, and his work amongst other theologians
13 Quoted in Ethics, 195.
Page 8
working with and around him. In the best interest of connecting his thoughts on the
church, as stated in his book Ethics, to his own stitch in the course of all time, an analysis
of only the most significant aspects will follow.
A close study of Bonhoeffer’s early family life may answer many questions
concerning his interest of church in the world. Growing up in a large family in Breslau,
Germany in the early twentieth century, he became the only one interested in theology.
His twin sister, Sabine, stated this in explaining the character of their father, an extremely
accomplished psychiatrist, “Sometimes papa delighted in making us define concepts, or
things, and if we managed to do so clearly, without being vague, he was happy…he was
abled to watch and wait for [our ideas] to grow.” 14 Growing up in such a setting, where
Bonhoeffer was so strongly encouraged to embrace and articulate his knowledge of
science, must have had lasting effects, as his theology, especially concerning that of
metaphysics and its relation to the natural, reads almost as psychological field study does.
It is in this type of home, that Bonhoeffer was brought up to interpret the world, and from
there began his education in the field of theology.
The polity of the church by the early-mid twentieth century had become
interwoven with that of the government. It is about this subject that one will read some
of Bonhoeffer’s most heated texts. The church compromised its position as a staple in
society of whose job it is to assess the ethical state of a government in order to become
powerful in a way that would benefit itself. Fully understanding the sensitivity of the
relationship between church and state, Bonhoeffer made it an ambition to salvage what
little integrity of the church that he thought was left and to embrace again the holy and
14 Quoted in Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer A Biography, (First Forest Press edition, 2000), 15.
Page 9
divinely just. 15 Not to assume that he is limited to immediate circumstances, but when
he writes systematically his theology of church and state, it would be ignorant to the most
extreme degree to overlook this important detail of his life as it relates to its place and
time in history. As any social scientist would agree, in order to properly interpret
Bonhoeffer’s epistemic response one must look at his contextual influences.
Of those influences, Karl Barth is one that cannot be looked over as Bonhoeffer
felt that Barth could be a mentor of sorts whose theological direction remained within his
orbit. Both theologians faced many of the same issues, absorbing the ideas of liberal
theology and by finding different ways to deal with it. Theologically, Bonhoeffer and
Barth ran along with one another, not crossing paths too often. It is, once again, in their
unique social contexts that they differed from one another, and it could be argued that it
is ultimately this such difference that led each of them down two very simply, yet still
distinctly unique, paths. Barth, of Switzerland’s, “life was intertwined with Germany,
but he was always an outsider who spoke with a strange accent…[but] his advantage was
that he could always leave.” 16 In contrast, Bonhoeffer was born and raised German,
living the bourgeoisie life and developed a deep loyalty to the state of his country.
For when Bonhoeffer makes the statement that, “what is nearest to God is
precisely the need of one’s neighbor…to provide the hungry man with bread is to prepare
15 A pastor of the Confessing church, who was clearly concerned with an inner struggle with what had been happening to the church, wrote this in a letter to Bonhoeffer asking for guidance. As quoted in Dietrich Bonhoeffer A Biography, “I keep on having doubts whether we young pastors of the Confessing church are taking a course that is right and necessary. After all, there are indications that after the war, and to some extent even now, we shall be deprived of every possibility of a ministry…Don’t those of us who were examined by the confessing church resembled the shock troops cut off from the main unit, who are gradually becoming casualties...Is this path we are following necessary?”16 John D. Godsey, Barth and Bonhoeffer: The Basic Difference, (Quarterly Review 7, no. 1, Spring 1987).
Page 10
the way for coming of grace,” 17 he is speaking from a theology of community, where one
must depend upon another, but as he saw in the Germany of the 1940’s, this concept was
broken. No longer did he feel that the church was serving to fulfill the needs of
humanity, but instead it had begun serving the needs of its institutional self.
Bonhoeffer’s uncanny ability to relate his Christological theology to each and every
scenario becomes a go-to validation of any critique of the church or of the self. In
relation to the church, he states that the power of the Church is in that it is a place in
society of which Christ has taken form. The complete form of Christ manifests itself
through the church, and to rob the church of its Christ is to rob the church of its power,
and in this loss of power it once again finds its true self through the recognition of guilt.
Bonhoeffer strikes at the heart of this issue by writing with extreme empathy and
a dose of frustration a confession of the church. As Christ took upon himself the guilt
and sins of entire world on the cross and buried them, so does the church through its
confession. This brings upon itself the weight of the guilt of the world, which falls upon
the shoulders of Christians who deny the guilt its power through this confession, and
ultimately lends itself to forgiveness. In this moving portion of the book, Bonhoeffer’s
heart for the Church spills out upon the pages, and like a long awaited confrontation
amongst two parties, the air, still tense, releases itself gradually of its pressure and
Bonhoeffer is once again available to further lend himself to his original theme; ethics.
With a sense of conclusion of the matter, he writes that, “Either the Church must
willingly undergo this transformation, or else she must cease to be the Church of Christ,”
18 and starts the healing process with, “The Church and the individual are sentenced in
17 Quoted in Ethics, 136.18 Quoted in Ethics, 116.
Page 11
their guilt and as such they are justified by Him who takes upon Himself all human guilt
and forgives it, by Jesus Christ.” 19 It is in this place where one becomes aware that as
frustrated with the Church it appears Bonhoeffer may be, he has a realization that it is
still his responsibility, under the authority of Christ, to remain a part of it. 20
I am challenged by Bonhoeffer’s Ethics on a multitude of levels. From the first
paragraph, which focuses on the idea of invalidating the knowledge of good and evil,
placing from the very beginning secular ethics at odds with Christian ethics, my
perception of ethics, morality, justice, and a plethora of other notions were plucked up
from where they comfortably rested and were put to a fire. It is from that moment
forward, from recognizing God as the true origin, that Bonhoeffer focuses quite heavily
the significance of God’s presence in our lives; how important it is that we remain in the
center of God’s will, and that there is no alternate reality outside of that will. He carries
this concept well throughout the text and continuously falls back on that realization of
Christ to base is arguments upon. After completing this book, my perception of Christ
was not quite changed, but I did find myself always at comfort whenever the center of it
all kept revolving back to find its reliance on the shoulders of God’s marriage to the
world through Christ.
Though Bonhoeffer’s points are well developed and deeply appreciated most of
the time, there are moments when the book feels unpolished, which is understandable
considering he was never able to finish it. The most obvious and extreme of such
19 Ibid.20 Though Bonhoeffer’s realization was one that he must be an active member of the Church, his role remained as one that acted as an active critic. According to Bethge, when Bonhoeffer was asked what he wished he would have done differently had he gotten a chance to redo his last four to six months of freedom, he replied that he wished he had preached more and taught more theology.
Page 12
circumstances are those where chapters are left incomplete. Upon reading the editor’s
notes I sometimes found myself asking for just a little more, wondering how Bonhoeffer
would tie in all his proposed ideas, written as notes. The strength of his writings is in his
critical approach to not only past concepts and ideas but to his present experience as well.
He is able to look to his surroundings and, literally, in the midst of war is able to develop
a systematic theology that his quite strongly developed. His solution was in his activism,
and it is clear that he was still working through some of his theological concepts as they
were at times at odds with actions he felt so securely about.
For instance, Bonhoeffer’s legacy will always be in that he was martyred in
Germany as a political activist who withheld information from the government in a
plotted attempt to assassinate Hitler. Bonhoeffer’s justification of this act comes out of
chapter III of his book when it says early on that, “What is worse than doing evil is being
evil…if evil appears in the form of light…[then this] is a clear proof of its abysmal
wickedness.” 21 This, he says, is downfall of the moral theorist who cannot justify even
the murder of a tyrant. He goes on to say later that, “The destruction of the life of
another may be undertaken only on the basis of an unconditional necessity…” 22 which is
succeeded shortly thereafter by, “In the sight of God there is no life that is not worth
living; for life itself is valued by God. The fact that God is the Creator, Preserver and
Redeemer of life makes even the most wretched life worth living before God.” 23 When
read next to each other in such a way, it is hard to say that Bonhoeffer had fully worked
through his murderous convictions. What is most unfortunate about this is that when one
21 Quoted in Ethics, 67.22 Quoted in Ethics, 159.23 Quoted in Ethics, 162.
Page 13
comes to Bonhoeffer looking for his justification of a murder, even when faced with
tyranny, it just is not fully developed.
Finally, though served well, his description of the necessity of simplicity comes to
the reader as a slightly ironic glass of water; ironic, because it requires a lengthy
explanation to get to the point that simplicity is what is required. When simplicity is
combined with wisdom, one has all the weapons he needs to thwart off any attacks the
Deceiver has in store for him. This works in opposition against one’s dependence upon
one’s reason, moral fanaticism, conscience, duty, or private virtuousness to win against
the Enemy. Bonhoeffer says that those who are using such ideals are fighting with “rusty
swords,” swords that once served our fathers well to perform great feats but must be
replaced with sharp ones. “To be simple,” Bonhoeffer says, “is to fix one’s eye solely on
the simple truth of God at a time when all concepts are being confused, distorted and
turned upside down…not fettered by principles, but bound by love for God.”
Man’s Fall from his origin is the largest tragedy in the history of time. His
acceptance of the knowledge of good and evil is his acceptance of shame and of guilt,
and because of this he would wear a mask throughout the course of time, unable to see
his true origin. He has disconnected himself from the Source and has tried instead to
power up himself, turning away from God and turning into his self to create cosmos out
of chaos. Bonhoeffer’s Ethics recognizes this from the very beginning. This concept is
fleshed out early on in the book, feeling more polished than any other section. Though it
is clear that he was still working through various theological themes, some created by his
self and some of others, he writes most clearly and convincingly about the distinction of
Christian ethics as it parallels secular ethics. Perhaps it is the tragedy of Bonhoeffer’s
Page 14
death that lures one in to read of his theology, or, say, to take a class about him, but it is
his heart for humanity and for the church as it relates to God’s manifestation of Christ
that one is convinced he must wrestle long and hard with.
My expectations of his book were met and exceeded. Though I am sure that this
is apparent in my writing about the book, it is clear to me that Bonhoeffer still had a lot of
things that he was still dealing with and working through. The true tragedy of
Bonhoeffer is in his early death, not so much of because of the simple fact that he died,
but because I think it would have been very interesting to see his writings as he had
gotten older. He still has a young man’s convictions in his writings, the zeal of someone
who is confident and ready to change the world, that makes me wonder how those
convictions would have played out over time.
What most amazes me about Bonhoeffer is his focus in a time of such turmoil and
distress. As Barth, for instance, would read the papers and listen to the news reports on
the radio about the war and all that was happening in Germany, Bonhoeffer was there.
The bombs were falling around Bonhoeffer and his family. The war was personal for
him, but even still he was able to reason through his convictions for a long enough time
to write a systematic theology that is well grounded and not fully directed by emotions. I
believe that this is partially how developed his theology of the will of God, because had
he not been following God’s will, why else would he have found himself adamantly
opposing Hitler’s regime and the integrity of the church? This is a question he must have
asked himself and asked it quite often, for he essentially chose to be in prison by
continuing to withhold information and by not flexing to the wishes of the Gestapo. His
willingness to hold strong and stand firm on principles feeds into my fighting spirit and
Page 15
encourages me to continue my pursuit of Christ in the community around me and within
myself.
Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer A Biography, (First Forest Press edition, 2000).
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1955).
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1966).
Page 16
John D. Godsey, Barth and Bonhoeffer: The Basic Difference, (Quarterly Review 7, no. 1, Spring 1987).
Recommended