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).