| Title | : | Ethics (Works, # 6) |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 0800683064 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780800683061 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Hardcover |
| Number of Pages | : | 608 |
| Publication | : | First published September 1, 1955 |
Ethics (Works, # 6) Reviews
-
"The knowledge of good and evil seems to be the aim of all ethical reflections," opens Bonhoeffer." The first task of Christian ethics is to invalidate this knowledge" (17). Written for the most part in jail as he was imprisoned by the National Socialists in Germany from 1943 until he was hanged in 1945, Bonhoeffer's work is surly incomplete, but nevertheless, stands as a staggering piece of ethical literature, and one that causes the reader to view all ethical systems heretofore, by taking a step back, and perchance force the reader to reevaluate them in this new light.
Quoting Scripture with ease, making great use of the Greek text, and citing Kierkegaard and Nietzsche fluidly, Bonhoeffer's prose is remarkable, and to be sure, captivating. Why those who have reviewed this previously on Goodreads seemed to struggle with the content herein, or at least the diction, I know not: for I can thing of at least a dozen or so philosophers or theologians whose prose is so utterly confounded and far more muddled, that I have a hard time making sense of anything (c.f. Hegel or Heidegger).
With that being said, Bonhoeffer's system is surely incomplete as aforesaid, but that doesn't prevent him from laying out a number of solid pieces of ethical reflection whereof I will discuss a few briefly."Ethical discourse cannot be conducted in a vacuum, in the abstract, but only in the concrete. Ethical discourse, therefore, is not a system of propositions which are correct in themselves, a system which is available for anyone to apply at any time and in any place, but it is inseparably linked with particular persons, times, and places. This limitation does not mean that the ethical loses any of its significance, but it is precisely from this that it derives its warrant, its weight; whereas whenever it is not restricted it is enfeebled to the point of impotence" (271).
'Shots fired! Shots fired!' Kant is running for cover like a scared ninny!' Yes, Bonhoeffer's critique can be seen as one big jab at deontological ethical systems, or any system that places good as "the good" and evil as "the evil;" or that is to say, anyone that philosophizes about ethics in purely an abstract form thereby removing the purpose into the abstract and not taking into the account the concrete, the real, the historical. What is this concrete, real, and historical? None other than Jesus Christ Himself, the God-man who become flesh as a real man in history. Yes, Bonhoeffer's approach is so thoroughly christological, that if he seeks to ground his ethical system, he doesn't do so in something, but in someone, viz., Jesus Christ. "In Jesus Christ the reality of God entered into the reality of this world...Henceforward one can speak neither of God nor of the world without speaking of Jesus Christ. All concepts of reality which do not take account of Him are abstractions" (194). For Bonhoeffer, the good is simply by doing the will of God, by being united to Him by faith and following him in the concrete, the real life situations given the manifold encounters and people that we deal with every day. "Faith in this Jesus Christ is the sole foundation-head of all good" (213). While I believe that Bonhoeffer knew that this posed some problems, which he discusses a little bit, (i.e. how does one regulate this will, who hears God in this way, etc.), he nevertheless left numerous portions, much to our chagrin, unfinished as he was hanged before completion of his "Ethics."
Bonhoeffer therefore grounds the task of Christian ethics to transcend good and evil, which he sees as our knowledge of the aforesaid coming to us only because of the fall. When we are united to Christ, this knowledge of the two separate spheres, namely the secular and the spiritual, the profane and the sacred, simply dissolves as a false dichotomy. Yes, Jesus was a real man, and he came for real men. Just as Jesus parried all attacks and straw men of false dichotomies of seemingly good and evil given to him by the Sadducees and Pharisees by offering what appears to the natural man not an answer at all, but something wholly other, so to does the man unified in Christ seek to walk in the will of God and offer wisdom from heaven, not from earth. Knowledge that isn't rooted in either good or evil, but simply in Christ, the real God-man who came for the entire world. Bonhoeffer, shows how, then, we should not split these two spheres of the sacred and the profane, but allow them to unite as they are under the Headship of one Man, Jesus Christ. Bonhoeffer doesn't thereby give a pass to say that evil is good and good is evil, he is far too dialectical for that, he reasons that each functions in its own right, but that their sphere is limited, and to be sure, overlap because they are under one man, a part of one earth, the same earth that Jesus came to save.
"Jesus is not concerned with the proclamation and realization of new ethical ideals; He is not concerned [even] with Himself being good (Matt 19:17); He is concerned solely with love for the real man, and for that reason He is able to enter into fellowship of the guilt of men and to take the burden of their guilt upon Himself" (240).
While Bonhoeffer chides duty-based systems, he doesn't thereby eliminate the subjects duty, but simply re-asserts that one cannot remove duty from history, from the concrete. Bonhoeffer speaks of the four spheres that God has given to man that are united in Christ, namely, the Church, the State, Culture, and the Family. He discusses how these interconnect, and yet all serve different functions. While men have duties, these are not deontological duties, but ones of deputyship, which ultimately must be made responsibly given the truth of the four aforementioned spheres, and also the truth of Christ. So, do we have an obligated to tell the truth when a madman breaks in wishing to kill my hiding friend and asks if my friend is hiding in the house? Bonhoeffer answers in the negative, and says that in this concrete historical context, that a lie is most probably more truthful than arbitrarily telling the truth since such an action would not be a responsible action. "Responsibility is fundamentally a matter of deputyship [and] is demonstrated most clearly in those circumstances in which a man is directly obliged to act in the place of other men" (224).
So, what is the good? I am inclined at least to agree with Bonhoeffer that if we must philosophize about 'good,' we must do so with our eyes fixed on Christ, and Christ alone. Indeed we do not live abstractly, but live existentially in the concrete. While by no means completed, I think Bonhoeffer was on to something, and that, just maybe, this field of discipline we call 'ethics' is perhaps not quite as black and white as we would like to think.
Brent -
"Ethics" was a difficult book to read and desperately cried out for some editing. In Bonhoeffer's defense, the book was published posthumously, so he never got the opportunity to refine it or interact with an editor. Modern publishers are no doubt hesitant to cut any material, though other publications present the material in different orders. Written while Bonhoeffer was actively involved in the resistance and a plot to assassinate Hitler, my expectation was that he would biblically and philosophically work through the moral dilemma of a Christian pastor engaged in such activities. And he did do this – in far more words than were necessary. Some take-aways, especially for those who have taken ethics from me:
1) He had little use for duty-based ethics or ethical mandates derived from universal principles. Ethics is about living real life before God in the context of relationships. Therefore ethics is always contextual and theological.
2) He landed in between a graded absolutism and ideal absolutism on moral dilemmas. His argument for ideal absolutism is that Jesus became sin for us so incurring guilt for the good of another is an entirely Christian thing to do. Ultimately, because of what I wrote in #1, his position on moral dilemmas would have to be some form of graded absolutism, where violating the law of God is not sin if it is done for the good of another.
3) His treatment of truth telling and whether it is ever right to lie was fascinating but incomplete. He never got the chance to finish it. Though I earlier complained about the length, I would have loved to have read more on this. He had some interesting insights and examples on how truth is contextual, depending on the nature of the relationship between the moral agents.
4) Bonhoeffer’s neo-orthodoxy is more evident in this book than in “Cost of Disicpleship” or “Life Together.” -
Bonhoeffer's Ethics is a challenging and fascinating read. The book is fairly dense and while it makes you regularly stop and think, I couldn't put it down.
It is worth noting that the work is incomplete. This was Bonhoeffer's final book, written while he was in prison. While much of the book is in finished form there are plenty of places where it obviously is not. Some chapters end abruptly, others are little more than a collection of notes and others are in need of some additional editing he was never able to give.
If you're aware of that going in, it shouldn't be too distracting or take away from the phenomenal read this is. -
In this fairly radical (for a Christian ethical system) book, Bonhoeffer argues that Christians have embraced a rigid system of behavioral rules that fails to allow for truly ethical behavior. Rather than being a static set of laws to which we need to conform uniformly in every circumstance, Bonhoeffer claims that a right ethical system is dynamic, requiring responses appropriate to and fully immersed in each individual, unique situation. He argues that Christian ethics should have one hard-and-fast rule, and one only – the requirement to maintain intimacy at all times with Jesus Christ. In that intimacy, Bonhoeffer claims, we receive the wisdom and guidance particular not only to each of us, but to the action that is appropriate and right for our immediate circumstances.
This is powerful in that it displaces the locus of responsibility for our actions not on our system of belief but on ourselves. Under this ethical system, we cannot claim that we had no choice but to act in accordance with a set of unyielding rules. We are responsible for hearing, for observing, for considering others and considering what is the right thing to do in each particular instance. We are responsible for knowing God and knowing others, rather than just being committed to bolstering our own (self) righteousness.
Bonhoeffer’s description of moral actions reminded me of C.S. Lewis’s piano key metaphor for the Moral Law: “Think once again of a piano. It has not got two kinds of notes on it, the ‘right’ notes and the ‘wrong’ ones. Every single note is right at one time and wrong at another. The Moral Law is not any one instinct or set of instincts: it is something which makes a kind of tune (the tune we call goodness or right conduct) by directing the instincts.” (Mere Christianity, Part 7)
Ethics is less about conforming to what is good and more about responding to what is real. This is a powerful distinction, and a fascinating way of looking at what constitutes “good” or “right” behavior. Bonhoeffer’s sense of ethical behavior is about allowing what is real to be ever more a part of our circumstances and to do all we can to bring the real (read: eternal) into the lives and situations around us, as the real is already wont to do: “The eternal life, the new life, breaks in with ever greater power into the earthly life and wins its space for itself within it.” (Pg. 132)
Those who know Bonhoeffer’s story won’t help but notice that this ethical system is particularly and deeply beneficial to Bonhoeffer, as he wrote Ethics while imprisoned for conspiring to assassinate Hitler. Whether or not he came to develop this system out of a psychological need to justify his fairly non-Christianity-conforming actions (though I suppose this depends on which branch of Christianity one practices) or whether it was out of this long-simmering thought that he felt emboldened to conspire to commit murder, we will probably never know for certain. In either case, this is the best argument I have read for a Christian situationism, and I think every Christian should read and consider it seriously. -
This book kicks ass
-
"The knowledge of good and evil appears to be the goal of all ethical reflection. The first task of Christian ethics is to supersede that knowledge. This attack on the presuppositions of all other ethics is so unique that it is questionable whether it even makes sense to speak of Christian ethics at all."
"The kind of thinking that starts out with human problems, and then looks for solutions from that vantage point, has to be overcome-- it is unbiblical. The way of Jesus Christ, and thus the way of all Christian thought, is not the way from the world to God but from God to the world."
I haven't read much in the field of ethics, but Bonhoeffer's Ethics is an absolutely formidable work, especially considering that it's unfinished. I was actually hoping to be able to rate this less than 5 stars, because I'm such a DB fanboy at this point, I feel like I need to prove I have some objectivity about him. But, well... looks like I'm just obsessed with everything he wrote.
I'll just try and give a sense of one of my favorite chapters in the book, History and Good (2). The ideas here turn on the notion of "responsible" action rather than conceiving of action in terms of good or bad. 'Responsibility' accounts for the other- the person, persons, or group with whom one has to do. It is not so concerned with 'good' for we cannot possibly know what brings about the greatest good. The quest for an absolute idea of "the good," dutifully carried out, yields:
"...individuals pulling back from the living responsibility of their historical existence into a private realization of ethical ideals by which they see their own personal goodness guaranteed... This understanding of ethics... fails due to the historicity of human existence."
The chooser is not an isolated individual reaching for a standard, but an agent in a social, historical context. There is therefore no fixed principle one could have ultimate allegiance to. Any such principle would have you violate your responsibility to another, given the right historical particulars. Instead, Christian ethics is "God's reality revealed in Christ becoming real among God's creatures."
He goes on to undermine one of the most popular forms of abstracted goodness: ideology. Ideology seems to be a malignant force in Bonhoeffer's reckoning. To tip my own hand a bit, not only do I agree with him, but I find that most people when speaking of politics are not actually aware that there is any possible commitment or approach other than ideology. The task in figuring out 'my politics' is a task of choosing a system that I think is the most effective or just, and then conforming all thought and action to that system. This includes Christians who will often make a run at devoting themselves to politics in a way they perceive as simultaneously effective "for the real world," and still in some way faithful to Jesus. More often than not in these cases, faith in Jesus is rationalized or relativized away in favor of being 'effective for the real world,' or faithful to the ideology. In this way, actions that would be considered unethical in any other circumstance are easily justifiable. This makes Jesus a means to an end, and declares him ineffective for the real world. But as Bonhoeffer says below, Christ is reality. He IS the real world.
"Whereas all action based on ideology is already justified by its own principle, responsible action renounces any knowledge about its ultimate justification...Those who act on the basis of ideology consider themselves justified by their idea. Those who act responsibly place their action into the hands of God and live by God's grace and judgment."
This is "Do not let your left hand know what the right hand is doing" stuff. Later he illuminates that very verse as a principle undermining the knowledge of good and evil.
You see in his rejection of ideology, and even of principle, not an arbitrariness, but a homing mechanism for reconciliation through Christ. Ethics is not a problem of finding the best action according to principle, reason, law, duty, ideology, virtue, or even conscience, but of discerning the God who has loved, judged, and reconciled the world with himself in Jesus Christ. God has become human, and from this all ethical thought must proceed. All conscious thought of ethical decision must comprehend the God who became human.
He goes on to warn against certain pseudo-Christian attempts at ethics. There is a "use" of Jesus that turns him into a principle or a moral standard. In this, Jesus is not conceived as a free actor, but ends up being constrained by something else:
"...such an "ethic of Jesus" does not lead to concrete historical responsibility. Hence the platitudes that currently prevail throughout Christendom, such as declaring the Sermon on the Mount useless for politics and similar slogans. What dominates this perspective is the notion of a self-sufficient, "autonomous" historical reality, upon which a Christian ethic, which in its origin and nature is foreign to reality, is then to be forcefully imposed. However, what is overlooked here is the decisive fact from which along the structure of what is real can be understood, namely, God's becoming human, God's entering history, taking on historical reality in the reality of Jesus Christ. What is overlooked here is the fact that the Sermon on the Mount is the word of the one who did not relate to reality as a foreigner, a reformer, a fanatic, the founder of a religion but as the one who bore and experienced the nature of reality in his own body, who spoke out of the depth of reality as no other human being on earth ever before. The Sermon on the Mount is the word of the very one who is the lord and law of reality. The Sermon on the Mount is to be understood and interpreted as the word of the God who became human. That is the issue at stake when the question of historical action is raised, and there it must prove true that action in accord with Christ is action in accord with reality." (italics mine)
And this brings me to one of the most fascinating elements of the book: the notion of assuming guilt, as a consequence of responsible action, on behalf of the one toward whom you bear ethical responsibility. This may sound like situational ethics, but it's not:
"Because Jesus took the guilt of all human beings upon himself, everyone who acts responsibly becomes guilty. Those who, in acting responsibly, seek to avoid becoming guilty divorce themselves from the ultimate reality of human existence; but in so doing they also divorce themselves from the redeeming mystery of the sinless bearing of guilt by Jesus Christ, and have no part in the divine justification that attends this event. They place their personal innocence above their responsibility for other human beings and are blind to the fact that precisely in so doing they become even more egregiously guilty. They are also blind to the fact that genuine guiltlessness is demonstrated precisely by entering into community with the guilt of other human beings for their sake. Because of Jesus Christ, the essence of responsible action intrinsically involves the sinless, those who act out of selfless love, becoming guilty..."
To better illustrate this, he goes after Kant. (I love when Bonhoeffer goes after Kant):
"Treating truthfulness as a principle leads Kant to the grotesque conclusion that if asked by a murderer whether my friend, whom he was pursuing, had sought refuge in my house, I would have to answer honestly in the affirmative. Here the self-righteousness of conscience has escalated into blasphemous recklessness and become an impediment to responsible action. Since responsibility is the entire response, in accord with reality, to the claim of God and my neighbor, then this scenario glaringly illuminates the merely partial response of a conscience bound by principles. I come into conflict with my responsibility that is grounded in reality when I refuse to become guilty of violating the principle of truthfulness of the sake of my friend, refusing in this case to lie energetically for the sake of my friend--
(*Ahem*... this just keeps getting better):
"--and any attempt to deny that we are indeed dealing with lying here is once again the work of a legalistic and self-righteous conscience-- refusing, in others words, to take on and bear guilt out of love for my neighbor. Here as well, a conscience bound to Christ alone will most clearly exhibit its innocence precisely in responsibly accepting culpability." (italics mine)
Remarkable. Breathtaking.
And that does it for all of us- we will all become guilty, either by doing wrong, or by doing right. It is to God alone we turn for justification. To my mind, this is a brilliant elaboration on classic Lutheran thought. It also sheds much light on the thinking that led him, even a pacifist, to participate in a plot against Hitler's life.
Implicit throughout Bonhoeffer's Ethics is this pretty basic assumption, which we all should have realized, but few of us really do:
"Responsible action must decide not simply between right and wrong, good and evil, but between right and right, wrong and wrong."
Too many of our choices are a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario, undermining any project about 'being good.' We are shown something better than good: God through Christ reconciling the world to himself. -
Terribly underwhelming. Cost of Discipleship is far more profound and engaging. Ethics was not able to be completed or edited prior to Bonhoeffer's death, so some chapters remain without conclusions or fully developed thoughts. "Christ, Reality, and the Good" and "History and the Good" are decent chapters, however "The Last Things and the Things Before the Last" was painful to read. I stopped about 2/3 of the way through... maybe I'll pick it up again one day.
-
I had to read this for my doctorate program in my ethics class. If there is something more boring and unreadable than this, I haven't found it yet. Dry, dull, mind-numbingly boring. Run away if you see this book coming for you. It's worst than a zombie apocalypse.
-
One of the best and most beautiful books I have ever read. I have saved a few books for myself to read at a later date. What an awesome gift this is to me!
-
Bonhoeffer's longest and quite possibly greatest work. Challenging focus on the role and responsibility of the body of Christ.
-
A really thought-provoking look at Christian ethics. Part of what makes this book so compelling is its unfinished nature and the story of Bonhoeffer's life that accompanies it - it was written in 1940-43, part of which was while he was working in German counterintelligence as a cover for his involvement in a plot to assassinate Hitler, using his church contacts to network for the German resistance, and it breaks off just when he was arrested and imprisoned.
Set against this background, Bonhoeffer's ethical questions and struggles take on a level of poignancy and urgency that is compelling. Along with that urgent quality, there are several insights I found to be particularly valuable: the idea that the foundation of any Christian ethic is the formation of Christ in the church and world, or the "breaking in" of the gospel to which every ethical quandary or decision is secondary; the distinction between ultimate and penultimate, with the key insight that it is only through the revelation of Christ (the ultimate) that the penultimate (or the 'natural,' as he terms it in another chapter) can be discerned for what it truly is, either as a preparation or a hindrance for that revelation of God; the idea of being bound in responsibility to others in the context of existing relationships, in which guilt is sometimes inevitable and in which we are forced to make difficult decisions within specific, concrete contexts; and Bonhoeffer's rejection of any kind of two-spheres thinking, church and state, secular and religious, instead arguing for the totality of the gospel message and the reconciliation accomplished in Christ.
Wish this book could have been finished by Bonhoeffer - I really do wonder what it would have been like if that was the case. -
Bonhoeffer's writings are full of wonderful insights and beautiful thoughts. This book has many bright spots but also many instances where he gets into the weeds with abstract concepts. It is a difficult read for a couple of reasons:
1- This work is unfinished and therefore many chapters are incomplete. I am sure there would have been revisions, corrections, and clarifications made in many sections.
2- Because this work is unfinished it is very sad to me due to the potential of what might have been. There are editor notes that include his outlines of further thoughts and writings that he was working on, but his life was cut tragically short. -
Puzzling at times, and clearly an historical work (what work of theo/philosophy isn't?), but Bonhoeffer was remarkably Christ-centered. I hope to revisit parts of this book again some day.
-
Ok, finally, this has been a marathon read, not in terms of how long it took me to read the book, but in subjective time it would take me to grasp it. The mile to the top of the mountain is still only a mile, but it is hard.
Ethics suffers from three major difficulties. One, it is unfinished. This biggest problem means that some things, especially near the end of the book, that Bonhoeffer says need further reflection do not get it and are therefore unclarified. Bonhoeffer was executed before finishing this work, so he is not to blame, and Ethics would be interminable had he been able to finish, I think. Second, the book is a translation. The vocabulary of theology in German is quite refined (I am told) and is therefore difficult to translate. Ethics is, therefore, punctuated by parenthetical German words that interrupt the flow of thought. This is probably wonderful for those who are fluent in German, but for those of us who are not it is distracting. Finally, it is a difficult book because it is a difficult topic. Philosophically, Bonhoeffer dismantles the idea of Ethics as a boundary marker for behavior defined by rules and principles, and attempts instead to construct an ethic based upon freedom in Christ. That is, the human being is only fully human in relationship with God in Christ, and when the human reaches this place, he is free to be fully human, unhindered by rules and principles. He will, in loving action toward others, incur guilt upon himself, but in so doing he will transcend the limitations of a traditional ethic and act in the nature of Christ who also incurred guilt out of love. It is important to note that Bonhoeffer denies that this is simple licentiousness, but rather is a freedom to live in integrity and purpose. It is a dangerous doctrine, but more true than not. It does give rise to a certain level of situation ethics that many will find disturbing, but still has a certain cohesion that makes it attractive.
I think Ethics must be taken in the context of Bonhoeffer's broader work. I read it alongside Life Together which clarified much of his thinking about Church and the Divine Mandate that gives it shape. I have not read others of his work, but clearly The Cost of Discipleship is high on the list for understanding Bonhoeffer in his own right. Someday perhaps. -
Essay vs. Exhortation
In recent weeks, I have become enthralled by the life and writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer--by his example that he lived out and by the wisdom shared through his writings.
Having recently read Cost of Discipleship, which had a profound effect in giving me a greater hunger for holy living in Christ, I came into the readings of Ethics with the same expectation.
to my disappointment, I found that the two works are of two distinctly different genres; while The Cost of Discipleship is written for more of a practical application, Ethics is more of a philosophical treatise on a variety of ethical subjects with the believer will encounter.
On a positive note, I gained a whole new understanding of the Fall; moreover, I gained an understanding of what is meant by the ministry of reconciliation--and in light of reconciliation, that the believer must not draw such polemic distinction between the realm of the spirit and the realm of the secular. Both realms are under the lordship of Jesus Christ.
Ethics is not a book which can be read while multitasking. It is a book which requires the full attention of the reader from all other noise to properly process the content; otherwise, the content will tend to go right over the head of the reader.
While I derived a whole new level of truth from Ethics, I found myself being frustrated at the sense that my time could be better spent in direct prayer or meditation of the Scripture. Ethics often felt like too much of an intellectual exercise for my personal liking.
I would therefore recommend this book to those who enjoy discussion and debate in abstract, spiritual matters. Ethics feeds that mind, but falls somewhat short of effectively transforming the heart. -
The important thing to remember about Dietrich Bonhoeffer's famous "Ethics" is something that I actually didn't know before starting the book: it was never finished. Bonhoeffer's papers, retrieved by his friend Eberhard Bethge after his execution, contained years' worth of notebooks and several loose outlines for this work. From the outlines and scribbled notes, it was clear that whole sections were never written by the doomed theologian. Others were provided in very rough form. Bethge and subsequent "compilers" did their best to bring order to this inchoate mass and, given the nature of their task, succeeded remarkably well.
Please note that I use the word "compilers" rather than "editors." Bethge and his successors have chosen not to "edit" Bonhoeffer but rather to provide the whole of his leavings on this subject in the book. That is its major weakness. It badly needs a sympathetic but stern editor to pare down Bonhoeffer's excesses, primarily the convoluted over-writing which all German theologians seem prone to. It is a great tragedy that Bonhoeffer never had the chance to work with an editor on "Ethics" during his life.
As a result, there are the occasional flashes of Bonhoeffer's memorable prose but also many longeurs, dead ends, and outright filler. What Bethge has given us as "Part II" is so skeletal and so specific to the state of the German Lutheran Church in World War II, that few will find it worth reading. As a whole, "Ethics" is both promising and disappointing. Had the author not proven himself elsewhere in writing and in life, this book surely would have been forgotten. -
As an ethics, this is a train wreck; as a work of Christian meditation, it might have had some potential, had it been intended as a meditation and not written in the fashion of German philosophy. To be fair, some of the difficulty in reading it no doubt stems from the fact that it was made up of an unfinished draft and working notes assembled and published posthumously. In short, Bonhoeffer’s outlook is known for being entirely Christ-centered without compromise. Therefore, Bonhoeffer tries to do away with everything else, including distinctions between things, trying to show how all things are united in Christ and, in particular, His incarnation into creation as a human. He insists there are no ethics apart from faith in Christ and an acceptance of each of our guilt in sin, yet in denying ultimate principles, Bonhoeffer leaves open the (historically well-proven) abuse of even sincere faith in leading individuals into self-destruction or harm and oppression of others.
Bonhoeffer himself acknowledges that Christian ethics stand apart from ordinary ethics: “The knowledge of good and evil appears to be the goal of all ethical reflection” (p 299) versus “Human beings can know about good and evil only in opposition to God.” (p 300) The Christian ethic is “the reality of God that is revealed in Jesus Christ.” (p 49) More pointedly, “God’s commandment leaves human beings no room for application and interpretation, but only for obedience or disobedience.” (p 378) Yet our present day and the history of Christianity is replete with the fact that humans cannot agree on who and what God is and what has been revealed about Jesus and what that revelation means. Bonhoeffer denies even the concept of “good” as anything abstract or divorced from God: “Of ultimate importance, then, is not that I become good, or that the condition of the world be improved by my efforts, but that the reality of God show itself everywhere to be the ultimate reality.” (p 48) If there is no objective good, even that defined by God Himself, how then can people test the spirits (1 John 4:1); those with the sincerest of faith have certainly committed all manner of atrocity against others or themselves in the name of God. Bonhoeffer insists ethics is a boundary situation, applicable only when human behavior is so far outside the norm that it runs up against people’s intuitive knowledge of good and evil.
Bonhoeffer claims, “Principles are only tools in the hands of God; they will soon be thrown away when they are no longer useful.” (p 82) Given Bonhoeffer’s commendable command of theology from various strands of Christianity, not just Lutheranism, including his deep understanding of St.
Thomas Aquinas, it is surprising he has not thought this assertion through. If God changes in the way Bonhoeffer implies, then either He was not perfect, or He will cease to be the moment He changes. It is not God’s principles that are so arbitrary and fickle, it is merely that humankind’s understanding of God and His will for us is so imperfect that we are required to revisit our understanding continually and perhaps to update our ideas when confronted with a better insight. Again, the danger lies in what people perceive to be revealed or commanded: “The point is not to apply a principle that eventually will be shattered by reality anyway, but to discern what is necessary or ‘commanded’ in a given situation.” (p 221)
However, as grist for the mill for the pious Christian to consider, Bonhoeffer’s single-minded and narrow focus on the centrality of Christ and the redeeming, unifying act of His incarnation makes for profitable meditation. In fact, some of his more practical advice is certainly worth taking: “the first task given to those who belong to the church of God is not to be something for themselves, for example, by creating a religious organization or leading a pious life, but to be witnesses of Jesus Christ to the world.” (p 64) Despite others’ misuse of their faith, whether sincere or cynical, given Bonhoeffer’s own personal piety and sanctity (a man who ultimately died at the gallows in Nazi detention for his principled resistance), I have no doubt about a faith-focused approach to life being a useful guide for Bonhoeffer personally. Any evil or wrong done by him in his life likely stemmed more from failing to adhere to his outlook than from following it. It is understandable, then, if the natural human tendency to mirror image led him to demand the same approach from others, even though we are confronted with endless examples of how that has worked out differently in many cases. There can be no uncertainty that among the Nazis Bonhoeffer opposed there were many true believers who had no doubt they were working for the common good according to some higher purpose and from some higher direction.
In this day and age of folks slapping “tolerance” bumper stickers on their cars and political correctness achieving a near-mob violence level of enforcement, Bonhoeffer saw in his own life the dangers of unlimited tolerance: “With forced tolerance, evil is reinterpreted as good, meanness is overlooked, and the reprehensible is excused. For various reasons one shies away from a clear No, and finally agrees to everything.” (p 87) Given Bonhoeffer’s claimed opposition to independent, abstract notions of good and evil, however, his calling out evil here begs the question of what is evil and does it even exist? Bonhoeffer clearly calls out rape, abortion, and several other acts as evil and forbidden, yet according to what? These and several other such examples prove the not even Bonhoeffer can abide by his no principles idea or his attempt to unify literally everything in Christ’s incarnation (more on the latter below).
Bonhoeffer absolutely opposes dividing anything in creation, whether it be “the world” versus God or his Kingdom, or Christianity versus society, etc. Bonhoeffer’s understanding of the unifying power of Christ’s incarnation into the world totally opposed St.
Augustine of Hippo's
City of God understanding, for example. Bonhoeffer goes so far to include the devil in the unity of Christ: “The world is not divided between Christ and the devil; it is completely the world of Christ, whether it recognizes this or not.” (p 65) Bonhoeffer goes too far when he claims such divisions are alien to the New Testament, however, there are ample examples disproving his assertion starting in John 1:10 and proceeding throughout several other parts, to include some of St. Paul’s letters. Nonetheless, his opposition to arbitrarily dividing everything up into complementary contradictions does make for a breath of fresh air in an age when virtually everyone else was overusing the tired old “dialectic” term, often without really giving it any actual definition.
One other area where Bonhoeffer significantly departs from his nominal opposition to dividing things up was identifying Christianity with Western culture and civilization. One wonders if Nazi propaganda hadn’t succeeded in making Bonhoeffer accept that the rest of the world was fundamentally different from the West and therefore rejecting the notion of Christianity’s universal claims.
Bonhoeffer highlights four areas, he chooses the word mandates to describe them, as ordained by God and intended to jointly rule human action in active cooperation, competition, and even opposition to one another: “In the world God wills work, marriage, government, and church, and God wills all these, each in its own way, through Christ, toward Christ, and in Christ.” (p 69) While Bonhoeffer makes faint protest that individuals aren’t required to participate in all four mandates, his heavy-handed endorsement of them leave that open to doubt, especially as he continually assaults the idea of monasteries or withdrawing from the world out of any kind of pious devotion and intention to seek to serve God in any context other than fully engaged in the secular life. His endorsement of government would find itself right at home alongside the divine right of kings and seems surprising, given the Nazi misuse of government under which Bonhoeffer suffered considerably. His conservatism in this area is unmistakable: “Thus it is the old person and not the young, the parent and not the child, the master and not the servant, the teacher and not the student, the judge and not the defendant, the governing authority and not the subject, the preacher and not the parishioner, to whom the authorization for ethical discourse is granted.” (p 372) Further, the below statement shows how order factors ahead of justice for Bonhoeffer:
The conqueror who has brought his conquered lands peace, prosperity, and fortune cannot simply be forced to give up his conquest. By renouncing the crown or by surrendering what had been conquered, a ruler could cause even greater disorder and incur even more guilt. (p 143)
Despite suffering under the inevitable misuse of power in terms of the Nazi regime, Bonhoeffer maintains a certain ideal picture of the mandate of government and power: “Political action means taking on responsibility. This cannot happen without power. Power is to serve responsibly.” (p 244) As for Bonhoeffer’s definition of responsibility: “Responsibility is human freedom that exists only by being bound to God and neighbor.” (p 283) He does at least recognize statecraft is not a simple matter or a thing that can be reduced to formulae: “the intrinsic law cannot be exhausted by a formal technique, but instead challenges any purely technical approach. The best example in this regard is the problem of developing a technique or craft of political governance, whereas the technique for manufacturing radios is relatively unproblematic.” (p 271)
Bonhoeffer was right at home with those exploring hermeneutics and phenomenology, the key to Bonhoeffer’s ethics (such as they were) was in the contact with the other, principally, with Christ incarnate as the ultimate, and with other people in terms of the penultimate: “The moment a person accepts responsibility for other people—and only in so doing does the person live in reality—the genuine ethical situation arises.” (p 221) Further, “genuine guiltlessness is demonstrated precisely by entering into community with the guilt of other human beings for their sake.” (p 234)
Bonhoeffer adopts positions much closer to Catholicism than most of his fellow Protestants in a few areas, such as his embrace of the idea of nature (if not full-on natural law) and especially in his insistence on confession, not only in terms of proselytizing, but in terms of confessing one’s own personal sins to other people: “Free confession of guilt is not something that one can take or leave; it is the form of Jesus Christ breaking through in the church. The church can let this happen to itself, or it will cease to be the church of Christ.” (p 142)
In spite of the centrality of accepting guilt, confessing sin, and obtaining reconciliation through the incarnate Christ, Bonhoeffer recognizes the human limitations of forgiveness: “In faith the church experiences the forgiveness of all its sins and a new beginning by grace; for the nations there is only a scarring over of guilt in the return to order, justice, and peace and in granting freedom to the church to proclaim Jesus Christ.” (p 142) Even here it can be seen how Bonhoeffer himself continues to divide things into paired opposites, despite his insistence on the ultimate unity of all creation in Christ incarnate.
Bonhoeffer’s Christ-centeredness makes for a challenging reminder to those calling themselves Christian, while it may range between irrelevant and uninteresting on one end of the spectrum all the way to downright threatening on the other for non-Christians: “Only that which participates in Christ can endure and overcome. Christ is the center and power of the Bible, of the church, of theology, but also of humanity, reason, justice, and culture. To Christ everything must return; only under Christ’s protection can it live.” (p 341) Further, “Thus there are not two sets of values, one for the world and one for Christians. Rather, there is only the one word of God, demanding faith and obedience, which is valid for all people.” (p 359) However, Bonhoeffer does not give the earthly church any passes: “the church has thus far failed; through its own fault it has given offense, which hinders people from believing its message.” (p 353)
Beyond Christ-centeredness, Bonhoeffer offers little that is concrete: “Are there even Christian solutions to worldly problems?…If one implies that Christianity has an answer to all social and political questions of the world, so that one would only have to listen to these answers to put the world in order, then this is obviously wrong.” (p 353) To the point, “the essence of the gospel does not consist in solving worldly problems, and also that this cannot be the essential task of the church.” (p 356) For those looking for more helpful advice, I would recommend turning to
Jacques Ellul or even fellow Lutheran
Richard John Neuhaus for more practical in-the-world-but-not-of-the-world approaches.
The editor did a fine job with the book, tackling the very real challenge of organizing and presenting the unfinished material and providing detailed end notes as to the type of paper used, the writing, etc. The commentary on Bonhoeffer’s writing was helpful, as was Green’s observations about Bonhoeffer’s other notes, activities, underlined passages in his Bible, etc. My main complaint (a small one) would be that he tended to interpret much of Ethics in terms of its application to Nazi Germany and even the conspiracy against Hitler. No doubt Bonhoeffer’s first-hand experience of Nazism significantly impacted his writing, and he evidently wrestled with the idea of violently overthrowing Hitler despite Bonhoeffer’s pacifism and natural political conservatism. However, I think a good deal of what he thought and wrote was intended to be much more universal and not so limited to merely his own situation.
I’m very glad I read the book and I do recommend it. However, if one is actually looking for a work on ethics, this would be a poor place to start. It is hardly a simple read, though rewarding for those with the right interests. I think interest in the book would be limited to those identifying as Christians. -
This was a difficult read, but I'm glad I persevered through and finished it. This is not a work dealing with specific areas of ethical questions, but a work that explores the ultimate basis for ethics, that is the person of Jesus Christ. This centrality of Jesus in the understanding of ethics brought much clarity to the issue. As Jesus is the creator and sustainer of all, all ethics considerations needs to be made in light of that reality.
Bonhoeffer identifies the four main institutions of creation: family, church, labor (work) and government and goes into detail on how we should understand the role of each of these areas. A proper understanding of each of these institutions and their relationship with God will lead to a proper ethic.
While I recommend this book, be aware of some of the difficulties in reading it. Bonhoeffer died before completing this book, so the book is based on those sections he completed plus his notes for other sections. As such, some of his ideas aren't fully fleshed out. Different editions order the chapters differently, as he never indicated what order he intended the final work to be. In addition, as he wrote this work in German, this is a translation. Because of these factors, it is difficult at times to know where he is going; sometimes it is several chapters later before I realized the significance of a point he made earlier. But if you persevere, I think you will find it worth it. -
Ths book comes in just under/behind The Cost of Discipleship. The two themes that really stuck out to me had these (though the second point might have come before the first point): First, Christ did a complete redemptive work. Therefore, there is no appropriate "religious" realm and an inappropriate "secular" realm. American Evangelicals like to believe that anything secular is automatically backseat, second-best to the religious. Bonhoeffer says that is nonsense. The city clerk's work has as much value as the missionary in a far away land, provided both are where they are because that is where God directed them. Secondly, as profound as the first, a lot of Christians continue to commit the sin of Adam and Eve, eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. How so? We spend most of our time deciding which things/events/values/etc. are good and which are bad. Bonhoeffer makes the assertion that, for the Christian, there is no "good" or "bad," only the will of God. We, as the redeemed, do not have the luxury to choose what is good or bad, that judgement is for God alone. We only get to decide that which is God's will, consistent with His word, and that which is not God's will, inconsistent with His word.
-
"When evil becomes powerful in the world, it infects the Christian, too, with the poison of radicalism. It is Christ’s gift to the Christian that he should be reconciled with the world as it is, but now this reconciliation is accounted a betrayal and denial of Christ. It is replaced by bitterness, suspicion and contempt for men and the world. In the place of the love that believes all, bears all and hopes all, in the place of the love which loves the world in its very wickedness with the love of God, there is now the pharisaical denial of love to evil, and the restriction of love to the closed circle of the devout. Instead of the open Church of Jesus Christ, which serves the world till the end, there is now some allegedly primitive Christian ideal of a Church, which in its turn confuses the reality of the living Jesus Christ with the realization of a Christian idea. Thus a world which has become evil succeeds in making the Christians become evil too."
- See more at:
http://tjhoiland.com/wordpress/2011/0... -
This was my first Bonhoeffer book to read. I found his writings to be much like those of Kierkegaard, emphasizing the alienation of humanity and the radical transformation that Christianity calls for. When reading Ethics, I found myself longing to be re-united with God, with humans, with my environment, with myself-- to be rid of the disappointing and discouraging sense of "otherness" that lies at the basis of all our relationships.
This book would have been a lot better if Bonhoeffer had finished and edited it himself. It definitely still feels like a collection of notes that would eventually compromise a finished work. Nevertheless, he gives us a lot to think about. He clearly has a brilliant mind that ventures where few others can go. I'd be curious to read another one of his books that was published before he was imprisoned and executed by the nazis. -
Just started this book, the second time I have read Bonhoeffer, and he is way too smart for me, but thinking about what Shannon said about "covering" today, I thought you all might like this quote...(he is referring to the origin of separation from God) Instead of seeing God, man sees himself. "Their eyes were opened" Gen 3.7. Man perceives himself in his disunion with God and with men. He perceives that he is naked. Lacking the protection, the covering, which God and his fellowman afforded him, he finds himself laid bare. Hences there is shame. Shame is man's ineffaceable recollection of his estrangement from the origin (God).
-
This was Dietrich Bonhoeffer's last book, largely written while he was in prison and not completed.
It is without doubt one of the most significant books of Christian theology of the 20th Century. It's also mostly over my head, stunted as my brain is by 60-second sound bites and status updates. The sentences that I understood I liked a lot.
But what is one to make of a sentence such as this? (from Page 133):
"There is, therefore, no penultimate in itself; as though a thing could justify itself in itself as being a thing before the last thing; a thing becomes penultimate only through the ultimate, that is to say, at the moment when it has already lost its own validity."
-
Excellent. Leads to serious reflection and reminds the reader of what living as a free human being before God can and does mean. Grounded in the love of God, which is first and foremost truth, as presented to the world in Jesus Christ...demands critical thinking and meditation while also offering a deliverance from the ever present demand of our conscience to guide our every action (it has it's time and place...i.e. a time for laughing and mourning, life and death, and debating the "ought" versus just living..." you don't need a cannon to shoot a sparrow")...I'll have to come back to writing any sort of review or "final" reflection.
