Best of It: Dietrich Bonhoeffer - The Christian and the Church in and for the World (Part 3)

[Series Index]

Today we conclude our review of the chapter on Dietrich Bonhoeffer in John Stackhouse's Making the Best of It.

Religionless Christianity. Here Bonhoeffer is thinking of religion in the sense of trying to find timeless, universal truths in Christianity just as we might in other religions – it is an exercise in getting answers to ours. Stackhouse sums up Bonhoeffer's views in this way:

We live without the God that most people want in their religion, a deity who answers their questions, soothes their anxieties, and guarantees their well-being. Instead, we are to live fully in the world that the true God has made according to the way that he has made it and according to the way it has fallen. Thus we suffer along with God, yes, but suffering as God does: in the knowledge that such work is not in vain but is right and good and effective, and with the certain hope of the eventual redemption of the world. (144)

We are responsible to act in an ambiguous and paradoxical world. But Stackhouse notes we live in a troubled world that defies easy answers. Then he offers this quote from Ethics:

If one implies that Christianity has the answer to all social and political questions of the world, so that one would have only to list to these answers to put the world in order, then this is obviously wrong …

Jesus is hardly ever involved in solving worldly problems. … Since Jesus brings the redemption of human beings, rather than the solution to problems, he indeed brings the solution to all human problems. …

Who actually says that all worldly problems should and can be solved? Perhaps to God the unsolved condition of these problems may be more important than their solution, namely, as a pointer to the human fall and to God's redemption. Human problems are perhaps so entangled, so wrongly posed, that they are in fact really impossible to solve. (145)

Relating Bonhoeffer's views, Stackhouse writes:

The world is misshapen by evil, broadly and profoundly. It is so marked, in fact, that as we follow Christ over this tortured terrain, we may encounter ethical choices that include no option that is both obvious and pure – no "straight paths." God's ways themselves are transcendent and therefore not always, or even often, apparent to us – indeed, they can appear evil to us. Thus we must be careful what lessons we draw from the Biblical narrative and from our experience of God's providence, recognizing that even with great care we may well mistake what it is we are to conclude and then do. (146-147)

Bonhoeffer was suspicious of leaning on "unmediated inspirations" as they too easily lead us into self-deception. We do have a responsibility act, however. We discern as best we can and decide confidently that God accomplishes his will through such acts ... even if we choose poorly. Stackhouse writes, "All we can do, therefore, and what we must do, therefore, is to discern our responsibility as best we can and then fulfill it." (147) This is not situational ethics but instead listening for Christ's direction and following.

Stackhouse makes more interesting observations along these lines. One critical issue is the complete absence of the Holy Spirit from the discussion, typical of his theological tradition. Doesn't the Spirit play a critical role in such discernment? While I might share some of Bonhoeffer's concerns about "unmediated inspirations," this glaring omission is a major weakness in his theology.

Eschatological hope. Stackhouse writes this about the story that Bonhoeffer saw in scripture:

"… one world, created by God, that fell into evil and has been redeemed by God through Jesus Christ. This world is the world there is, and that will be – albeit renewed (resurrected) in eternal life. Thus we must not neglect this world in honor of the next, for there is no "next" in distinction from this one: "With respect to its origin this indivisible whole is called 'creation.' With respect to its goal it is called the 'kingdom of God.'" Thus what is 'above' – that is, the blessings of heaven – is indeed given to us by grace "for this world." (154)

Direct action. In Conspiracy and Imprisonment, Bonhoeffer writes:

Is the sole task of the church to exercise love within the given worldly orders, i.e., to animate them as far as possible with a new way of thinking, to compensate for hardships, to care for the victims of these orders, and to establish within the church-community its own new order; or does the church have a mission in regard to the given worldly orders themselves, in the sense of correction, improvement, that is, of working toward a new worldly order? I. e., is the church merely to pick up victims, or must the church take hold of the spokes of the wheel itself? (155-156)

He concludes the latter, as Stackhouse says, with some anguish since he had taken a more Anabaptist view of conquering evil through nonresistance. Stackhouse says that Bonhoeffer did not naturally think about institutional politics as someone like Niebuhr might have, so he had few suggestions to offer along these lines. It was clear that at least late in life, he felt Christians have a responsibility to act, but he was deeply conflicted about appropriate action, as evidenced by his conviction of pacifism and yet feeling compelled to participate in attempts to murder Hitler.

This completes the review of the chapter on Bonhoeffer. What do you think?

[Previous] [Next]

Comments

[Josh Rowley]

Lots of thoughts, in no particular order:

1) It has long fascinated me how just about everyone--from Niebuhrians to Hauerwasians--claims Bonhoeffer as a friend. There are no doubt a variety of reasons for this tendency. One is that his theology changed over time; for example, THE COST OF DISCIPLESHIP is more optimistic or idealistic than the later ETHICS, which is more realistic or pessimistic.

2) Similary, Bonhoeffer was more of an occasional theologian than a systematic theologian; he's harder to put one's finger on, thus allowing persons with a variety of views to appropriate him.

3) Every writer's views are influenced by their context (the air they breathe); and it seems safe to assume that Bonhoeffer's later works were especially influenced by the context of Hitler's Germany--an increasingly nightmarish context. Bonhoeffer was in an extreme situation, the kind that most of his readers will never face. I have wondered, then, if his earlier works might be interpreted as the rule, and his later works the exception--that is, a kind of qualifier. A focus on his later work may make sense for persons who are under the yoke of a Hitler. But should an ethic developed in this rare situation be regarded as normative? Or would it be more faithful to regard the ethic developed in DISCIPLESHIP as normative?

4) Perhaps it is because ETHICS was unfinished at the time of his death, but Bonhoeffer does not seem to have been consistent in his thinking. He writes, "Human problems are perhaps so entangled, so wrongly posed, that they are in fact really impossible to solve." Then he writes, "[T]he church [does] have a mission in regard to the given worldly orders themselves, in the sense of correction, improvement, that is, of working toward a new worldly order...." (Of course, none of us is entirely consistent, and Bonhoeffer worked under extremely difficult circumstances.)

5) Earlier, you summarized, "Bonhoeffer rejected the Lutheran notion of two kingdoms in any strong sense. There is one reality and Christ rules over all. There is the spiritual office and the kingdom of worldly authority which should not be mixed but God rules above both realities and they answer to him." I wonder whether Bonhoeffer's break from this Lutheran tradition, a tradition that underwrites "Christ and culture in paradox" thinking, was sharp enough. Ultimately, Bonhoeffer seems to have had a dual ethic--one for the church, and one for the state. ETHICS makes clear that only the state can use the power of the sword. What happens when the Christian has one foot in each? Do we follow DISCIPLESHIP when we're doing the work of the church, and ETHICS when we're doing the work of the state? How is this paradoxical approach different than Luther's "two kingdoms" view? Could not a Nazi soldier who was also a baptized Lutheran have justified his work with similar reasoning?

[Travis Greene]

"I have wondered, then, if his earlier works might be interpreted as the rule, and his later works the exception--that is, a kind of qualifier."

What if it's the opposite, that Hitler only made obvious the way states perpetuate evil all the time? What if the Nazis weren't an aberration of "normal" circumstances, but, as so many realized during the Nuremberg trials, just perfectly normal people following orders?

I'm not arguing that this is the case, I just think that, just as any theodicy has to take account of the Holocaust, so does any Christian treatment of ethics and the relationship between church and state. I don't think we can just say that was a "special circumstance".

[Michael W. Kruse]

Great thoughts, Josh. Thanks

"... everyone--from Niebuhrians to Hauerwasians--claims Bonhoeffer as a friend."

Stackhouse notes this as well. In addition to Bonhoeffer's evolving views is that so much of his work was in incomplete and not fully edited works. Sort of leaves things open to project on him what we will.

#3 - This goes to one of Stackhouse's most important observations: Differing contexts may call for different responses. In other, words there is no one ordained response to culture. Even further, it may be that could actually intends for different Christians to take differing approaches in the same context.

#4 - I'm not sure if it is entirely inconsistent as much as it is living in a paradox: We must act but must do so in a state of considerably uncertainty and fallibility (this is to say, "risk.") This tension is the one I've most profoundly felt all my life.

#5 - All excellent questions! You failed to give the answers. :-)

Seriously, "How is this paradoxical approach different than Luther's "two kingdoms" view?" I think this gets at the center of the issues Stackhouse will raise in the second half of the book.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Tavis, I think your question is right on. What if "normal" circumstances are merely instances where have become complacent with the culture?

But that raises an equally important question: If we make the normative response the type we would have with a Hitler scenario, and God would have paradox be the more normative approach, then is it possible we might actually thwart the redemptive role of the Kingdom of God?

Some use NT Christians as the model for the way the church should respond to culture. But New Testament Christians were living in a particular context. Would they have adapted there response with a change in context? I don't think we can absolutize the NT posture as normative.

The answers are not self-evident to me.

[Travis Greene]

I agree. It's difficult. The NT Christians had no power at all. I arguably have a relatively high amount of power as a vote-wielding citizen of the planet's most powerful nation. Can I use that power to further God's purposes? Or does that just run into the Tolkien problem, wherein power corrupts and must ultimately be rejected?

I really don't know. I dig Anabaptist thought, but I still voted, and still will, because I don't think I should reject what (arguably) God has given me to use. Including my citizenship.

But I do think nonviolent submission is an appropriate response to even a Nazi-style government (which is not too far off from some of the early church's experience). Submission, of course, does not mean obedience. Corrie ten Boom is probably a better example than Bonhoeffer in this respect.

Although what I would have done in his place, who knows.

[Michael W. Kruse]

"Submission, of course, does not mean obedience."

I agree. I think submission is often placing the shalom of the other above your own comfort. Sometimes we need confront others for their own good and the easy thing would be to just go along to get along. Submission is a challenging thing to figure out as well.

[Josh Rowley]

Cool conversation.

I should clarify that my original comment was an attempt to interpret Bonhoeffer's views, which are not necessarily my own. My thinking is that perhaps Bonhoeffer saw his involvement in a plot to kill Hitler as an "exception to the rule." Also, "normal people following orders" was what I was getting at with my question about persons who were both Nazi soldiers and baptized Lutherans. Luther's "two kingdoms" notion did nothing to guard against this kind of dualism--probably encouraged it.

What about non-violent resistance or subversive non-cooperation as alternatives to "submission"?

[Michael W. Kruse]

"What about non-violent resistance or subversive non-cooperation as alternatives to "submission"?"

To a degree, I think the can be an act of submission. Martin Luther King, Jr., always said his non-violent resistance wasn't just about rights for the oppressed. It was about helping the oppressor face to face with his unwarranted violence, so as to free him what caused him to oppress others. The action was taken with aim of redemption not destruction.

I suspect Bonhoeffer did indeed view his plot involvement as exceptional ... possibly as the better of two evil options, for which he was still accountable.

[Travis Greene]

"submission is often placing the shalom of the other above your own comfort"

I think there's an analogy to be drawn here between violence and the way the NT treats Christians attacking one another in the courts. "Wouldn't you rather be taken advantage of than to be so unloving, and in front of outsiders?"

In perhaps a similar way, we should ask, "If the choices are kill or be killed, isn't it more Christlike to be killed?"

Re: Nonviolent resistance and MLK...the submission we give to governments can often come in the form of submitting to punishment for disobeying unjust rules.

[Michael W. Kruse]

"Re: Nonviolent resistance and MLK...the submission we give to governments can often come in the form of submitting to punishment for disobeying unjust rules."

Bingo!

[LeVon Smoker]

In 1944, Bonhoeffer wrote that he "stood by" what he wrote in Discipleship.

Also, his (perceived?) idea that Christians might find themselves in situations where the only "right thing to do" is to sin (kill Hitler if you get the chance) is very problematic in light of the prayer to "lead us not into temptation". If Christians manage to imagine ways where good can only come from a sinful act then maybe they ought to admit that they don't have much to say about ethics.

[Michael W. Kruse]

I think Bonhoeffer's problem was that he all options could be considered sinful. He chose as best he could and trusted in God's mercy and grace.