Archives: Book Chapters

THE MAN

Difficulty surrounds the attempt to evaluate Bonhoeffer. His influence grows and students will continue to turn to him and find inspiration in his germinal thinking. That part of the revolution in theology due to his influence is still with us. But at this point in history we can draw some ideas together about the man’s significance. Time will tell whether this particular assessment stands true or not.

A beginning point is the man himself. More attention has been paid to his thought and ideas rather than to the man. Perhaps interest in the man himself will heighten since the definitive work of Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, is now available in English translation. Both Bethge’s work, and the excellent biography by Mary Bosanquet, The Life and Death of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, give a clear vision of the man, his style of life, his activity, his hopes, fears, aspirations, faith, and loyalty to Jesus Christ. Bonhoeffer is an inspiring example of a committed Christian. He deserves to be enrolled among the greater adventurers of faith. From the first, he set his face against tyranny in Germany. He was among the first to raise his voice against the monstrous persecution of the Jews when they were forbidden to hold public office or to enter or remain in the ministry of the church. The frustrating opposition to the political church in Germany, the clandestine seminary life operated by the Confessing Church, the intrigue and plotting designed to rid Germany of a demonic rule make him a fascinating person.

A vivid contrast could be drawn between Bonhoeffer and Sir Thomas More. Could Hollywood do with Bonhoeffer what it did with More in A Man for All Seasons? More was a man who stood by his principles in an issue unworthy of martyrdom, while Bonhoeffer stood to the death for a purpose worthy of giving one’s life — to rid a country of tyranny. With the English translation of Eberhard Bethge’s definitive biography, the story of Bonhoeffer the man should take on renewed interest.

Protestantism does not have its roll of canonical saints, but Bonhoeffer deserves to be enrolled in the memory as a hero of faith. Bonhoeffer has a modernity that past adventurers of faith do not. We rationalize by saying that life in previous generations and cultures may have been much easier. But here within a technological culture saturated with militarism, hate, and divided peoples is a man familiar with it all and who has something to say about it.

The person of Bonhoeffer assumes an interest for us in contrast to the other great theologians of his time. Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, and Rudolf Bultmann are interesting for their theologies. We have not focused any great attention upon their personal lives. If we dismiss them for their theology or accept them for it, we are not drawn to them as persons. With Bonhoeffer it is different. We may also say that many other pastors died in prison in Germany during the church struggle, but we have not been caught up with them. Bonhoeffer is different. He is a rare soul who had many interests, a rare being who came to grips with theology, and the kind of person who would die for his convictions in an often used word of this generation we could say that Bonhoeffer had charisma. We are drawn to him, his person, and we want to know something of him as well as his theology.

THE THEOLOGICAL REVOLUTION

Bonhoeffer is important for his contribution to theology in general. Some new moods in theology that appeared in the early sixties appealed to Bonhoeffer’s later works, particularly the Letters and Papers from Prison. The work of Bishop John A. T. Robinson made use of Bonhoeffer’s terminology. The upheaval in theology following Robinson was notoriously journalistic, if not profound. We have already raised questions about the legitimacy of Robinson’s use of Bonhoeffer’s ideas.¹

Like Robinson, the radical God-is-dead movement appealed to the "later" Bonhoeffer for the use of some of his terms and operated under the guise of fulfilling Bonhoeffer’s proposal for a "religionless Christianity." The attempt to build a theology without the God-hypothesis has not been widely accepted as a positive contribution to theology. Certainly great value has come in asking for the meaning and content of the word "God," and the answers have been various. But for Bonhoeffer, Jesus Christ filled the meaning of the word "God."

Disciples often show ambivalent trends in their interpretations of their master, and this is true of Bonhoeffer’s. There is the radical stream seen in various degrees in Robinson, Hamilton, Van Buren, and others, who have appealed predominantly to the themes and suggestions in the popular Letters and Papers from Prison, or perhaps the "later Bonhoeffer." The opposite trend appeals to the "whole Bonhoeffer," to his complete works. Falling into this category are Bethge (the close friend of Bonhoeffer and perhaps the man who understands Bonhoeffer best of all), Moltmann, Godsey, Phillips, and others. These interpreters defend Bonhoeffer against being misused for "radical" interpretations. Bethge, because of his influence and importance in this camp, will probably remain the most important interpreter.

Questions might be raised about the restlessness within the church and the self-criticism it has directed against itself in the last decade. The grass roots always furnishes a certain amount of discontent with denominational structures, barren religiosity, and "status-quoism" within the religious culture. Although no sociological gauge to determine cause-effect relations can be established, Bonhoeffer has helped the church’s leadership to become critically aware of shortcomings. The popularity of Bonhoeffer in the early sixties among the religiously oriented college student, the reading layman, and the perceptive pastor give some basis for a commentary on the criticism of the church in that decade and which still spills over into this one.

Whatever the ultimate outcome for Bonhoeffer in the history of doctrine and the history of the modern church, his name is certainly one of influence. Because of his ability to say things in a new and pungent way there has been ignited an exciting exchange of ideas in theological literature.

AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE

In specific areas of theology Bonhoeffer has made several contributions.

1. The church has an important place in Bonhoeffer’s thought. If objectivity were a reality in theological circles, Bonhoeffer’s view could conceivably serve as a basis for an ecumenical "happening" between the institutional idea found in Roman Catholicism and the "called out" emphasis of Protestantism. Objectivity could perhaps lead Roman Catholic theologians to see that formal institutionalism is alien to the New Testament while voluntaristic Protestants might see that the mystical body of Christ has "space" in the world and is where Jesus Christ is to be found. But since theological wheels move slowly and reevaluation of respective positions seldom occur, the possibilities of Bonhoeffer’s position may have to wait for a long time.

Yet the church has possibilities as it contemplates the ecumenical movement. Roman Catholicism is attracted to Bonhoeffer in a way that it is not attracted to the other names of Protestant theology. We have already mentioned that one of the better works on Bonhoeffer comes from a Roman Catholic. William Kuhns’ remarks that Bonhoeffer’s works "speak directly to a Catholic as a Catholic, despite their emergence from the most vital sources in Protestant tradition."² The Cost of Discipleship is akin to works on the spiritual life found in Roman Catholic seminaries and monasteries. Life Together "is recognized by many Catholics as the finest available description of living Christian community."³ Ethics has an appeal for it speaks of a "Church which Catholics can recognize and understand. . ."⁴

Kuhns delineates five areas in Bonhoeffer’s thought that hold particular fascination for Roman Catholics: (1) "his idea of community" (the church is the community where Christ is); (2) "his search for the true nature of the Church’s authority" (in the concrete situations facing the church who can speak with authority about wrong or right?); (3) "his anthropology" (what is it to be Christian in the modern world? and Bonhoeffer’s answer of holy worldliness, or his hope of full manhood); (4) "his effort to forge a dynamic definition of the Church" (the church is defined in relationship to the world); and (5) "his struggle toward a deeply relevant Christology" (the Incarnation becomes the central issue of all facets of theology) .⁵

The Protestant likewise shares a deep interest in these five areas. Bonhoeffer attracts Protestants because of his deep respect for the authority of Scripture in determining the idea of the Christian community, the meaning of the Incarnation, the role of the church in the modern world and in the life of modern man come of age.

Bonhoeffer did not forge a union of churches. He criticized the ecumenical movement for its inadequate theology of ecumenicity, and this criticism remains valid today. Certainly there has been no strong theology of ecumenicity set forth that refrains from watering down doctrine and swallowing up weaker denominations. The attitude of the so-called "ecumaniac" (somebody else’s church is better than mine) was not the attitude of Bonhoeffer.

Bonhoeffer sought one important thing from the ecumenical movement: a strong denunciation of the apostate church under Hitler’s control. He felt that the church should speak out on vital issues, even chancing that it may be wrong. This problem is unsolved in American ecumenicity even when the National Council of Churches attempts to speak in behalf of its members "Who speaks for the churches?" is today an open question.

2. Ethics remains as a powerful work confronting modern man. We have yet to reckon with many of its features. His treatment of the role of the Christian in the modern world will probably be a continuing inspiration for many people if the prestige of the church continues to diminish.

The new beginning point of ethics is yet to be reckoned with by philosophical ethics. Nicolas Berdyaev declared that ethics should teach a man how to die, but philosophical ethics is not concerned with this. Bonhoeffer answers Berdyaev’s question by declaring ethics’ goal for man as being restored to unity with God. In restoration man becomes real man. Right and wrong are not products of man’s mind but are found only in the will of God.

Certain emphases in Ethics are important because of the frequent world-denying attitude among Protestants. This is God’s world, created and sustained by him, and man is to accept it with all its hopes and Possibilities as a gift of God. The narrow view of some Protestants that the world is the devil’s is to insult God’s grace and redemptive act. Bonhoeffer calls us to regain an appreciation for God’s world and redemption in it.

The mandates — labor, marriage, government and the church — reaffirm the goodness and purpose of life. Could Bonhoeffer be read seriously by some of our deeply discontented students and others, he would no doubt beckon them to a better understanding of themselves in their split world.

3. About the spiritual life, Bonhoeffer has remarkable insights. Those who knew Bonhoeffer found that the development of the spiritual life as he outlined it was not exciting to begin with, but as time passed they reassessed their views and came to regard their six-month stay in the Finkenwalde experiment as a high point of their lives. Bonhoeffer is highly relevant to the needs of modern man in his pursuit of spiritual growth. Here is the source of the church’s possibility of being the church in the world, the Christian being the man for other men.

In the context of the Finkenwalde experiment, there may be found some possibilities of rethinking contemporary theological education. The modern seminary can be a time-killer in the seminarian’s drive for a degree in theology (his union card) without ever helping him to become a theologian or develop a discipline of the spiritual life. The experiment at Finkenwalde produced a host of pastors who stood firm in their purpose to minister in any way possible. The modern seminary turns out men who have not developed a spiritual existence within themselves and are dedicated to serving where the money is the highest. They drift from church to church, lacking vital spirituality, unable to build the churches up because they are empty. The practical and professional emphasis in the seminary has been in the direction of administration, social work, and ecclesiastical machinery rather than the practical discipline of the spiritual life.

4. Christology stands out as the central feature in Bonhoeffer. With one stroke he cut down the controversies centering around the Incarnation. We are concerned with Who, not how in the Incarnation. This is true in the church also. We cannot ask the question "How is Christ in the church?" but "Who speaks to us in the church?" Doctrine was important for Bonhoeffer. He was not a narrow doctrinaire creature who could not allow doctrinal differences, but eventually doctrine became a life and death issue in the Confessing Church’s struggle in Germany. The issue was as important as the survival of the church. Doctrine is that important. Christology is the center of doctrine. His controversial utterance, "Whoever knowingly separates himself from the Confessing Church in Germany separates himself from salvation," stressed both the importance of doctrine as well as the idea that separation from the church is equal to cutting oneself off from Christ who exists in the church.

5. We would like to conclude this work with a word about Bonhoeffer’s face toward the future. Bonhoeffer knew that the evil of Hitler would one day meet its end and there must be people who were ready for picking up the pieces. The. church must be ready to minister. In 1942, Bonhoeffer met a few friends at Werder, and among them was Werner von Haeften, who was a staff lieutenant of the Army High Command. In discussing ,his duties, he asked of Bonhoeffer: "Shall I shoot? I can get inside the Fuhrer’s headquarters with my revolver. I know where and when the conferences take place. I can get access."⁶

Bonhoeffer discussed this issue at length. He noted that ridding the world of Hitler was not everything, for worse could come by others; but it should accomplish something; there should be "a change of circumstances, of the government. . . the ‘thereafter’ had to be so carefully prepared."⁷

In conversations with others, plans were made on various levels for the possible reconstruction of Germany. Earlier Bonhoeffer had returned from the safety of New York to give himself the right to participate in that reconstruction along with his suffering people. His look toward the future only expressed his continuing faith in God who was incarnated in Jesus Christ and the church. In these troubled times plans need to be made for the future.

NOTES:

1. See chapter I.

2. Kuhns, op. cit., p. 258.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid., pp. 260ff.

6. I Knew Dietrich Bonhoeffer, p. 191.

7. Ibid.

The book that made Bonhoeffer a question mark to many minds was Letters and Papers from Prison.¹ Those provocative phrases like "religionless Christianity," "the God who forsakes us," "Jesus as the man for others," and similar phrases appear in context that are only in outline form without full contextual meanings. This is the work that has captivated the interests of diverse theologians who quote it in bolstering their own theological stance.

Will we ever understand the "later" Bonhoeffer? Can we hope to when we have received only tenuous expressions? Are we justified in taking a few personal letters and basing a new imposing theological structure on them? These are some of the problems and implications of the last words of Bonhoeffer. This work is also difficult to treat because of its miscellaneous nature. At best we can only hope to treat some of the rich themes found herein.

The first piece is an essay composed around 1942-43, prior to his arrest, entitled "After Ten Years." It begins with a treatment of the intolerable times during which people had lost their moorings. Evil appeared in the guise of light and all traditional ethical concepts were thrown into conflict. Bonhoeffer discusses the reactions of reasonable people (who are disappointed by the unreasonableness of both sides in the world’s conflicts); conscience-guided people (who are deceived by the seductive disguises of evil and accept a salved rather than clear conscience); moral fanatics (who get trapped in nonessentials); duty-guided people (who never achieve a direct hit on evil); the person claiming freedom (who performs evil to ward off a greater evil); and the man of private virtuousness (who plays the game of self-deception or becomes a great hypocrite).² Is there a better answer? Who can stand fast? Only the man who sacrifices all in "exclusive allegiance to God." "Where are such people?" Bonhoeffer asks.

People of civil courage were lacking, for the Germans had learned the virtue of obedience. But submissiveness can be exploited, and in the case of Nazi Germany it was. Responsibility is related to free men. Obedience goes only so far. Bonhoeffer then turns to various categories of relationships and attitudes.

1. Success. Success achieved by good means can be overlooked ethically, but success by means of evil poses problems. Success tends to make good out of evil in history. Bonhoeffer regarded himself as responsibly involved in learning how the coming generation is to live in a new culture.

2. Folly. Bonhoeffer regards folly as more devastating than evil. There is no reasoning with, protesting against, or upending the fool. He calls folly a sociological problem, called forth by violent displays of power which deprive men of their judgment. The only hope against folly is liberation, and the ultimate release is a responsible life before God. In the political arena, "what will really matter is whether those in power expect more from people’s folly than from their wisdom and independence of mind."³

3. Contempt for humanity will be rejected only if we realize that what we despise in others is never "entirely absent from ourselves."⁴

4. Immanent righteousness. Bonhoeffer says that evil carries the seeds of its own destruction. The world seems ordered in a way that the expedient act cannot be turned into a principle without suffering retribution. This affirmation leads Bonhoeffer to set forth some statements of faith on the sovereignty of God in history. God can bring good out of evil, and gives strength in times of distress. He hears our prayers and desires responsible action from us.

5. Confidence. Bonhoeffer writes that although betrayal is everywhere, trust and confidence are greater than ever imagined. In trust they placed their lives in the hands of others. Such trust is a rare blessing and a necessity against the background of mistrust in society.

6. The sense of quality. He takes a new look at equalitarian movements which destroy a sense of quality by destroying reserve. Socially this means a break with the "cult of the star" tradition in society and culturally it substitutes the book for the newspaper, leisure for frenzied activity, quality for quantity.

7. Sympathy. Bonhoeffer declares that sympathy arises with the imminence of danger. Christians are called to sympathy and action when others are in danger.

8. Suffering. In the past one could plan both his professional and his private life. But war makes both of these impossible. Life must be carried on living every day as if it is our last, and yet in faith and responsibility as though there is to be a great future. This is still a germane principle today.

9. Optimism. Pessimism is wiser than optimism, but optimism must not be impugned even though it is proven wrong many times. Optimism — in spite of the day of judgment — leads to building and hoping for a better world.

10. Insecurity and death. Both had been increasingly in Bonhoeffer’s mind as these ten years passed by. By accepting death, each new day of life becomes miraculous. His own death is prefigured in this descriptive statement: "It is we ourselves, and not outward circumstances, who make death what it can be, a death freely and voluntarily accepted."⁵

The essay concludes with the question: "Are we still of any use?" Much evil has been devised and experienced. The need is for "plain, honest, straightforward men." Is it possible to regain this stance after the evils of intrigue war, and cynicism? ⁶ Bonhoeffer does not answer his question.

The next section consists of Bonhoeffer’s letters to his parents. In them we are shown the closeness of his family feeling rather than any profound theological views. Bonhoeffer read a great deal in prison. The subject matter was broad: newspapers, novels, history, philosophy, theology, music, and the Bible. He memorized verses of Scripture each day, especially psalms. Much of his reading was in nineteenth-century writing; he had great admiration for its literary output. The letters to his parents reflect his occasional sickness, the growing problem of food, his gradual callousness to prison life, and the irritating desire to get out and on with important things.

While in prison he had occasion to write a wedding sermon for his niece and his close friend, Eberhard Bethge. The "Wedding Sermon from a Prison Cell" progresses in five statements: "God is guiding your marriage"; "God makes your marriage indissoluble"; "God establishes a rule of life by which you can live together in wedlock" (Col. 3:18, 19); "God has laid on marriage a blessing and a burden," that of children; "God gives you Christ as the foundation of your marriage."⁷ The sermon is characterized by a tenderness born of love for both participants in the wedding.

Letters and Papers from Prison also contains a report on prison life revealing the sadistic character of some of its guards, the injustice in treatment of prisoners, the inhumanity toward the less important prisoners, and the growing problem of food. The lack of air-raid protection was a prime source of anxiety for the 700 men in the prison. Bonhoeffer reflects on his embarrassment at preferred treatment when his position and family connections were learned.

The major part of Letters and Papers from Prison contains letters written to a friend, Eberhard Bethge. This section contains the enigmatic phrases so prominent in Bonhoeffer devotees. In dealing with them we are confronted with the issue of interpretation. How much weight should be given to fragmentary letters in which the author freely acknowledges that he has not worked out his ideas?⁸ Can Bonhoeffer’s criticism of religion mean that he was bordering on the loss of his faith? Even if this were true, should one give heavy weight to utterances born out of the frustration of a Nazi prison? What is to be made of these statements?

The following items seem to have provoked the most interest. First, the problem of religion. The letter of April 30, 1944, contains Bonhoeffer’s confession of the radical emphasis that his thinking had taken. He wrote, "We are moving towards a completely religionless time; people as they are now simply cannot be religious any more."⁹ Freedom from religion is compared to freedom from the rite of circumcision in the time of Paul the apostle. Religion is opposed to being a Christian. Bonhoeffer regards Barth’s criticism of religion as his greatest contribution, although Barth does not go far enough.

Religion uses God as the lazy way of explaining the unexplainable. God is on the edge of human boundaries. But what happens when the human boundaries are pushed back and an alternate explanation is given for the phenomena once credited to God? God is pushed further from human existence.¹⁰ Countering this, Bonhoeffer insists that God must be met in the center of life rather than on the periphery. He must be found in man’s strength, not his weakness; in life’s goodness, not in death and guilt alone.¹¹ Bonhoeffer’s question boils down to this: If by science man solves the problems of hunger and disease, if by education the problems of guilt, if by psychiatry the ills of the mind, if man’s other needs can be met, what room is left for God? Bonhoeffer rejects the "God of the gaps" for the Incarnate Christ who is in the world, not as an idea, but as Person. "We are to find God in what we know, not in what we do not know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved."¹²

Second, the problem of the "world come of age." This term relates to religion’s use of the idea of God. Through science, man has discarded God’s role in the universe. Questions can be answered "without recourse to the ‘working hypothesis’ called ‘God’."¹³ Christian apologetics, however, has continued in its retreat, hoping to take refuge in "ultimate questions" such as death, guilt, and meaning in life. Thus religion’s approach to man "come of age" has been to bring him to a sense of guilt and despair to make him sense his need for Christ. This "methodist" approach is labeled as pointless (it puts an adult back into adolescence), ignoble (it exploits man’s weakness), and un-Christian ("it confuses Christ with one particular stage in man’s religiousness").¹⁴

If we cannot roll back the advances of science, the conclusions of philosophers, the desertion of religion by ethics and politics, where does this leave God? Bonhoeffer answers:

So our coming of age leads us to a true recognition of our situation before God. God would have us know that we must live as men who manage our lives without him. The God who is with us is the God who forsakes us (Mark 15:34). The God who lets us live in the world without the working hypothesis of God is the God before whom we stand continually. Before God and with God we live without God. God lets himself be pushed out of the world on to the cross.¹⁵

To be of age is not to be without God. Dropping the religious context means that God as a hypothesis is substituted by living with God in a relationship. God the omnipotent is not known; God the Incarnate is known as he comes to us in his weakness and suffering.

Third, the problem of Christian worldliness — a seeming contradiction in terms according to traditional use — or secularism. Bonhoeffer defines "this-worldliness" as: living unreservedly in life’s duties, problems, successes and failures, experiences and perplexities. In so doing we throw ourselves completely into the arms of God, taking seriously, not our own sufferings, but those of God in the world — watching with Christ in Gethsemane. That I think is faith, that is metanoia; and that is how one becomes a man and a Christian (cf. Jer. 45!).¹⁶

Taking one’s duties and sufferings seriously means that we must exist for others. Jesus is "the man for others," and this type of relationship holds true for Christians. Bonhoeffer partially questions the theme of The Cost of Discipleship when it involves trying to make something of oneself, a stereotyped saint, sinner, or churchman.¹⁷ Instead, both the Christian and the church exist for others. The church’s role is to "tell men of every calling what it means to live in Christ, to exist for others."¹⁸

Bonhoeffer’s attitude toward worldliness seems to arise out of his interest in the thirteenth century.¹⁹ Drawing upon his musical ability in counterpoint he described life as a polyphony in which earthly love is the counterpoint to the fixed melody of loving God with all one’s heart. Polyphony may be something of a theodicy in which pain and joy are parts of the total life structure just as bass fulfills the symmetry demanded by the treble.²⁰

Bonhoeffer’s understanding of worldliness shows again in his discussion of the central emphasis in Christianity. There is real danger in calling Christianity a "redemption from cares, distress, fears, and longings, from sin and death, in a better world beyond the grave."²¹ Christianity is this-worldly for it sends a "man back to his life on earth in a wholly new way. . ."²² Bonhoeffer believed that if the world come of age was to be won to Christ it must be encountered in its strength, not its weaknesses.²³

In searching for meaning and application of his thought, Bonhoeffer plays down the traditional idea of repentance as a religious act, concerned with one’s own needs, and stresses rather the positive side of "allowing oneself to be caught up into the way of Jesus Christ."²⁴ Traditional acts of repentance are deplored as mere religious method. In this context he declares that the godlessness of the world perhaps makes it closer to God. Then the thought breaks off. We question whether repentance can be written off so freely. True, its positive emphasis is more important, for repentance without faith would lead to self .inflicted despair. But Jesus began and ended his ministry, according to Luke’s Gospel, with the message that man should repent.

Fourth, the problem of the church in transition. In May of 1944, Bonhoeffer wrote some thoughts on the baptism of Dietrich Wilhelm Rudiger Bethge, his godson.²⁵ Although participating in a rite that was outdated as far as modernity would have it, Bonhoeffer speaks of the future church that will have changed greatly. Its language will be nonreligious "as was Jesus’ language."²⁶ By August of 1944, he urged the church to "come out of its stagnation."²⁷ There must be genuine conversation between the church and the world. In this same letter he proposed an outline for a future book. Chapter three would urge the church to give its wealth away to the needy; clergy should live on free-will offerings or support themselves by secular work. The church’s work is to explain what it means to live in Christ. It should have a courageous word against the vices of pride and encouragement for the elements of the good life. Unfortunately the proposed book was never completed.

What are we to make of the thoughts expressed so vividly in these intimate letters to a friend? It would be unwise to be dogmatic. Can we say that Bonhoeffer qualifies his early works in which he speaks of the visible church as the body of Christ? Does his disappointment with the national church in Germany and then later the weaknesses of the Confessing Church force him to modify his idea of the church’s form? Is there not really a trend toward a noninstitutional but more biblical concept of the church?

Rather than venture too far in a direction that is filled with uncertainty, we had best stop in our conjecture and perhaps plead for the same from others who would interpret these phrases with a content that Bonhoeffer never intended. We may conclude that whatever else one may think about Bonhoeffer, he advocated Christianity without religion but certainly not Christianity without God. The nearness of God Incarnate is apparent in his last words before death: "This is the end — for me the beginning of life."²⁸

In our final assessment of Bonhoeffer we will try to fit Letters and Papers from Prison into the overall picture of the man and his influence on the contemporary theological mind. To that evaluation we now turn.

NOTES:

1. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, ed. Eberhard Bethge, trans. Reginald Fuller and others, rev. ed. (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1967).

2. Ibid., pp. 1-4. There is a similar treatment in chapter III of Ethics.

3. Ibid., p. 9.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid., p. 17.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid., pp. 25-32.

8. Cf. pp. 139, 184.

9. Ibid., p. 139.

10. Ibid., p. 142.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid., p. 164.

13. Ibid., p. 168.

14. Ibid., p. 169.

15. Ibid., p. 188.

16. Ibid., p. 193.

17. Ibid., p. 193.

18. Ibid., p.204.19. Cf. ibid., p. 123.

20. Ibid., pp. 150-51.

21. Ibid., p. 176.

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid., pp. 180-83.

24. Ibid., p. 190.

25. Ibid., pp. 153-62.

26. Ibid., p. 161.

27. Ibid., p. 200.

28. Ibid., p. 225.

Bonhoeffer’s last book was his Ethics. Intended as lectures for Edinburgh, it was considered by Bonhoeffer as his lifework, his real contribution to theology, and was composed between 1940 and 1943. The work was uncompleted and some of the chapters break off abruptly. However, it is a work of great significance, termed by some as his most significant.¹ The book has been arranged in its present order by Eberhard Bethge.

THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS

The first chapter is foundational. It poses a chasm between Christian ethics and other ethical systems. Other ethical systems aim at coming to a knowledge of good and evil but say nothing about why this should be a particular emphasis in ethics. Christian ethics has a knowledge of why other ethical systems concentrate on the knowledge of good and evil, but rejects this goal as being a false one. The goal of Christian ethics is the new man, the restored man, the reconciled man, the man in God. When other ethical systems set up the goal of a knowledge of good and evil, man immediately becomes the arbiter of that knowledge and assumes the role of God who alone has this knowledge. "Instead of knowing only the God who is good to him and instead of knowing all things in Him, he now knows himself as the origin of good and evil."²

The man’s rebellion brings disunion with God, with man, and within himself. The disunion is manifest in shame. Shame is man’s ineffaceable recollection of his estrangement from the origin.³ Because of it he needs a mask. It reflects man’s disunion with God and with others, whereas conscience is the sign of man’s disunion with himself."⁴ Although conscience may pretend to be many things, even the voice of God, it is limited in its functional relationship of judging what has been done in the way of wrong. It holds no positive command.

Bonhoeffer treats the Pharisee as the example of disunited man interested in the knowledge of right and wrong, often in a legalistic sense, but who, because of this question, never saw the real issue at hand: unity with God. Passing judgment on the actions of others became the Pharisee’s favorite pastime, and brought disunion. Thus the demand of Jesus is to overcome the knowledge of good and evil for the union with God that brings union within man and among men. "No longer knowing good and evil, but knowing Christ as origin and as reconciliation, man will know all."⁵ The teachings of Jesus forbid man to "know" or approve of his own actions, or his own goodness. Although this is psychologically impossible as far as knowledge or epistemology⁶ goes, it is religiously possible in knowing one’s reconciliation with God. Thus the religious life is not a matter of rules, "but solely of the living will of God."⁷ Man’s chief concern in all situations is to discern what God’s will is. This must continue through life. Bonhoeffer does not imply direct inspiration of God’s will, but he indicates that "if a man asks God humbly God will give him certain knowledge of His will."⁸

Accepting the given of the known will of God, what shall be the response? Intellectual acceptance? Reflective evaluation? No, the will of God is for doing. In the power of Jesus Christ man is to do the will of God. Bonhoeffer warns against a false doing of the will of God as well as a false hearing. This occurs when one does the law and his motive springs from his knowledge of good and evil rather than his union with God.

Man in union with God is marked by the stamp of love. Love takes its definition from the person Jesus Christ. "Love is the reconciliation of man with God in Jesus Christ."⁹ In the act of reconciliation man is brought to unity, to union with God, and his relation to his neighbor is transformed. In unity his splitness is overcome.

The development of Bonhoeffer’s thought at this point is cut off by an unfinished chapter. Thus we turn to the next which is also unfinished.

In "The Church and the World" Bonhoeffer got no further than eight pages, but two important and related ideas are set forth. The first concerns the non-Christian defense of an appeal to human values — such as reason, justice, culture — by those who share these values with the Christian but are not related to Christ. Bonhoeffer maintains that these values are homeless orphans who, in the hour of real danger, return to their real father. Jesus Christ is the origin of these values and "it is only under His protection" that they can survive.¹⁰ The justification of these values is related to him alone. The second concern is that of Christ and good people. Too little has been said about the good man in Christianity. Much has been preached about the bad. Bonhoeffer declares that Christ belongs to both. Bonhoeffer felt that a theology of the good man should be further developed. A note showing the incompleteness of the chapter indicated something of his feeling: "‘I feel about it more or less like this: the good citizen, too, is humble before God, but the vicious man really lives only by grace.’"¹¹ It is regrettable that this thought was not developed further.

The third essay is on ethics as formation. Bonhoeffer assesses the various theoretical possibilities for solving the ethical dilemmas: reason (it fails to see "the depths of evil or the depths of the holy"); fanaticism (it loses sight of the totality of evil in concentrating upon a particular evil); conscience (it becomes timid and uncertain because of the disguises of evil and degenerates to a soothed conscience to avoid despair); duty (commanded duty does not have the free responsibility of the doer back of it); freedom (it often involves one in doing bad to ward off a worse event); private virtuousness (one must remain blind to evils around him and be self-deceived) .¹²

These options may have been useful in past days, but new weapons are needed today. The answer Bonhoeffer proposes is the will of God. The will of God is completely exposed in Jesus Christ; it becomes near and personal in him. The wise man is one who sees beyond principles, rules, and other screens to the reality of God. In Jesus Christ the world is reconciled, not overthrown. In the Incarnation where God becomes man, God wishes for man to become true man, for Jesus is not merely a man, but is man.

The fact of reconciliation poses problems for the world especially when it views life from the standpoint of success. Success covers the multitude of sins and guilt. Bonhoeffer poses three attitudes toward success: (1) it is identified with good; (2) "only good is successful"; (3) "all success comes of wickedness."¹³ Jesus Christ stands as a rejection of success as the standard. Success or failure mean nothing in place of "willing acceptance of God’s judgment."¹⁴

The concern of the Christian is with conformation — the forming of Christ in the believer — not with programs, plans, and the practical as opposed to doctrinal concerns. Conformation is achieved by Christ, not by "efforts ‘to become like Jesus.’"¹⁵ Bonhoeffer’s perennial theme of the church being Christ incarnate is renewed here. The church is where Christ takes form. This keeps the church from being merely a religious organization, although the church may be tempted to lapse in this direction.

Thus, the beginning point of Christian ethics is not rules but the form of Christ and "formation of the Church in conformity with the form of Christ."¹⁶ Thus there is no abstract ethic for all practices, but rather the question of whether "my action is at this moment helping my neighbour to become a man before God."¹⁷ In this Christ affirms reality. Christian ethics becomes concerned with the concrete rather than the abstract, the universal principle. Christ becomes man, not a universal principle. Ethics is also beyond casuistry which becomes unmanageable. Reconciliation makes possible the existence of man as real man. Christian ethics begins with this departure point: how can Christ be formed in our world?

To give a background of the problem of forming Christ in the world, Bonhoeffer analyzes the historical antecedents of present secular trends. The breakup of Christian unity in the Reformation paved the way for the emancipation of reason and its deification. Science, once subservient, now assumes mastery over nature. Technology must be acknowledged as a heritage of Western history, and modern man has the problem of coming to grips with it rather than turning backwards to pretechnical times. Following the emancipation of reason came "the discovery of the Rights of Man."¹⁸ Attention is focused on the masses who have "now come of age."¹⁹ This in turn is related to nationalism. Bonhoeffer sees in the French Revolution the results of these movements. The machine becomes man’s enemy, freedom and the rights of the masses lead to the guillotine, and nationalism engenders war. Nihilism stands at the end. Two things stand against the "plunge into the void": (1) a renewal of faith and (2) the "restrainer" (see 2 Thess. 2:7), which is the state’s order and power.²⁰ The church’s work is to prove to its worldly witnesses that its Lord is living.

Bonhoeffer’s solution involves a turning back. For technology, nationalism, and reason, there is no turning back to a prestate of things. But there is a turning back by recognizing "the guilt incurred towards Christ."²¹ Only in turning to Christ will man turn to his true self. The church is the place where the recognition of guilt takes place. Unlike the moralist, however, there is no searching for the guilty party, but only receiving forgiveness for the guilt. Bonhoeffer’s list of confessed faults touches upon the problems of our age and all ages.²²

If the church would be transformed and have Christ formed in her, she must confess or lose her nature as the church of Christ. The renewal of the church is linked with the renewal of the Western world. Forgiveness, not the law of retribution, must be at work among the nations. The church holds the key to this in its confession of guilt.

Essay four is entitled, "The Last Things and the Things Before the Last," or put more briefly, the ultimate and the penultimate. The ultimate word, or last word, is that of justification by faith alone. Man stands before God in Christ on this basis, and only on this basis. Therefore religious methods, ethical rightness, and civic achievement are rejected as the foundation of right-standing in God’s presence. If justification by faith is the last word, does this mean that we must flee the world and radically reject it? Are we to live only by the ultimate? What is the place of the penultimate? What of our existence in the world as it stands before God? The seeming alternative to radical rejection of the w₉rld is acceptance of it as a compromise position implying rejection of the ultimate. The two positions stand in opposition to one another.

Bonhoeffer finds the solution in Jesus Christ. The Incarnation shows God’s love for his work, the crucifixion shows his judgment upon the creature, and the resurrection indicates a new world to come. God’s becoming man means that man is called to be man, to. be himself, a penultimate in the light of the ultimate. The cross shows the penultimate nature of the world, meaning that man is not to be deified but to live before the judgment of the final. The resurrection does not annul life but makes it greater in the ultimate. Thus, "Christian life is participation in the encounter of Christ with the world." ²³

The penultimate is functional, the ultimate is the goal. The ultimate justifies the penultimate in its existence, but not as something independent of the ultimate. The penultimate prepares the way for coming to Christ. Without the ultimate the penultimate will shatter. Bonhoeffer analyzes Western Christendom from this perspective. In the last two centuries the ultimate has been called into question and the penultimate — peace, order, justice, humanness — breaks down. If the penultimate is to be fortified and strengthened, then there "must be a more emphatic proclamation of the ultimate." ²⁴

The penultimate concerns the natural as opposed to the supernatural. Bonhoeffer laments that the "natural" has been deleted from Protestantism because it has been opposed to grace, which is magnified. The natural is not the opposite of grace but of the unnatural. He argues that the gospel gives the basis for a recovery in Protestantism of the concept of the natural.²⁵ The natural, after the Fall, directs man toward Christ; the unnatural directs him away from Christ. The natural is unorganized; it is simply there; the unnatural consists of organization and therefore perverts the natural. The natural is recognized by reason. Its content is the preservation of life. Although one might rebel against the natural, the natural will endure in the long run for it preserves life.

Bonhoeffer rejects natural life as an end in itself (vitalism) and life as a means to an end (mechanization) for a composite view of life as both an end and a means. In the first there is content for creaturehood, and in the second, participation in the kingdom of God. Related to life are rights and duties in that order. "God gives before He demands." The general formulation of rights is found in the principle "suum cuique, to each his own."²⁶ Both the multiplicity and unity of rights are expressed in this principle. Bonhoeffer sees God as the defender of natural rights.

ETHICAL ISSUES

In application Bonhoeffer considers certain issues in the framework of natural rights. The first is bodily life which is innate; that is, we exist without a choice or will. Since there is life, and since at death all rights cease, the conclusion is reached that natural life should be free of "intentional injury, violation and killing."²⁷ Because bodiliness is an end in itself, bodily joys can be justified; but being also a means, the body must not be content with pleasures alone.

In this section Bonhoeffer declares that because man’s life exists, he has a natural right to live. No one then has the right to take life arbitrarily. Euthanasia is morally wrong because it involves the arbitrary killing of innocent life. On the other hand, war is defended by Bonhoeffer because it is not arbitrary killing. War is more complex, because the soldier may be personally innocent but collectively guilty in a military attack upon a country.

Bonhoeffer argues for these and other positions below on the basis of a natural-life motif intermingled with Scripture proof. One might question why both are used. Why not divine revelation alone? Or, natural law alone? Both are used because he holds that God stands back of the natural and gives it meaning, while at the same time revelation is necessary for a precise understanding of God’s will.

He is weaker in dealing with suicide. Man differs from other creatures in that he can freely take his life. In suicide he attempts "to give a final human meaning to a life which has become humanly meaningless." ²⁸ Bonhoeffer’s ground for declaring it wrong is not so much natural law as the fact of incurring God’s judgment of guilt. Suicide shows a lack of faith in God and in life’s possibilities.

Leading up to the issues of birth control and abortion he declares that marriage is a natural right of man rather than a religious or civil institution. It existed from the beginning of man before the development of these institutions. Marriage naturally includes the right of life to come into being. When conception has taken place, an abortive act is simply murder.²⁹ Likewise birth control practiced perpetually as excluding life is a serious violation of man’s natural existence. Bonhoeffer hedges on sterilization when either intense passion is involved or disease, in which cases it might be medically necessary.

The last issue is bodily freedom which prohibits rape, slavery, and torture. Bonhoeffer began a section on the natural rights of the life of the mind, but this was left unfinished. A note left something of the outline to be followed which included a section on culture. It is regretted that we are bereft of this material.

WHAT IT MEANS TO BE REAL

The next essay, "Christ, Reality, and Good," is a further treatment in depth of the view that Christian ethics is not concerned with the knowledge of good and evil. He declares that the questions "How can I be good?" and "How can I do good?" are supplanted by a different question: "What is the will of God?" ³⁰ The first two questions reduce the idea of good to an abstraction. Bonhoeffer’s question concerns ultimate reality, and although he presupposes faith, it makes ethics concrete and specific. The ultimate reality is seen in none other than Jesus Christ who is not an idea of good, or an abstraction. Consequently that aspect of ethical discourses given over to the question of motives and consequences not only divides man up in an arbitrary way but does not reflect the real, or God’s self-revelation. The real purpose of ethics is to participate in reality. In Christ this becomes actual.

If there is one ultimate reality, why do we think in terms of two spheres of nature and grace, sacred and profane, and other opposites? Bonhoeffer rejects the two antinomies because there is only one reality, God, who has become manifest in Christ and in the world.³¹ These antinomies that are reflected in Roman Catholic as well as post-Reformation thought are nonbiblical. There is no possibility of being a Christian outside of the world or outside of Christ. Even the kingdom of the devil does not support the two spheres, for "he must serve Christ even against his will."³² The world has been reconciled in Christ. To accept the two spheres is to neglect or reject this reconciliation.

Although the world may not recognize or acknowledge it, the world is related to Christ in the mandates of God: labor, marriage, government, and the church.³³ The "word mandate refers more clearly, to a divinely imposed task rather than to a determination of being."³⁴ The mandates are divine because of origin rather than in their nature as such. The realm of government attracts attention because Bonhoeffer was struggling with the Nazi encroachment in all areas of life. Government is not creative, but preserves and protects what is already created — that is, labor and marriage.

Obedience is owed the government because of Christ’s command. This is an implication of the mandate. But is there an exception to this command? How does Bonhoeffer harmonize obedience to the government with his involvement in an assassination plot? The exceptional situation of tyranny calling for an assassination attempt is not dealt with in a theoretical way by Bonhoeffer. The mandates provide normative rather than exceptional or extraordinary directions for the will of God, the base of the Christian ethic. In fulfilling all the mandates, one participates in reality.

The next essay, "History and Good," builds the concept of responsibility around the biblical self-assertion of Christ: "I am the Life." Life is a Who, not a What. True responsibility is the pledge of one’s life in a life and death way. Responsibility is "to and for God, to men and for men . . . for the sake of Jesus Christ."³⁵ Responsibility rests both upon freedom and upon being bound to man and to God. Responsibility is also defined as "deputyship," acting in behalf of others. In Jesus, deputyship is assumed for the whole of humanity. For man, deputyship involves "surrender of one’s own life to the other man."³⁶ Thus "only the selfless man lives."³⁷

Responsibility is limited by the other man, who is also a responsible creature. Responsibility cannot be used to coerce another person to action. It is also limited in application. It does not lead to revolutionary action but to doing "what is necessary at the given place and with a due consideration of reality." ³⁸ The direction that responsibility dictates depends upon the situation. Bonhoeffer gives us a situation ethic bound to reality (which is Christ); i.e., act in accordance with Christ.³⁹ He rejects an absolute rule or law which must be imposed upon every situation. The so-called absolute good may be the very worst action possible. Action can be directed by the word of Jesus which is the interpretation of his life. Since Christ is no stranger to human reality, there is no arbitrary division between secular and Christian principles. Reality has been reconciled in Christ. To follow him is to have a meaningful word concerning actions in reality.

Although responsibility is a relation between persons, Bonhoeffer speaks of pertinence, the relation that man has with the world of things.⁴⁰ First, one must keep in mind the divine origin of things. Things are for use. Second, each thing has "its own law of being." ⁴¹ Man must learn these laws, and responsible action means that he abides by the inherent laws of things, whether it be the state, the corporation, or human growth. The exception to the rule, the situation, is granted in the case of the necessita, the action required which cannot be made on the basis of the law of the being. War, for instance, would be the exception in the political area, or the necessity. But whether one abides by the law of the being or in freedom does the expedient, both actions stand before God who judges them. Guilt may be accepted in the knowledge that it can be forgiven.

If there is guilt, what of the conscience? Conscience will not permit one to take blame for the sake of another. The reason is that conscience seeks a unity with itself. With a loss of unity conscience indicts the self. The unity, in part, arises out of the ego’s desire to justify its action before God. Bonhoeffer’s answer to the divided conscience is self-denial and commitment to Jesus Christ who becomes "my conscience."⁴² In the surrender of the ego to God, conscience is set free from the law for a greater foundation — mercy in Jesus Christ. Thus Bonhoeffer could justify telling a lie to a murderer who asks if a pursued man is in his house. Reality and responsibility demand such. But the guilt of conscience will be found innocent in Christ in this action. In Christ, the conscience finds that the law is not the last word.

To offend the conscience and to have responsibility, there must be freedom. The freedom that one has may seem questionable in light of environment, law, culture, routine, and other factors, but Bonhoeffer insists that freedom and responsibility prevail "in the encounter with other people."⁴³ Freedom and responsibility are not isolated from but are related to obedience. "Obedience without freedom is slavery; freedom without obedience is arbitrary self-will. Obedience restrains freedom; and freedom ennobles obedience."⁴⁴

Where is the place of responsibility, freedom, and obedience? Rejecting the pseudo-Lutheran view which attempted to justify existence in this world as only being on a pilgrimage, Bonhoeffer now declares that a man "takes up his position against the world in the world; the calling is the place at which the call of Christ is answered, the place at which a man lives responsibly."⁴⁵ "Vocation is responsibility and responsibility is a total response of the whole man to the whole of reality."⁴⁶ Thus he declares that a pastor must be concerned for the whole church rather than merely for his own isolated flock. When a minister refused to raise his voice in the church struggle against the Nazis to defend other congregations, or to protest persecutions outside his congregation, his own flock was eventually lost.

Bonhoeffer is putting forth, a form of situationalism. One may have to break the law in order that the law be meaningfully fulfilled. War involves many subterfuges that peace, honesty, and integrity might prevail. But it is not an extreme form of situationalism that glosses over the means to achieving a worthy end. Even the means must be repented of, given the situation. This section was to be continued and an outline was preserved, but Bonhoeffer was never able to return to it.

THE MANDATES

The seventh essay, "The ‘Ethical’ and the ‘Christian, as a Theme," touches on the matter of authority for decision-making. Can one construct an ethical system applicable to all times and places? Are our decisions always of a moral nature, demanding a decision between right and wrong? Bonhoeffer answers that the ethic is not a book, a universal reference for all actions without exception. Neither can there be an ethicist who performs the same function. Indeed, ethical discourse is related to the concrete, the specific, the event in time and place. By the same token, one cannot take a positivistic view of ethical discourse and admit only that reality furnishes nothing beyond itself. The parallel situation is the position of a teaching church which demands submission to its precepts. This Bonhoeffer regards as substituting a religious positivism for an empirical positivism.

To avoid these opposites he proposes the "Commandment of God," which is "the total and concrete claim laid to man by the merciful and holy God in Jesus Christ."⁴⁷ Embracing all of life it sets free as well as binds, but it is not a summary of all ethical principles to be applied by the individual. If the interpretation or application of the commandment is left to the individual it is no longer God’s commandment.

A commandment must be as concrete as life and as up-to-date as man’s life. Does God give specific directions by new revelations for each occasion? No, but God does confront man in the present historical situation by his command. In a concrete way God’s commandment in Christ comes to us "in the church, in the family, in labour and in government."⁴⁸

The mandates embrace the whole of life. In them God has already commanded styles of living wherein there is freedom "from the anxiety and the uncertainty of decision."⁴⁹ Mandates are different from ethical precepts, for the latter concentrate upon what is not permitted while mandates give positive instruction for the content of life. He asserts that in the mandates "life flows freely. It lets man eat, drink, sleep, work, rest and play. It does not interrupt him. It does not continually ask whether he ought to be sleeping, eating, working, or playing, or whether he has some more urgent duties." ⁵⁰

Mandate is defined as "the concrete divine commission which has its foundation in the revelation of Christ and which is evidenced by Scripture; it is the legitimation and warrant for the execution of ,a definite divine commandment."⁵¹ He rejects the use of the terms "institution" (which implies divine sanction for any status quo), "estate" (too many new connotations which distort the original Reformation usage), and "office" (it is now secularized and associated with bureaucracy). He prefers the term "mandate" to express some of the original meanings of the rejected words. The commandment of God in Christ serves as the basis for the mandates. They are not the result of historical development, but are imposed from above. As a further line of explanation the mandates are "conjoined" with one another. No mandate has independence over the others.

Although the chapter is incomplete there is some treatment of the commandment of God in the church with reference to the other spheres, or mandates. Preaching and confession both express the commandment of God in the church. To stress one of these without the other is to deprive the church of a concrete ethic. The Protestant Church stresses preaching while the Roman Church stresses confession, or church worship. The Reformed Church is poverty-stricken in worship, liturgy, spiritual exercises, and discipline, while the Roman Church has neglected the proclamation of the Scripture.⁵²

The church has a word for all of society, a single word of proclamation for both believer and unbeliever alike. This word is summed up in three phrases: (1) "Jesus Christ, the eternal Son with the Father for all eternity." This means that nothing exists apart from God, and that no created thing can be understood apart from Christ. The Incarnation means that God can now be found in human form, and therefore man is free to be man before God. Thus a "genuine worldliness" now becomes a possibility. (2) "Jesus Christ, the Crucified Reconciler." The cross sets us’ free from trying to deify the world, and calls us to believe that the world is already reconciled to God. Therefore it is possible to live a life in genuine worldliness, by allowing the world to be what it is before God.

(3) "Jesus Christ, the risen and ascended Lord." This means that Jesus Christ is Creator, Reconciler, and Redeemer. A Christonomy, a rule of Christ, replaces heteronomy and autonomy. Although Christ rules the church, the church does not rule the world. She never ceases being the church, but she cannot be more.⁵³

A MISCELLANY OF ESSAYS

Part Two of Ethics contains an assortment of essays. The first has the formidable title, "The Doctrine of the Primus Usus Legis According to the Lutheran Symbolic Writings." Two basic issues are brought up: what is the relation of the law to the gospel, and what is the relation of the decalogue to natural law. Lutheran usage suggested that the primary use of the law relates to works, the secondary to the knowledge of sin, and the third to the fulfillment of the law and forgiveness. Bonhoeffer maintains that all three are included in proclamation. He identifies the decalogue with natural law known by reason. There cannot be a dichotomy between the decalogue and natural law. Similarly, there cannot be an arbitrary division between the law and the gospel.⁵⁴ He notes, "There can be no Christian preaching of works without the preaching of the acknowledgment of sin and of the fulfilment of the law. And the law cannot be preached without the gospel."⁵⁵

The second essay is on "Personal" and "Real" ethos. Bonhoeffer protests against the ethic of Dilschneider, Troeltsch, and Naumann, who regarded the Christian ethic as having little or nothing to say about the world’s institutional structures, i.e., state, economics, and science. For them the religious ethic was reduced to the practice of love within the world’s structures without having a mission of correction, improvement, and criticism of them. If their view is correct, Christian ethics would affect only about 10 percent of life. Bonhoeffer rejects these views because Christ created all things (including man, state, economy, nature, etc.), has reconciled all things, and the church is placed in the midst of the world where this message may be heard.

The rule of Christ makes it now possible for a genuine world order in these spheres to come about. True worldliness means that these institutions should become what they were meant to be in obedience to God. The state should actually be the state; it is not to rule over the church or be subject to the church or to any other alien law.

Bonhoeffer rejects the three estates of Lutheran doctrine (economic, political, and ecclesiastical) for the biblical mandates which have a heavenly archetype: marriage (Christ and the church), labor (the creative work of God in the world), government (the dominion of Christ in. eternity), and the state (the city of God). He defends his position against the charge that the secular institutions are able to survive without knowing Christ. Limitations are placed on this claim, for "genuine worldliness is achieved only through emancipation by Christ," and yet they exist only because of Christ whether this is known or not.⁵⁶

The third essay is entitled "State and Church." Bonhoeffer avers that the concept of the state is pagan in origin and is alien to the New Testament. Government is the New Testament idea which does not imply any particular form of state or society. Government is ordained by God. Bonhoeffer rejects those bases for government which project the state arising out of the character of man: i.e., Aristotle, medieval Catholicism, Hegelianism; as well as those theories based in man’s sin and need of government for restraint in a chaotic world: i.e., the Reformation tradition. The second view is more biblical, affirming that government is "from above" rather than organized "from below." But in opposition to this Bonhoeffer affirms Christ as the basis for government because he is the mediator of creation, the goal of government, its Lord, and its source of authority and power.⁵⁷

Government has a divine character in its being. This refers not to its origin, but to its nature. Its task reflects its divine character in its mission whereby it serves Christ by the sword for punishment and justice and along with education for goodness.⁵⁸ A further divine implication is the claim of government on conscience, or obedience "for the Lord’s sake" (1 Pet. 2:13). The believer is bound to obedience until the government exceeds its commission, whereupon one must obey God rather than man. This disobedience in a single area must not be generalized to all areas of government. Only an apocalyptic event in which all obedience to government involved denial of Christ (see Rev. 13:7) would require total disobedience.⁵⁹

Government has a relation to the other mandates. It serves to protect and sanction these areas, but in itself government is not creative. Marriage, labor, and the church stand independently of government, but always in the presence of government and subject to its supervision for the sake of order.

Government has a claim on the church in obedience. Obedience to government is obedience to Christ. Likewise, the church lays a claim on government. She reminds government of their common Master. She calls government to fulfill its "worldly calling," its special task, and at the same time claims protection from the government. The government also has a claim on the church. Government must maintain neutrality with reference to exalting one religion over another. It cannot originate new religions. Similarly, the church has a political responsibility. The church must warn of sin and call for righteousness which exalts a nation.

Bonhoeffer does not opt for any particular form of government. Any form that best fulfills the nature of government would be accepted. This means that government must recognize its being from above. It means also that the government s power will rest on a strict execution of justice, on the rights of the family and of labor, and on the proclamation of the gospel.⁶⁰ Essay four, "On the Possibility of the Word of the Church to the World," is unfinished but it poses the issue of the church’s responsibility for answering particular problems in the world. Does the church have an answer for all the ills of mankind? Bonhoeffer remarks that Jesus hardly discussed such solutions, but stressed the redemption of man. Therefore, he suggests, "perhaps the unsolved state of these problems is of more importance to God than their solution, for it may serve to call attention to the fall of man and to the divine redemption."⁶¹ The solution of human problems is not the task of the church. The church does have a responsibility in removing hindrances to man’s coming to faith in Christ. This is a negative responsibility in which she declares the wrongness of an economic theory, for example, if it obstructs belief in Christ. Positively, she can give advice by drawing upon specialists. This latter task is a service, not part of her divine office.

Essay five, "What Is Meant by ‘Telling the Truth?’" concludes the Ethics. Truthfulness, Bonhoeffer says, does not mean blurting out everything one knows to anybody one meets. Telling the truth depends on the occasion, who is addressing me, and on the subject under discussion. It must involve the total reality of the situation. A true word spoken hypocritically is really untrue. Man is not entitled to speak his mind on any subject apart from the need or demand for his thoughts. On the other hand, "the right to speak always lies within the confines of the particular office which I discharge" ⁶² — as parent or teacher, for instance. Of interest is the editor’s footnote quoting Bonhoeffer’s letter of December 1943. He speaks of the need for concealment — e.g., God made clothes for man in a fallen state — in which, although evil cannot be eradicated, "it is at least to be kept hidden."⁶³ If there is to be confession, let it be before God. This may serve as a needed corrective to the bent toward spiritual stripteases that occur in sensitivity groups and related psychologically oriented movements in evangelical Christianity.

Trying to evaluate an unfinished work and being fair in doing it is impossible. What one might criticize would conceivably have no basis had Bonhoeffer finished the work, polished and revised it. Yet in spite of the unfinished nature of the work we add the following comments and questions. First, the title, Ethics, is perhaps a misnomer. Suggested titles could be Christian Ethics, Theological Ethics, or The Church and the World. These would indicate the direction the work takes more than Ethics, because traditional approaches of philosophical ethics are rejected as unreal from the beginning.

Second, Bonhoeffer insists that ethics must be defined concretely. God’s will must be seen in a definite way as it is declared in the mandates of labor, marriage, government, and the church. Bonhoeffer saw the mandates as giving man freedom to live without having constantly to reflect on issues to be decided and thereby being kept in a state of indecision. But the mandates do not go far enough. Even with the mandates many Christians may still be troubled. They want to know the specific answer to concrete questions: Whom shall I marry? How can I do God’s will in this particular choice? How many children shall I have? Under the mandate of labor, what specific calling shall I follow? To my knowledge Bonhoeffer leaves us without answers. But these are serious questions facing young Christians, and all discerning people who contemplate their future.

Third, there appears to be an antinomy between the church’s role in prohibiting tyranny and the church’s inability to give "Christian answers" to secular problems. Bonhoeffer advocated reshaping society to prevent tyranny even if it meant assassination. (Admittedly, he wanted to dissociate himself from the Confessing Church had the assassination attempt on Hitler been successful, but this is not the usual advice given as the content of Christian ethics.) On the other hand, in admitting that the world’s problems may be insoluble Bonhoeffer sides with inaction and the status quo. The word that God has for man, he says, is redemption, not solution.

This antinomy exists and has existed in the church for a long time. What would Bonhoeffer have said about the civil rights movement? Should the church be involved in helping a depressed people? How would Bonhoeffer express himself on the Vietnam issue, or the threat of Communism as a form of tyranny? What areas in the world are open for "reshaping," or what areas are "insoluble"? These and similar questions would no doubt have’ received creative answers had Bonhoeffer lived to face them in their exact form.

Fourth, Bonhoeffer’s situational ethic is better than some contemporary writers, but there are still questions to be asked. His is better in that it is dictated by the "form of Christ, and its taking form amidst a band of men."⁶⁴ Some contemporary writers speak of the end sanctifying the means, giving considerable laxity to ethical application. Bonhoeffer does not do this, but the difference may be little more than verbal. He declares that "Christ teaches no abstract ethics such as must at all cost be put into practice."⁶⁵ But what is the "form of Christ"? How is it to be known except through the gospel’s declaring redemption and the development of a life style centered around the teaching of the New Testament? Can ethics be built upon the unusual, the extraordinary, the purely situational, or the so-called "hard cases" of life? Must not the form of Christ begin with the specific and add an addenda for the unusual only when necessary, and even then only in repentance?

In summary, Bonhoeffer’s Ethics was written for a crisis situation. He was concerned that tyranny not arise again. He was disturbed over the silence and apathy of the church during Hitler’s rise. His situationalism is in part to be understood in this context. One must not tell the truth to a tyrant when harm will come to good people. While situationalism appears attractive, it is not easy. The situations change, the issues are not always the same, and human judgment falters. While Christ "affirms reality,"⁶⁶ the moral instruction in the New Testament gives content to that reality.

Ethics will rank as one of Bonhoeffer’s greatest works, although it will not hold the fascination of the last volume, which contains his letters from prison. To that we now turn.

NOTES:

1. William Kuhns, In Pursuit of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Garden City: Doubleday, Image Books, 1969), p. 130.

2. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, trans. Neville Horton Smith (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1965), p. 19.

3. Ibid., p. 20.

4. Ibid., p. 24.

5. Ibid., p. 33.

6. Epistemology is the area of philosophy dealing with knowledge, how we know, sources of knowledge, and ways of knowing.

7. Ibid., p. 38.

8. Ibid., p. 40.

9. Ibid., p. 52.

10. Ibid., p. 56.

11. Ibid., p. 63, footnote.

12. Ibid., pp. 65-67.

13. Ibid., pp. 76-77.

14. Ibid., p. 77.

15. Ibid., p. 80.

16. ibid., p. 84.

17. Ibid., p. 85.

18. Ibid., p. 99.

19. Ibid., p. 100.

20. Ibid., p. 108.

21. Ibid., p. 110.

22. Ibid., pp. 112-16.

23. Ibid., p. 133. 24. Ibid., p. 142.

25. Ibid., p. 144.

26. Ibid., p. 151.

27. Ibid., p. 156.

28. Ibid., p. 167.

29. Ibid., p. 176.

30. Ibid., p. 188.

31. Ibid., p. 197.

32. Ibid., p. 204.

33. Ibid., p. 207.

34. Ibid.

35. Ibid., p. 223.

36. Ibid., p. 225.

37. Ibid.

38. Ibid., p. 233.

39. Ibid., p. 229.

40. Ibid., p. 235.

41. Ibid., p. 236.

42. Ibid., p. 244.

43. Ibid., p. 251.

44. Ibid., p. 252.

45. Ibid., pp. 255-56.

46. Ibid., p. 258.

47. Ibid., p. 277.

48. Ibid., p. 278.

49. Ibid., p. 281.

50. Ibid., p. 283.

51. Ibid., p. 287.

52. Ibid., pp. 292-93, 301-2.

53. Ibid., pp. 296-302.

54. Ibid., p. 313.

55. Ibid.

56. Ibid., pp. 330-31.

57. Ibid., pp. 333-39.

58. Ibid., p. 340.

59. Ibid., pp. 342-44.

60. Ibid., pp. 358-53.

61. Ibid., pp. 355-56.

62. Ibid., p. 371.

63. Ibid., p. 372.

64. Ibid., p. 84.

65. Ibid.

66. Ibid., p. 85.

Bonhoeffer’s most famous work published during his lifetime was The Cost of Discipleship (Nachfolge), which achieved a wide reputation for him. It is a serious work and in some ways a work of "hard sayings." It contains a profound interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount plus an exposition of Matthew 9:35-10:42, and sections on the "Church of Jesus Christ" and the "Life of Discipleship."

WHAT IS DISCIPLESHIP?

The important question is: What does it mean to follow Jesus Christ? Bonhoeffer fears that many do not follow for the wrong reasons; for instance, a human rather than the divine word is preached; offense is taken at the "superstructure of human, institutional, and doctrinal elements in our preaching"¹ rather than at the Word of God. He calls for a return to Scripture and to Jesus Christ, and he therefore proposes "to tell how Jesus calls us to be his disciples."² Discipleship is much easier than man-made rules and dogmas, but more important, what Jesus asks, he gives the grace to do. Discipleship may be hard, but it is not limited to a small spiritual elite. Discipleship is the road to Christian joy.

The background for the exposition of the Sermon on the Mount is the prevalence in the church of what Bonhoeffer calls "cheap grace." Cheap grace has brought chaos to the church.; It is defined in several ways: intellectual assent to a doctrine: or idea; justification of the sinner without a corresponding change in his ethic; but perhaps the greatest passage is the following:

Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion, without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.³

Grace, on the other hand, is dear and costly. A man must give up his life to follow Christ. Grace is dear because it cost the Son of God his life, but it is grace because God did not count this too great a cost.

Cheap grace arose as the church became secularized and the world became Christianized. Costly grace did not die, as is evidenced in the rise of the monastic movement wherein the spiritual elite yet retained something of the demands of discipleship. But even the cloister was a corruption of grace. The life of a disciple is to be lived in the world against its hostility not in the favored atmosphere of a friendly monastery. Against the triumph of cheap grace in the church, Bonhoeffer calls for a return to obedience of Christ. Only in costly grace is there joy in Christian living.

How does one become a disciple? First, there is the call of Jesus to follow him. A doctrinal system, a church structure and other substitutes for the Living Christ render discipleship irrelevant.⁴ Second, in answering the call of Christ one must take the first concrete step. This step takes one out of his previous existence and places him where faith is possible. "Faith can no longer mean sitting still and waiting — they must arise and follow him."⁵

At this juncture Bonhoeffer introduces two propositions that must be held together always. Both are equally true: "Only he who believes is obedient, and only he who is obedient believes."⁶ There is no obedience without faith nor faith without obedience. In believing there is an act of obedience, such as Peter’s leaving his nets or Matthew’s walking away from his receipts. This act of obedience is never more than a "dead work of the law"⁷ but it must be done because Jesus commands it. Inability to believe is probably due to unwillingness to take the first step.

Bonhoeffer’s pastoral concern shows in the hypothetical instance of a man who says he wants to believe and cannot. The usual pastor is baffled about the next step in his presentation. The secret weapon is to continue the dialogue by saying, "‘Only those who obey, believe. . . . You are disobedient, you are trying to keep some part of your life under your own control.’"⁸ If you give up your sins, your uncommitted world, and obey, you will believe.

Many of the questions raised about believing are "dodges" for obeying. Theoretical questions of reservations about the law and its application and interpretation are described by Bonhoeffer as devices to avoid obedience to Christ. The account of the rich young man (Matt. 19:16-22) or the lawyer of the Good Samaritan story are used as examples of people who asked questions in order to avoid the demands of discipleship.

Bonhoeffer’s insight into the rewards of discipleship are deep. In discipleship one is seemingly dragged into insecurity which in reality turns into the safety of Christ. Following Christ means leaving the world of the finite and being brought into the life of the Infinite.⁹ We are called to attach ourselves exclusively to his person. Jesus’ call is without qualification. There is only one way of understanding Jesus: he meant it as he said it. All subterfuges based on "reason and conscience, responsibility and piety" stand in the way of complete obedience.¹⁰ The usual type of rationalization of the commands of Christ are dealt with mercilessly. This refers to the reasoning whereby we reinterpret Jesus to mean that we need not leave all, but simply possess the wealth of the world as though we did not possess it. The command to follow is reduced to developing a spirit of inward detachment. Instead, nothing must stand in our way of fulfilling the command of Christ. Nor must we abandon the "single-minded understanding of the commandment."¹¹ When single-mindedness is neglected, cheap grace sneaks back into the religious life. Likewise, when the principle of simple obedience is thrown out, an unevangelical interpretation of the Bible takes the place of the truly evangelical. Bonhoeffer defends the literal interpretation of the Bible,¹² not in order to establish legalism or letterism, "but to proclaim Christ." At the same we cannot behave as though we were contemporary with the disciples. Merely giving up possessions is not to be confused with obedience to Jesus. Becoming a Franciscan bound to poverty may be the farthest from following Jesus.

Being a disciple is related to bearing the cross of Christ. Suffering and rejection go hand in hand with bearing the cross. Suffering alone could produce a martyr, but rejection prohibits it. To take up the cross is to deny oneself. "To deny oneself is to be aware only of Christ and no more of self, to see only him who goes before and no more the road which is too hard for us."¹³ Every Christian must bear the cross. The cross means (1) that one must "abandon the attachments of this world," (2) that one must come after Christ and die to himself, and (3) perhaps undergo death completely. Suffering is one of the badges of discipleship. Yet in suffering there is triumph. When suffering is concluded there is nothing else it can do. It is a path to victory.

There is a paradox discovered in answering the call of Christ. In discipleship "men become individuals."¹⁴ Before this they stood under the facade of responsibilities, duties, and relationships to the world. But the call of Christ demands a break with the world as well as with the past. Christ’s call places a barrier between man and the world. Man must forsake the world, but in doing so he learns that he never really knew the world. In Christ he finds a new relation possible between himself and God, between himself and man, between himself and reality. All relationships now are to be mediated through Christ. Being in Christ, it becomes possible to see how isolated man is from man. It is impossible to know another person directly. Because Christ now stands between man and neighbor, the shortest and most direct way to the neighbor is through Christ. "That is why intercession is the most promising way to reach our neighbours, and corporate prayer, offered in the name of Christ, the purest form of fellowship."¹⁵

As an example of this, Bonhoeffer uses the story of Abraham. To answer God’s call, Abraham turned his back upon his father’s house and became a pilgrim in hopes of a promised land. In the command to sacrifice his son, a barrier is placed between Abraham and Isaac. Isaac is given back but something is different. Abraham now has Isaac "through the Mediator and for the Mediator’s sake."¹⁶ The outward details are still the same, but a new relationship has arisen and the reality is different. Abraham also serves as an example of a man becoming an individual in the midst of his own people and with the enjoyment of wealth. This type of individuality is harder, for it is easier to return to the way of direct relationships with people and forfeit our discipleship in Christ.

However, only Christ can determine which path we will take, says Bonhoeffer. Christ not only makes new individuals but he calls to a new fellowship wherein he stands between the members. The fellowship of the church takes precedence over the house, father, mother, or brothers that are left behind. The reward is hundredfold over what is forsaken. But included in the reward is the promise "with persecutions."

The seriousness of the call of Christ is realistically set forth in all its hardness: deny yourself, accept persecutions, forsake all. But he who calls gives strength to endure. Surely Bonhoeffer’s life is a poignant example of this statement.

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT

Bonhoeffer takes the beatitudes seriously. There is one place where the beatitudes are incarnate in one person — the crucified of Golgotha. Thus the disciples, following their Lord, are called blessed because they have obeyed the call of Jesus."¹⁷ The poor in spirit are those who have accepted the loss of all things including their own selves for his sake. Those who mourn are those who do "without what the world calls peace and prosperity."¹⁸ Mourning means to refuse to be in harmony with the standards of the world. The meek are those who give up claims to their own rights for the will of Christ. Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness are those renouncing all claims to personal achievement, who wait for God’s reign of righteousness. The merciful, having given up claims to their own dignity, become "men for others," helping the needy, sick, castouts — all those who need any kind of ministry. The pure in heart become that way by giving their hearts completely to the reign of Jesus. Under his rule, he purifies their hearts with his Word. The peacemakers renounce all violence and "maintain fellowship where others would break it off."¹⁹ The persecuted for righteousness suffer for "any just cause"²⁰ and will be rejected by the world, but God’s kingdom belongs to them. To this motley crew the world says "Away with them" and God agrees with the world. But he intends them for the kingdom of heaven, where their reward is great.

The disciples, the blessed ones, are not too good for the world, for they are thrust into its center as the salt of the earth. The kingdom of heaven is theirs only after they finish their earthly task. For the disciple there are only two options: being the salt of the earth or being annihilated and crushed. Similarly, as the lights of the world they receive energy from the light of the cross. The bushels that cover men’s light — whether fear, ulterior motives, or humane causes — go to the heart of determining whether one is Christian or not. If the light does not shine can there be oneness with Christ?

The close connection with Christ distinguishes the disciples from the Pharisees. Both stand under the obligation to keep the Old Testament law. The Pharisee tried and failed. Hence Jesus spoke of the need of a "better righteousness." The disciple begins his keeping of the law in reference to Jesus Christ who fulfilled it completely, both by living in complete communion with God and by dying a sinner’s death on the cross. He becomes thereby the righteousness of the disciples. Their fulfilling of the law which exceeds the Pharisees’s keeping of the law is not in terms of personal achievement. They can only exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees by receiving the gift of righteousness, the fulfiller of the law, Christ himself.

Bonhoeffer declares it to be false to separate the law from the disciple. He is not free of it anymore than he is free of God because he is in Christ. He says, "There is no fulfilment of the law apart from communion with God, and no communion with God apart from fulfilment of the law."²¹ The Jews committed the first error and the disciples were tempted to the second. Discipleship is not to be confused with obeying the law, but disobeying the law removes one from being a disciple.²² As the Divine Lawgiver, Jesus corrected some of the erroneous usages of the law. A chief correction comes in the matter of legalism. The real meaning of the law is explained.

The commandment on killing relates not only to the overt act but to attitudes of anger and hate as well as insult. Bonhoeffer rejects the subtle distinction between "righteous indignation and unjustifiable anger."²³ Rather freedom from anger is the command for the disciple. Anger hinders worship and prohibits service. The church fellowship must not copy the world in its ways of contempt and contumely. We cannot honor God and dishonor our brother. To honor God requires a reconciliation against all that have been offended. Being permitted to make this reconciliation is part of God’s grace. Over against our making up stands the court of judgment.

The commandment on adultery is related to desire where there is no love. Discipleship forbids a free rein of lust. If the disciple retains his gaze upon Christ his gaze will be pure even when looking at a woman. Bonhoeffer interprets Jesus as sanctifying marriage along with its indissolubility. The intent of both Jesus and the law was to safeguard marriage. Any violation of the law — in any sexual irregularity — is against the Body of Christ because the disciple is a member of his Body. To be dead to lust and desire is possible because in Christ the disciple was crucified, or put to death, and desire has no hold on a dead person.

The command prohibiting the use of oaths is accepted by Bonhoeffer without the Reformation exception of the state in a court of law. Discipleship means complete truthfulness. Discipleship supposes that one has been completely truthful with Jesus, else there is no forgiveness. Truthfulness is the basis of fellowship among believers. Without it the brotherhood is destroyed.

Bonhoeffer is most interesting when he treats the revenge passage of Matthew 5:38-42. He is dead serious about this part of the Sermon. His passive resistance views are evident. The Old Testament nation of Israel was a political as well as religious community, and retribution was necessary. But the new community is religious only. The way to conquer evil, then, is not politically but passively. If the disciple is meek, not counting his own rights, he will not seek redress when wronged. Resistance creates further resistance and solves nothing. Bonhoeffer knows of no exception at this point in his writing. "There is no deed on earth so outrageous as to justify a different attitude. The worse the evil, the readier must the Christian be to suffer. . . ."²⁴ Bonhoeffer rejects the Reformation distinction between suffering as a Christian and suffering due to holding an office or performing a duty. He asks, "Am I ever acting only as a private person or only in an official capacity?"²⁵ This must not be interpreted to make nonresistance a rule for secular life. For so interpreted, God’s ordinances for preserving the world would be rejected. Rather the civil order has its directions for life while the disciple has a different order. The strong pacifism here is remarkably in contrast to Bonhoeffer’s later involvement in the resistance to the Nazi regime as well as his involvement in the plot to assassinate Hitler. His later view did not come easily.

Following the rejection of the lex talionis ²⁶ Bonhoeffer turns to the "extraordinary" feature in the disciple — the love of the enemy. This is the only way to overcome him. The Christian cannot return hostility for hostility; Jesus does not allow this. The greater the hatred, the greater the love must be for the hater. Loving the enemy is to serve him "in all things without hypocrisy and with utter sincerity. No sacrifice which a lover would make for his beloved is too great for us to make for our enemy."²⁷ The extraordinary feature is that it goes beyond mere love of friend for friend. This is taken for granted. Jesus commands that love for the enemy be a hallmark of the disciple. This love is the fulfilling of the law and obedience to Christ.

Chapter five of Matthew relates to the openness of the disciple’s life. Chapter six speaks of the hiddenness of his spiritual existence. What is meant? The hiddenness is from ourselves.²⁸ Discipleship means looking at and following Christ. When one begins to notice his own love and goodness, one ceases being a disciple. The disciple’s life includes prayer. Not a natural activity, prayer must be taught, and Jesus does not leave his disciples in ignorance. They pray because they are commanded, but always through a Mediator. Access to God is only through a mediator. Prayer is never an entreaty — for God knows our needs — nor is it a pious work. It has a hidden character, for in prayer men "have ceased to know themselves, and know only God whom they call upon."²⁹ The place or time of prayer is not important, for even in a private room one may make a nice display of himself in prayer. The model prayer Jesus gave his disciples is the "quintessence of prayer."³⁰ It serves to place boundaries around the disciple’s prayer.

A practice akin to prayer is fasting. Bonhoeffer follows Jesus’ warning against mere pious fasting to impress either others or oneself. Fasting has the motive of self-discipline for better service to Christ. The objections to fasting — the resistance of the flesh and "evangelical liberty" — must not deter one from fasting as a form of discipline.³¹ When the Christian has failed in obedience, is guilty of sin against others, has lost the joy of Christian grace, and has come to little or no prayer, he needs to fast and pray. There is the danger, however, of trying to "imitate the sufferings of Christ." This reduces itself to "a desire for ostentation" and hence must be rejected.³²

Moving from fasting to "the simplicity of the carefree life," Bonhoeffer stresses the singleness of following Christ alone. It is never Christ and something else. Singleness of heart relates both to treasures on earth and to what master we serve. Treasures are a part of human nature. Rather than be denied them, the disciple is given "higher objects — the glory of God (John 5:44), the glorying in the cross (Gal. 6:14), and the treasure in heaven."³³ Singleness of heart relates to the master we serve: God or Mammon. We must love God or hate him.

The first two chapters of the Sermon (Matt. 5 and 6) display the uniqueness of the disciple. Because of his extraordinary position, how is he to be related to the non-Christian? This subject receives treatment in Matthew 7, or the third section of the Sermon. No superior attitude is warranted, for the believer possesses his righteousness as gift, not by achievement. If he judges, God will judge him, for in his judgment he gives up the meaning of discipleship. There is no vantage point for the disciple. Rather he must come to the non-Christian with "an unconditional offer of fellowship, with the single-mindedness of the love of Jesus."³⁴ If we are inclined to judge so that evil might be destroyed, we should look within ourselves.

As judgment is prohibited, so is coercion in making disciples of other people. Proselytizing is wrong for three reasons: (1)swine do not recognize costly pearls; (2) "it profanes the word of forgiveness"; (3) it does not recognize the weakness of the gospel.³⁵ The disciple has no power over the other person except through Christ in prayer. This alone is a powerful hope. The church will not win the majority of mankind. Many are on the road to destruction. For the disciple the road is narrow and many are the ways of losing oneself. "But if we behold Jesus Christ going on before step by step, we shall not go astray."³⁶ The disciple’s separation from the world is not permanent. Discipleship must be renewed daily. Following is made all the harder because there are false prophets who look, act, and speak like Christians. Here one cannot judge but must wait for evil to show its colors.

The division of the true from the false will be done by God himself. The great final judgment involves all, and division will hinge on those who confess him and those who do not. Presently, there is possibility of a demonic confession devoid of love, without Christ, and without the Spirit of God. The important question is: "Who will pass the test and who will not?"³⁷ Bonhoeffer’s answer is that "the word of the last judgment is foreshadowed in the call to discipleship. . .If we follow Christ, cling to his word, and let everything else go, it will see us through the day of judgment. His word is his grace."³⁸

Following Bonhoeffer’s exposition of the Sermon on the Mount, he gives an exposition of Matthew 9:35-10:42.³⁹ Short vignettes are drawn of the harvest (the people are without a shepherd, without relief, deliverance, and forgiveness) for which one must pray for laborers; the call of the apostles (who are given power stronger than Satan’s and are bound together only by their choice and call); the work (fulfilling their commission to preach, traveling as messengers of the King, living in "royal poverty," warning men of the urgency of the times); the suffering of the messengers (as Jesus was persecuted so the messengers will be, but they are forewarned; because Christ will return the disciples are not to fear man, or to be gullible in thinking that "there is good in every man"⁴⁰); the decision (man’s eternal destiny is determined by his decision on earth for the devil or for Christ); and the fruit (the disciples are fellow workers having as their goal the "salvation of the Church").⁴¹

DISCIPLESHIP TODAY

Part Four of The Cost of Discipleship is entitled, "The Church of Jesus Christ and the Life of Discipleship." Is there a difference between being a disciple when Jesus was alive and being one today? Are we moderns not in a more difficult situation when we do not have the personalized call to follow Jesus? How are we to decide what following Jesus may mean for us, or to know for sure that we are not following our own wishes?

Bonhoeffer rejects these questions and similar ones as being wrong. Jesus yet lives. The resurrection is a fact, and Jesus calls to the modern to follow him. Where is he to be found? "The preaching of the Church and the administration of the sacraments is the place where Jesus Christ is present."⁴² Jesus never calls to a one specific action, but to decisive discipleship — a decision for or against following him. How are we to discern which commands of his are related to us? This question is based upon a misunderstanding. "The object of Jesus’ command is always the same — to evoke whole-hearted faith, to make us love God and our neighbour with all our heart and soul. This is the unequivocal feature in his command."⁴³

Moving from the Gospels to the epistles, Bonhoeffer maintains that the terminology is different but expresses the same concept. "Baptism" is the Pauline equivalent of "following Christ." "Baptism" is essentially passive — being baptized, suffering the call of Christ."⁴⁴ Baptism involves the same breach with the world as following Christ. In baptism, one dies to the old world. In baptism, "Christ invades the realm of Satan, lays hands on his own and creates for himself his Church."⁴⁵ The demand of Christ for a visible act of obedience is manifested in the public act of baptism. Although Bonhoeffer seems to admit the possibility of apostasy and hence a return to Christ, he professes a finality about baptism. It may not be repeated.⁴⁶

These views seem to point up a sharp difficulty in Bonhoeffer. On the one hand, Christ calls for a decision which can only be related to responsiveness. On the other Bonhoeffer defends infant baptism⁴⁷ which lacks a response and intimates a coercion which he had previously rejected. However Bonhoeffer insists that there must be a "firm faith present" (which "can only happen in a living Christian community") before the sacrament be administered. In this matter he makes no progress beyond Luther, who never successfully resolved this antinomy.

The first disciples lived in the presence of Jesus. Is there a Pauline counterpart? Decidedly so! To be a member of the Body of Christ by baptism is to have a better relation than the disciples, for it is the glorified Lord with whom we have to do. Bonhoeffer’s reasoning follows traditional forms here. Adam and Christ are individuals and representatives of man. In one the race fell into sin, in the second there is created a new humanity.⁴⁸ All men are in one or the other or both. The Incarnate Word took to himself sinful flesh (which Bonhoeffer defines only as "human nature" or "our infirmities and. . . our sin"⁴⁹) and thereby sought to create a community of followers. How is one incorporated into this community, this body? "The answer is through the two sacraments of his Body, baptism and the Lord’s Supper."⁵⁰ Preaching alone will not do it; the sacraments are necessary.

The Body of Christ, the church, takes Christ’s place until he comes. Thus the church is not an institution, but a person.⁵¹ Bonhoeffer notes that there is unity between Christ and the church as his Body, but there can be no mystic fusion of the two because Christ is still the Head of the Body — a metaphor which speaks of his Lordship over the church. We do share in his sufferings — we may suffer for him and for his church. The church is the fulfillment of ancient prophecy. The temples at Jerusalem were not built by God nor did they endure. God’s true temple will endure forever and it finds its fullest meaning in the body of Christ which is the living temple of God.⁵²

In a chapter on "The Visible Community" Bonhoeffer returns to a familiar theme developed in the Communion of Saints. The "Body of Christ" is visible on earth and has spatial relationships. An idea, a thought, a truth does not require space, but a body does. The church is made visible in the preaching of the Word of God and in the sacraments. The Word is shared with the community and the world, while the sacraments are restricted to the believers. There are other offices and services in the church, but the "uncorrupted ministry of the Word and Sacraments is of paramount importance."⁵³ Because the church is visible it must have living space. Its daily life must be permitted to exist. When the church is continually circumscribed in its existence, then the end will be near.⁵⁴

The church has obligations to society. Christians are not revolutionaries because "revolution would only obscure that divine New Order which Jesus has established. It would also hinder and delay the disruption of the existing world order in the coming of the kingdom of God."⁵⁵ Rather they must be in subjection to the higher powers as Paul asserts (Rom. 13:l ff.). Bonhoeffer seems to prohibit high office to the Christian, because the Christian is a servant. The Christian must do good no matter what the world about him is doing. Should he suffer for it, he was warned of such by Christ. In his vocation, the Christian works within the framework of what is compatible to the Body of Christ. His livelihood, his way of life, his marriage is accepted only within the framework of being a pilgrim, not a resident of the world.

The people who make up the visible community are the saints. How does a holy God have a relation to a sinful people? The answer lies in his act of atonement and justification of the sinner. In the Incarnation God assumes sinful flesh and dies the death of all flesh.⁵⁶ In turn the obedience and righteousness of Christ become that of the formerly alienated. This is the significance of the historical Incarnation. The present believer achieves this incorporation into Christ through baptism.⁵⁷

Once within the fellowship of Christ, the saints must renew daily the meaning of their baptism. Sanctification is the concern of the justified. To be sanctified is to fulfill the command to be holy. Bonhoeffer treats sanctification in three aspects of the saints’ lives: (1) holy living will be achieved only by not being conformed to the world; (2) Christian living will be a result of walking with Christ; (3) "their sanctification will be hidden, and they must wait for the day of Jesus Christ."⁵⁸

In his discussion of sanctification Bonhoeffer speaks of sin, church discipline, and good works. Sin may be of two kinds: moral and intellectual. Moral sin is headed by whoredom which is a form of idolatry.⁵⁹ Intellectual, doctrinal sin is more serious for it corrupts the gospel. Moral sin leaves the gospel of forgiveness intact.⁶⁰ Church discipline takes several forms: personal exhortation, pulpit warnings, and church action of exclusion. This is consistent with his overall theme of ridding the church of cheap grace. Good works are necessary, for God demands them. Yet "our good works are the works of God himself."⁶¹ It is the doers of the law who shall be justified in judgment. Thus Bonhoeffer does not draw a sharp distinction between faith and works. "It is evil works rather than good works which hinder and destroy faith."⁶²

Bonhoeffer concludes The Cost of Discipleship with a return to God’s beginning point. God created man in his own image. Because of man’s sin this is effaced. Christ came to renew God’s work of his image in man. Man could not achieve renewal himself. Thus God effects it. The image will reach its final form in the resurrection where the transforming will be complete.

The Cost of Discipleship still stands as a much needed book. Its greatness must not be detracted from by criticisms which show its one-sidedness or weakness. A man must be appreciated for what he says positively, rather than censored for weaknesses. It is easy to focus on the disagreements one has with a writer. We hope we may be forgiven for doing that here.

In his books relating to the church, Bonhoeffer dissociates himself from "the fanatics and enthusiasts," a term equated with pietists and probably those of the Anabaptist tradition. "Fanatics and enthusiasts" often referred to those peoples and movements who made up the "radical reformation," that part of the reformation more extreme than the Lutheran and Calvinist movements. These people, along with the pietists of later times, stressed personal faith and experience over against a sacramental and liturgical view of the church. Bonhoeffer charges these people with perfectionism.⁶³ This charge appears contradictory to his own position in some ways. In some instances he held positions similar to those of the fanatics (pietists or Anabaptists) — for instance, his attitude toward the holding of high office in government.⁶⁴

It might be ventured that the Anabaptist or pietist had a better answer to certain aspects of the Christian life than Bonhoeffer. The issue of baptism may serve as an example. The cheap grace mentality that Bonhoeffer censored came in part from the long-held practice of baptizing infants. Infant baptism became a cultural rather than a religious event which glossed over personal faith and commitment. Religion that begins in the unconsciousness of infancy often remains unconscious. This is the cultural milieu out of which Bonhoeffer’s criticism arises.

While Bonhoeffer saw the lack of commitment, many of these "fanatics" saw infant baptism as breeding cheap grace. They stressed the importance of faith, of adult commitment; thus grace was "costly" to them. Following Christ meant forsaking the world. Their danger lay in the direction of legalism. Bonhoeffer denounced legalism, but "costly grace" may lead one in that direction.

There is a dilemma in the Christian life remaining to be negotiated as long as we have perception. On the one hand, there is slavish legalism, in which the commands of Scripture are adhered to with deep concern for fulfillment and obedience, even though obedience may be perfunctory. On the other hand, there is the freedom of Christ which delivers from punctiliousness but which may slide in the direction of disobedience to Christ’s commands. The Christian has to probe for the channel that will take him through life in the joyful freedom of Christ where the commands of God are found to be meaningful for his own welfare. I am not sure that Bonhoeffer escapes the problems he saw in the pietist tradition. It may be that he was nearer the pietists in terms of costly grace than he realized.

Again, his treatment of good works leaves something to he desired. He did not achieve a synthesis of good works and faith anymore than he did on baptism and faith. On the one hand, good works are not acceptable, but on the other, we are commanded to do good works. A preferable approach would show that God’s grace and love leads rue to share the same with others. Although he rejected an imitation of Christ (because Christ’s vocation is unique), he nevertheless concludes his work with the admonition, "be ye therefore imitators. . ."⁶⁵

In summary, The Cost of Discipleship remains an important work. As Christendom heads into the turbulent 70s, the call for costly grace appears more needed than ever. The student rebellion is directed in part at the failure of the older generation to take seriously the values it presumably espouses. The contemporary criticism of the church is related to merchandising in cheap grace where the church has not loved all men equally, has not preached the need for repentance from all sin, and has not forsaken the world for the service of Christ. A decade or two from now The Cost of Discipleship may stand out as Bonhoeffer’s most important word to us.

NOTES:

1. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, trans. R. H. Fuller, rev. ed. (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1960), p. 30.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid., p. 36.

4. Ibid., p. 50.

5. Ibid., p. 53.

6. Ibid., p. 54.

7. Ibid., p. 56.

8. Ibid., p. 59.

9. Ibid., p. 49.

10. Ibid., p. 69.

11. Ibid., p. 72.

12. Ibid., p. 74

13. Ibid., pp. 77-78.

14. Ibid., p. 84.

15. Ibid., p. 88.16. Ibid., p. 89.

17. Ibid., p. 97.

18. Ibid., p. 98.

19. Ibid., p. 102.

20. Ibid., p. 103.

21. Ibid., p. 111.

22. Ibid., p. 110.

23. Ibid., p. 116.

24. Ibid., p. 128.

25. Ibid., p. 129.

26. Lex talionis is the law of retaliation or vengeance popularly known as "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. . .

27. The Cost of Discipleship, p. 133.

28. Ibid., p. 142.

29. Ibid., p. 146.

30. Ibid., p. 148.

31. Ibid., p. 152.

32. Ibid., p. 153.

33. Ibid., p. 156, footnote.

34. Ibid., p. 163.

35. Ibid., pp. 165-66. "If it [the Gospel] came in power that would mean that the day of judgment had arrived" (p. 166).

36. Ibid., p. 170.

37. Ibid., p. 174.

38. Ibid.

39. Ibid., pp. 179-98.

40. Ibid., p. 191.

41. Ibid., p. 198.

42. Ibid., p. 201.

43. Ibid., p. 203.

44. Ibid., p. 206.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid., p. 209.

47. Ibid., p. 210.

48. Ibid., p. 214.

49. Ibid.

50. Ibid., p. 215.

51. Ibid., pp. 215-16.

52. Ibid., pp. 221-22.

53. Ibid., p. 227.

54. Ibid., p. 240.

55. Ibid., p. 234.

56. Ibid., p. 247.

57. Ibid., p. 245. It is not fully clear how Bonhoeffer guards himself against universalism, for Christ took the flesh of all mankind. It seems that apocatastasis, or universal salvation, is a temptation to him all along.

58. Ibid., p. 252.

59. Ibid., p. 254.

60. Ibid., p. 264, footnote.

61. Ibid., p. 267.

62. Ibid., p. 266.

63. Ibid., p. 206, footnote; The Communion of Saints, p. 152.

64. Ibid., p. 235.

65. Ibid., p. 275.

Bonhoeffer’s experiences with the clandestine seminary beginning in 1935 repeat a familiar refrain in the history of the church: How can the church survive under the fire of illegality?

At Finkenwalde, Bonhoeffer ran a Predigerseminar, a preachers’ seminary, covering a term of about six months, concentrating on pastoral duties. The days of training pastors for the Confessing Church were the most satisfying of Bonhoeffer’s life. Gemeinsames Leben (Life Together¹) is a record of this experiment. Published in 1938, the book enjoyed a popularity beyond its basic theological profundity.

Life Together deals with the practical relations of the church’s life in Christ. Between the two advents of Christ the believer lives in community with other Christians. This is a gift of God; not all can experience it, for they may be scattered, imprisoned, or alone among heathen people.

THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY

Community, for the Christian, centers in Jesus Christ. This means three things: (1) a Christian is related to others because of Jesus Christ; (2) the path to others is only through Jesus Christ; (3) the Christian is elected in Christ from eternity to eternity.² The first point of being relates to one s need of others. Christians must have one another to give God’s word reciprocally to each other. The word given to me is more assuring than my own. Yet my word may encourage another who is uncertain of his own heart. Thus the Christian community is to bring the message of salvation to all. The second point means that all relationships with one another and God are through Christ. He is our peace, wrote St. Paul, and the avenues to others wind through him. The third point relates to the Incarnation. We are incorporated into Christ and shall be with him and one another in an eternal fellowship.

As in his early writings, Bonhoeffer is careful to emphasize the difference between the community as an ideal and as a divine reality. The church is not the product of desire, a wish dream, or visionary hopes. If the church were a result of man’s efforts, its failure would cause the founder to accuse the other members, God, and finally himself. However, the church has been created by Cod in Jesus Christ, and thankfulness is the only attitude open: thankfulness for forgiveness, daily provisions, and fellowship. Thankfulness is the key to greater spiritual resources. Without thankfulness for the daily gifts, the greater gifts of God will not come our way. Especially in the case of pastors, thankfulness is important. A pastor has no right to accuse his congregation before God. Rather, let him make intercession and give thanks for his congregation.

If the church is not an ideal, it is also not a human reality. As a divine reality it is also a spiritual entity which has its basis in Jesus Christ, whereas the basis of human realities is desire. In the church there is the community of those called by Christ. The fellowship of the human community is composed of devout souls and works along the lines of the magnetic persuasion of a leader. The fellowship of Christ is ruled by God’s Word. In the one community the Spirit rules, in the other, psychological techniques.

Bonhoeffer’s central idea is that the church as the fellowship of Christ centers on Christ rather than being a mere association of people with a common purpose. Human love and actions are related to a desire for human community. Christian love, spiritual love, comes from Christ and goes out to the other person, not directly, but through Christ. Christ "stands between me and others."³ This means that disciplining of other people is through Christ, not directly. Direct personal influence may amount to coercion, or be an impure influence in another’s life. Rather, the most direct way to another is found in prayer to Christ whose influence is greater.

The community will continue to exist only as it learns to distinguish spiritual love from human, the spiritual community from the human ideal. It "will remain sound and healthy only where it does not form itself into a movement, an order, a society, a collegium pietatis, but rather where it understands itself as being a part of the one, holy, catholic, Christian Church. . ."⁴ The unity of the community is in Christ, "Through him alone do we have access to one another, joy in one another, and fellowship with one another."⁵

THE COMMUNITY AT WORSHIP

Life together in the community begins with the break of day. It is proper to begin the day with worship. Worship should include thanksgiving, reading of Scripture, and prayer. To God belongs the first thought of the morning. Bonhoeffer does not lay down a rigid order of worship. But he does insist that common worship should include "the word of Scripture, the hymns of the Church, and, the prayer of the fellowship."⁶ His treatment shows an intense interest in the pastoral side of life.

The treatment of the Book of Psalms in worship is particularly interesting. How can one use the psalms as one’s own? Can one really pray the imprecatory psalms? ⁷ Bonhoeffer answers that as human sinners, expressing our own evil thoughts and vengeance, we cannot. But Jesus Christ prays all of the psalms, and because we are in him we can follow his use of them, can pray them through him. "The Psalter is the vicarious prayer of Christ for his Church. Now that Christ is with the Father, the new humanity of Christ, the Body of Christ on earth continues to pray his prayers to the end of time. This prayer belongs, not to the individual member, but. to the whole Body of Christ."⁸

Thus the Psalter can teach us how to pray because Jesus used it. The Psalter teaches us to pray according to the promises of God to his people. It teaches us also that prayer goes far beyond the experiences of the individual to the concern of Christ in the whole church. The imprecatory psalms should be used, not as individual and personal, but "as a prayer out of the heart of Jesus Christ that was sinless and clean."⁹ Because our lives are in Christ, what happened to him happened to us, and herein is our right in using these prayers. The psalms direct us to a prayer fellowship. The liturgical construction of the psalms indicates this. The prayer fellowship includes fellow believers, but even where one is in prayer alone, there Christ is with him in prayer.

Although the Book of Psalms is part of the Old Testament, the reading of the Scripture needs a separate treatment. Brief readings are not a substitute for reading of the Scripture consecutively and as a whole. A family or community should read a chapter from the Old Testament and at least one half of a chapter from the New Testament daily. The Old Testament is stressed, not as dull irrelevant history, but as part of the total story of our redemption. My redemption cannot be isolated from Israel’s passing through the Red Sea and other experiences. "And only in so far as we are there, is God with us today also."¹⁰ Bonhoeffer goes so far as to say that what happened to Israel is more important than what God intends for me today.¹¹ The Scripture has prime importance for the church as well as for pastoral work. How shall one minister spiritually to others apart from the Scripture? How shall the church be guided without the Scriptures?

A part of worship is singing, and Bonhoeffer loved to sing. The beginning of the day with others involves singing. The Bible gives the precedent for singing. Singing gives the opportunity "to speak and pray the same word at the same time." Bonhoeffer advocates unison singing and speaks rather sarcastically of those who show off their musical skill by singing harmony. "Unison singing . . .is less of a musical than a spiritual matter."¹² Why? Perhaps because one concentrates on what is sung rather than on how it is sung. Here again the corporate aspect of church singing is viewed as an act of worship.

The church in prayer relates to individual and common prayer. Both formal and free prayers have their appropriate place. The fellowship of prayer means that we pray for one another’s needs, give thanks for others’ progress, and intercede for others’ concerns.

After the day has begun with worship, the community turns to physical sustenance. Fellowship around the table means common fellowship with those of the family, or those of the community (as in the "seminary"), fellowship around the Lord’s table and, finally, the ultimate fellowship in God’s kingdom. In all three types there is the religious experience of knowing that life comes from God,¹³ of the festive occasion in sharing food, and of sharing food with the hungry.

The community under Bonhoeffer’s guidance was not without work. The first hour of the day belongs to God in worship, the other hours belong to God in work. Worship without work is as one-sided as work without worship. The day should be closed with thanksgiving and worship. Worship in the evening includes prayer for the community, the pastor, the poor, neglected, sick, dying, and for all people. The evening prayer should include also the confession of sin — both to God and to those against whom one has sinned — as well as seeking God’s protection through the night when man is deep in the helplessness of sleep.

PERSONAL WORSHIP

Life Together moves from general to personal worship. Bonhoeffer warns of two extremes: "Let him who cannot be alone beware of community," and, "Let him who is not in community beware of being alone."¹⁴ Silence is important, but it is silent obedience to the Word of God. Aloneness is necessary, but it does not become monastic. Solitude and silence have therapeutic values. After a time of quietness, one can meet people and events in a refreshed way.

Solitude and silence are important for three purposes. First, meditation. Meditation is the time of personal reflection on brief readings of the Scripture, not in order to sermonize, but to ask the question: what does God say to me in this text? Meditation is not a time of spiritual experimenting, a think-session for novel ideas, or a time for manufacturing unusual experiences. In meditation and through Scripture one seeks God.

Second, prayer. Out of meditation on Scripture comes guidance for prayer. Praying on the basis of Scripture is a means of avoiding repetition in prayer and emptiness of soul. Positively, it enables us to speak to God about matters too personal for corporate prayer. Bonhoeffer’s advice concerning a wandering mind: pray for the subjects of the straying thoughts and use this as a means of enlarging one’s prayer concerns.

Third, intercession. To bring one’s brother into the presence of God in concern for his needs is to intercede for him. The Christian fellowship lives or dies by what it does in intercession. Intercession is the means of transforming one’s personal attitudes about other people. It is hard to hate one you talk with God about. The intercession of the Christian is a service owed to God and man. Such intercession is more meaningful and fruitful the more definite it is. The importance of this service demands that it be diligently protected by a special time that is regular.

The real test of meditation comes in the crucible of daily experience. Has it made one strong or weak? What happens to the individual affects the community. If the individual is weak, then a sickness invades the community. Bonhoeffer’s beatitude is poignant: "Blessed is he who is alone in the strength of the fellowship and blessed is he who keeps the fellowship in the strength of aloneness."¹⁵

TYPES OF MINISTRIES

Bonhoeffer turns next to the ministry and its problems. He analyzes the disciples’ bickering about who should be the greatest among them (Luke 9:46) from the standpoint of advantage, of personal gain, and of power. The struggle for advantage is a rejection of justification by faith in favor of self-justification.¹⁶

The Christian must learn to hold his tongue. Evil thoughts are defeated most effectively when they are never reduced to words. In the control of the tongue, personal advice to another is not prohibited, but at the same time criticism must not be offered under the cloak of advice. Criticism is generally a technique used to gain advantage over the other person. We should rather recognize the other person as free in the image of God.

The freedom of each person is necessary for the community. If the fellowship is divided by criticism into the advantaged and the disadvantaged, it will be the death of the community. The strong cannot survive without the weak, but the weak must not be regarded as inferior without their own proper work. "A community which allows unemployed members to exist within it will perish because of them."¹⁷ Each person must have purpose, use, and a contribution to make to the life of the community. There can be no superfluous people.

The ministry of meekness follows the ministry of holding one’s tongue. Learning to think of others as deserving and having more honor is meekness. Receiving forgiveness of sin teaches us that we have reached the end of our own way of self-seeking and have cast aside self-righteousness. Seeking honor is detrimental to faith, for honor-seeking is self-centered where faith is Christ-centered. Resentment in the community is the product of honor-seeking.

The meek person not only puts aside self-conceit but also associates with the lowly and in doing so declares himself to be the greatest of sinners. The meek will not excuse his own sins, but will be forgiving in regard to others. Bonhoeffer asks, "How can I possibly serve another person in unfeigned humility if I seriously regard his sinfulness as worse than my own?"¹⁸

In reaching out to others there is the ministry of listening. Learning to listen is a vital ministry for Christians and especially clergymen. More inclined to contribute to the point of prattling, the Christian must recapture the art of listening. Listening must be genuine, not the kind that is waiting with half an ear ready to pour out a barrage of answers to other’s problems. Impatient listening is a form of despising other people. Bonhoeffer decries the surrender of therapeutic listening to secular education, because it is an art committed to the Christian by God. But Christians have not been listening to others, and when we do not listen to them we do not hear God.

The ministry of helpfulness is another community activity. "This means, initially, simple assistance in trifling, external matters."¹⁹ When one is too busy to help in the lowliest of services, one is guilty of taking a career too seriously. God sends people our way to interrupt us. Their claims are urgent and we must be obedient in ministering to them. We must not be the priest who passes by on the other side reading the Bible. Bonhoeffer compares the monk’s vow of obedience to his abbot to one’s service obligation to one’s brother. In either case our time is not our own. We are God’s to serve others.

The ministry of bearing means "forbearing and sustaining."²⁰ If the Christian does not bear the burden of his brother, how is he different from the pagan? Christ bore our burdens, and we in turn are to bear one another’s burdens. The entire Christian life is that of cross-bearing. If we refuse to bear the burdens of others, we are not bearing the cross. Bearing the other’s burdens may mean accepting him in his freedom and involving a clash with another’s personality, yet God has not given permission to remake any man in our image.

Bearing the burdens of others means we are not to judge others, and are to guard against malicious glee over another’s failure, whether that one is strong or weak. Conversely, it means that whoever needs to be lifted up will receive help. The ministry of bearing may involve forgiving the sins of one’s brother. But when the community is shattered by the sin of one, who is not at fault? It is not his sin alone, but the sin of all who have not interceded in prayer, have failed to give counsel when needed, or have neglected their ministry in the community.

It is only when we have learned to minister on the above levels that we are ready for the ministry of proclaiming. Proclaiming in this context is not related to the pulpit or the ordained ministry, but refers to the communication of the gospel from person to person.. This is the free encounter born out of a relationship where one has truly listened, served, and borne the needs of others. Without this prior ministry, Bonhoeffer declares that our message has already been contradicted.

He raises genuine questions about probing into the sacred life of another. The other person "has his own right, his own responsibility, and even his own duty, to defend himself against unauthorized interference."²¹ Yet God may hold us responsible for our brother’s life blood.

Against our personal hesitancy, our Christian duty is to help. The word we utter is based upon the premise of not denying our brother his needs. Can we deny help and aid to one who is, as we are, a sinner and stands in danger of judgment? Do we not grant him dignity by declaring that he can be reconciled to God? Would we be Christian to be silent while he faces destruction?

If we are to be obedient to God’s word, we cannot stand idle while our brother falls into sin. Bonhoeffer says that reproof is necessary, for "the practice of discipline in the congregation begins in the smallest circles. Where defection from God’s Word in doctrine or life imperils the family fellowship and with it the whole congregation, the word of admonition and rebuke must be ventured. Nothing can be more cruel than the tenderness that consigns another to his sin."²²

Rebuke is simply to call back to the common fellowship. The ministry of rebuking is always in relation to God. Only God can reclaim a person, but he chooses to work through us. His Word must be spoken by us, and through it God works to bring the erring brother to repentance.

When the above qualities of ministering are incarnate in a person, he will minister with authority. Bonhoeffer is critical of the personality cult so frequent in the ministry, whereby people are attached to the man rather than the office. There is authority in the office, but not in the personal glamor of the man. The description in 1 Timothy of the bishop has nothing to say about brilliance, but much about simplicity, faithfulness, sound doctrine, and Christian living. Pastoral authority arises when the ministry admits that it has no authority save that of Christ and his Word.

A PROPOSAL FOR A PROTESTANT CONFESSIONAL

In the last theme, intriguing support is given to confession. >From the standpoint of Protestantism, this is a most interesting chapter. Bonhoeffer states:

The pious fellowship permits no one to be a sinner. So everybody must conceal his sin from himself and from the fellowship. We dare not be sinners. Many Christians are unthinkably horrified when a real sinner is suddenly discovered among the righteous.²³

So what do we do? We cover up our sin, and live in hypocrisy. In contrast to this kind of fellowship, the gospel is only for the sinner. We do not have to lie but we can own up to God. Moreover, we are to confess and be confessed to.

The importance of confession centers around the nature of sin. "Sin demands to have a man by himself."²⁴ It isolates him, by desiring to remain unknown. Where there is confession, the way is open for returning to the community. In confession one gives up his evil, gives his heart to God, and finds forgiveness and fellowship. Confession should be on a personal basis between two people, not necessarily to the entire church, for in confession to one member confession is made to all. If there is confession, the sinner is never alone again.

Confession is important for it declares something about ourselves. It says that we are not afraid to be linked with Christ and the ignominy of his death. If we refuse this link we will probably refuse to confess our sins, in which case there is no help. In confession, one experiences depths of humiliation, but it is in humiliation that God conquers man. In confession there is born the joy of forgiveness in Christ.

Confession to a brother is a way of certainty. It guards against self-confession. Confessing my sin to God alone may be merely mental gymnastics whereby I grant myself forgiveness without true confession. It may also explain my feebleness in overcoming sin and the resultant relapses that occur. God’s forgiveness is spoken to me through my brother as I confess to him.

Meaningful confession must concentrate on specific sins. Therefore self-examination as preparation for confession will use the Ten Commandments. In confession one is dealing with real problems, and thus real forgiveness is sought.

To whom shall one confess? Bonhoeffer’s answer is: "He who himself lives beneath the Cross."²⁵ Why not a psychologist? The latter knows human weakness, but not godlessness. He knows something of man’s nature, but not his sin. Only the Christian knows this and knows the need of forgiveness and can pronounce it for God.

There are two dangers in confession. One who hears confessions may regard them as routine. Only those who confess should hear confessions, thus keeping confession from becoming mere form or routine. Bonhoeffer warns the confessant against regarding confession as a pious work, for "confession as a pious work is an invention of the devil."²⁶ But confession rightly used and understood involves God’s offer of grace.

Confession is, finally, related to the holy Communion. Jesus commanded that all should come to worship after they have reconciled themselves with their brother. Before the Lord’s Supper is received there should be general confession on the part of the fellowship. When confession is ended, forgiveness is declared and the people of God share in the fellowship of the table that will be perfected in eternity.

In assessment we must say that Bonhoeffer shows remarkable pastoral insight. Life Together may be regarded as a prolegomena to a minister’s manual. Much more would have to be developed, but it serves well as the foundation. However, certain questions need to be raised about Bonhoeffer’s views in this book. First, he has Luther’s propensity to see Christ everywhere in the Old Testament, particularly in the Psalms. This leads to considerable allegorization of the Scripture under the guise of "theological interpretation." Most interpreters of Scripture regard this as suspect, because it goes beyond the historical-grammatical-critical standard of Scripture interpretation. In this Bonhoeffer follows Luther.

Second, his comments on unison singing seem to be purely aesthetic, and, for American readers, arbitrary. We should remember, however, that German Lutheran churches do not use music for the hymnbooks in the pews, so that it is possible for someone singing parts to be actually showing off his ability, as well as being in danger of singing the wrong notes. For many people, on the other hand, singing in parts is more natural and fitting to one’s voice range. It is also possible to show off in unison singing.

Third, while Bonhoeffer has many valuable thoughts on confession, he is too one-sided in his approach. He admits that one may have "certainty, new life, the Cross, and fellowship without benefit of confession to a brother,"²⁷ but he is concerned with those who need it. The manner of treatment may suggest that most people need confession to another. His treatment is an improvement on the usual Roman Catholic view in which confession is normally relegated to the priestly office. But is there not a danger that psychological benefits may be mistaken for spiritual relief? Does not confession displace the promise and Word of God with a word of a man?

NOTES:

1. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together, trans. John W. Doberstein (New York: Harper & Bros., 1954).

2. Ibid., p. 21.

3. Ibid., p. 35

4. Ibid., p. 37

5. Ibid, p. 39.

6. Ibid, p. 44.

7. The imprecatory psalms are those in which the psalmist prays that God will judge his enemies and in their destruction vindicate the psalmist for his faithfulness.

8. Ibid., p. 46.

9. Ibid., p. 48.

10. Ibid., p. 54.

11. Ibid., p. 54.

12. Ibid., p. 60.

13. Ibid., p. 66.

14. Ibid., p. 77.

15. Ibid., p. 89.

16. Ibid., p. 91.

17. Ibid., p. 94.

18. Ibid., pp. 86-97.

19. Ibid., p. 99.

20. Ibid., p. 100.

21. Ibid., p. 105.

22. Ibid., p. 107.

23. Ibid., p. 110.

24. Ibid., p. 112.

25. Ibid., p. 119.

26. Ibid., p. 120.

27. Ibid., p. 117.