Ethics I: Christ, Reality, and Good
January 21, 2011 § 9 Comments
I realize that it’s been over a month since my last post, and since I’m sure you eagerly visit this blog several times a day hoping for an update, I apologize for your frequent disappointment. What I’ve decided to do over the next while will double as thesis research and blog content. I’m re-reading through Bonhoeffer’s Ethics and writing précis on each manuscript. My hope is that this will help focus my attention on potential issues, major themes, key scriptures, and, most relevantly for my current project, how Bonhoeffer undergirds his ethics with theological anthropology. But I also thought that for those of you who have never had the chance (or energy) to read through this book, I could post my summaries for your reading pleasure. Please ask questions or make observations if you have any. You probably see things I don’t and your input will be very helpful to my research.
Note that a précis makes no attempt to be original, and I have lifted many lines directly out of the text. The idea is simply to reproduce the author’s argument in a condensed form. This also means that anything profound, questionable, or just plain awesome in what follows is Bonhoeffer, not me.
I: Christ, Reality, and Good
Ethics [DBWE 6]: 47-75
The question of being or doing good, though seemingly the obvious starting-point for Christian ethics, must be immediately abandoned as inappropriate to the topic. The only valid starting-point is the will of God. When being or doing good is the telos of ethical reflection, a decision has already been made to treat either the self or the world as ultimate reality, necessarily excluding the reality of God. The ethical question must always come down to this: With what reality will we reckon in our life? With the reality of God’s revelatory word or with the so-called realities of life? Because in Christ the reality of God has entered the reality of the world, the question of good can only find its answer in Christ. Seeking the good is about participating in the reality of Christ, for good is the real that has its reality only in God. Any attempt to separate ethics into nature and behaviour, the ‘ought’ and the ‘is’, intention and consequences, results in abstraction. Humans are indivisible wholes, and to participate in the indivisible whole of God’s reality is the meaning of the Christian question about the good.
In Christ, we stand at once in the reality of God and in the reality of the world. The Christian ethic is concerned with how these realities become real in our world today. The doctrine of the two realms, which states that the divine and the worldly are two distinct and unreconcilable realities, must at once be abandoned. There are not two realities but one, the reality of Christ, in which the reality of God and the reality of the world are united. Every static distinction between two realms leads to eternal conflict, but one who stands in the one reality of Christ embraces reality as a whole. Therefore, the church cannot think of itself as the locus of God’s acceptance outside the world; rather it must faithfully call the world into the community of the body of Christ to which the world in truth already belongs.
Like all of creation, the world has been created through Christ and toward Christ and has its existence only in Christ. The world stands in relationship to Christ whether it knows it or not. This relation of the world to Christ becomes concrete in the divine mandates: work, marriage (family), government, and church. These exist as commanded by God; there can be no retreat from the “worldly” into the “spiritual” without retreating from this concrete form of human life given by God. The divine mandates place us before the one reality of Christ, in whom God and world were united. The will of God is the realization of the Christ-reality among us and in our world, and it has already been fulfilled by God. Therefore God’s will is not hidden and incomplete, but disclosed and accomplished. The ethical question arises from being confronted with this revealed Christ-reality in the world today.
In the last paragraph of your précis one encounters what becomes troublingly close to “universalism” by the charge of many whom I’ve spoken to, but that is not how I hear Bonhoeffer. He speaks of the relation and the confrontation. It is to speak of Christ as Lord of all even now, but as the world (and Church) in a some sense (varying) of confrontation with Him. The reality of Christ in the “mandates” (very Lutheran categories for speaking of the world to be sure) is something that makes this more readily apparent that he is not speaking of universalism. I really do tire of those who would accuse him of such upon such charges.
By the way, I LOVE that you will be writing these summaries of Ethics for us to read (so that I can “re-read” the book in short once again
). Oh, Happy Day!!!
I know, it’s easy to read him that way. (If it comes up in my thesis, I’ll have to make sure to devote a paragraph or a footnote to dispel this notion.) Granted, he’s not talking about soteriology, but somehow that’s where class discussion often went, so clearly his statements reach farther than the question of a Christian ethic. You’re right to note that the mandates help clarify (or concretize) things a bit.
I’m reading through Creation and Fall right now, and its clear that B considers God the giver of all life, both in creation and preservation. I think his talk about the whole world being accepted in Christ is about how Christ is always the Mediator of life (for he is the Life) to all humankind. Stepping outside the world into some “spiritual” realm is to deny the very thing Christ came to save and the very thing into which he constantly pours himself. Stepping outside of Christ into the world is to deny the Life that gives life to the world. There is relation and confrontation, as you mentioned, but the church is the place where the relation is proclaimed and made manifest. The church ceases to be the church when it becomes about the confrontation, and attempts to stand outside the one reality of Christ.
Unless you think I’m reading him wrong. Bonhoeffer can be easy to misread, and I am skilled eisegete.
1. Even if Bonhoeffer was not a universalist, I suggest that, at least in my reading of Ethics, it is not difficult to see how Bonhoeffer’s thought might be a catalyst for or shaper of Christian universalist thought.
2. I continue to fail to understand why Christian universalism (that is, in the end Christ’s atoning sacrifice covers *everyone*) is such a troubling notion, to the point that people are “charged” with universalism and that some people feel the need to write under pseudonyms for fear of recriminations (or that I, for instance, feel the need to make sure that people know I don’t have a “universalist theology”, because that would be a terrible heresy).
I don’t mean to hijack the thread here. Please feel free to ignore me if this comment is too far off topic.
In part, universalism, denies the call for “faith” in its relation to salvation. It makes faith to be superfluous or at least to be superfluous in the here-and-now.
Further, it treats nothing and no one as damnable. That makes sin (and sinners) to be not really sinful or at least to be atoned for and receiving atonement and being made righteous apart from their obedience of faith in Christ. While we may reply that the obedience of Christ does this for them, one is still left to wonder how it is that all might be included “in Christ” if not all are included “in Christ” (according to the Scriptures themselves).
The testimony of Scripture concerns itself with those who will indeed experience the likes of such things as the “second death”, “everlasting fire”, “the lake of fire”…all of which suggest something which will be without end and imply no place of redemption. While I myself am hopeful that God could indeed redeem all, yet the Scriptures themselves suggest otherwise…and I am beholden to the Scriptures.
That’s just it, though. I am also beholden to the scriptures and that is precisely why I have sympathy for the universalist position (it’s not just Bonhoeffer), because scripture does not unequivocally exclude the possibility. (Though I admit I could use a refresher read-through of the relevant passages. Or just the whole New Testament.)
In terms of hermeneutics, it’s an interesting question: do the hell/damnation passages by default subsume the passages that may suggest something else, so that the hell/damnation passages become a sort of hermeneutical trump card?
“Further, it treats nothing and no one as damnable. That makes sin (and sinners) to be not really sinful or at least to be atoned for and receiving atonement and being made righteous apart from their obedience of faith in Christ.”
I disagree here. Christian universalism needn’t assert that there is no hell or judgment–in fact, it needn’t assert anything different than that of historical Christianity other than in terms of our ultimate fate. Sinful humans are still damnable, even if in the end they aren’t damned.
(Incidentally, may I direct you a series of short videos on hell by Real Live Preacher via my blog? He basically examines all the references to hell in the NT and comes to some interesting conclusions.)
Anyway, as Joel says, this may be a discussion for another blog! I’m actually thinking of picking up Gregory McDonalds’ The Evangelical Universalist again. I started reading it years ago and blogged through the philosophical element of his theology, but for some reason quit reading when he got to his scriptural argument. Perhaps this is something I could continue on I Heart Barth…or maybe my own blog.
There are certainly some very pertinent Scriptures, i.e.: Matt. 18:8; 25:46; Mark 3:28-29; Rev. 20:10 for the topic (among numerous others). I’ll have to watch the videos later today (as my wife is using all my bandwidth to watch other stuff online
.
The question would have to be one of speaking about the “eternal” state…rather than just the usual passages universalism has mustered which point to God willing that none should perish (which is not something pertaining to what actually is stated to happen, but only to a desire as it were), or to the sins of the “whole world” being somehow taken care of by Jesus (but how this is worked out and just what it means is another issue that does not explain the actual eternal state of the “whole world” but only the potential). I guess I’m saying I’ve only been convinced to see this as a potentiality and not a reality issue. Though perhaps I need a reread myself.
Marc, you aren’t too far off topic. I think it’s interesting how this book (and this manuscript in particular) causes us evangelicals to stumble in our soteriology.
1. Yes, you’re right. The idea that all humanity has already been accepted in Christ could easily lead into universalist reflection.
2. Universalism might be one of the last great heresies. Somehow, we are very afraid even to imply that “all will be saved” to the point where (I think) we impose nonexistent boundaries on God’s grace simply to steer clear of it. Bonhoeffer understood that the humanity of Christ embraced all of humanity, and that this has direct implications for our lives. But some people hear it and immediately say, “Oh, he’s a universalist,” and stop listing to what he’s actually saying.
I wonder then, since this seems to come up often, do you think Bonhoeffer’s soteriology is central to understanding his approach to ethics? (This could make for another interesting project! I’m sure Tim would love to advise another Bonhoeffer thesis!)
do you think Bonhoeffer’s soteriology is central to understanding his approach to ethics?
Honestly, I don’t know Bonhoeffer well enough to even think about answering this question. That’s one of the reasons I was reluctant to comment–my reading of Bonhoeffer is very limited, especially in comparison to you guys.
But, good question. From what I remember of Ethics, it seems to me that “Christ’s humanity embracing all of humanity” (I believe that comes up in the first manuscript/chapter) forms the foundation for what he had to say in the rest of the book. The question is, is this notion soteriological or something else.
Universalism might be one of the last great heresies.
I understand what you are saying here. My question is, why? If the specifics of such a theology are clearly stated (i.e. that it is Christ who saves all) and heard, then why should it be seen as heresy? It might be incorrect, but heresy?
I don’t think this notion can be discussed completely apart from soteriology, but it seems that it has more to do with the form of Christ’s saving work (i.e., salvation mediated to humanity through Christ’s humanity) rather than the scope of its efficacy. In other words, that God became human in Christ, a real human being with a real human body, means that God has embraced humanity in toto, and that the particular form of this saving work has a bearing on how we live as human persons before God and with other human persons. I don’t think he ever makes the direct connection, “Therefore, all will be saved (i.e., from hell).”
To your other question, I don’t know why. Maybe because people think that universalism renders their whole faith and life obsolete? If all will be saved, why bother trying to be good? Why bother with evangelism and missions? Why bother with anything? Maybe universalism tells them, “You’re just wasting your time.” (Which, to be clear, I don’t think it actually does.) That might explain the revulsion at the slightest suggestion.
I also think that this sort of response to universalism betrays a very particular view of what salvation is and what it is from and when and how it is brought to completion. (This is probably way to big of a topic for a tangent, but suffice it to say that their soteriology is precisely what N. T. Wright was responding to in his Surprised by Hope.)
Maybe we could get a discussion going on one of our other blogs?