[1] In 1939 Dietrich Bonhoeffer made his fateful decision to
return to Germany from the United States. Within a year of his
return, he became involved in the conspiracy against Adolf
Hitler.
[2] His involvement in the conspiracy led to his imprisonment and
finally to his execution by the Nazis. Today Bonhoeffer is often
celebrated as an example of a modern Christian martyr, and his
conspiratorial activity tends to be looked upon with favor.
[3] It is striking, however, that Bonhoeffer deliberately sought
to avoid justifying his actions. From his standpoint any attempt to
justify his involvement in the conspiracy would have been the
height of ethical arrogance. In fact, according to Eberhard Bethge,
Bonhoeffer "would have accepted the charge that what he had done
was not a 'good response' to the challenge of the age, but, rather,
a verytardy one."[1] It was one thing to give
an account of his actions in the conspiracy; it was another thing
to try to justify his actions. As Bethge explains, for Bonhoeffer
"the responsible attitude was not to take his justification,
before, during and after what he did, into his own
hands."[2] Only God could ultimately
judge his actions. In the extraordinary situation Bonhoeffer found
himself in, he felt compelled to act as he did, but only with a
profound sense of ethical humility.
[4] This sense of ethical humility permeates Bonhoeffer's
Ethics[3], which he worked on while
he was engaged in the conspiracy. The purpose of this essay is to
look more closely at Bonhoeffer's appeal for ethical humility, an
appeal which applies not only to extraordinary situations, but also
to more ordinary situations in life. This appeal is thoroughly
grounded in the reality of God revealed in the life, death, and
resurrection of Jesus Christ. An awareness of this grounding ought
to instill in us a deep sense of ethical humility as we engage in
ethical reflection and decision-making.
Invalidating the Knowledge of Good and Evil
[5] In Bonhoeffer's view, common approaches to the ethics are
oblivious to the revelational reality of God in Jesus Christ.
Instead, the typical ethical approach embarks on a misguided
attempt to secure the knowledgeof good and evil.[4] For Bonhoeffer, this
attempt is the height of ethical hubris. Ethical reflection tends
to focus on two main tasks: one, an effort to identify a
fundamental moral principle; and two, the application of that
principle to various issues in life in order to determine what is
good and evil, right and wrong, or moral and immoral. For example,
Kant sought to identify a "categorical imperative"-that is, a
universal law that would determine the way a person ought to act in
any given situation. Kant's concern for universal consistency of
action led him to declare that no one in any circumstances should
ever utter a falsehood. As Bonhoeffer points out, Kant "carried
this principle ad absurdum by saying that he would feel
obligated to give truthful information even to a criminal looking
for a friend of his [Kant's] who had concealed himself in his
house."[5]
[6] In doing Christian ethics, asserts Bonhoeffer, our first task
is to divorce ourselves from these misguided attempts to determine
good and evil.[6] Our desire for moral
certainty leads us astray. In seeking the knowledge of good and
evil human beings fall away from their origin. Bonhoeffer affirms
that at their origin human beings know" only one thing:
God."[7] The Bible depicts this
falling away in terms of the eating of the forbidden fruit. Adam
and Eve ate the apple so that they might gain the knowledge of good
and evil. They were not satisfied with being created in the image
of God. They were not satisfied with being chosen and loved by
God. They were not satisfied with knowing that God is the
origin of good and evil. They wanted to know good and evil itself.
They wanted to be like God. Inasmuch as ethics is the effort to
gain knowledge of good and evil, it separates us from
God.[8] Thus, without stating it
explicitly, Bonhoeffer implies that ethics, as it is typically
engaged in, is sin.[9]
The Theological Grounding
of Christian Ethics
[7] The heart of Bonhoeffer's appeal for ethical humility is his
claim that ethics is grounded in the revelational reality of God in
Jesus Christ. In the new German critical edition of Bonhoeffer's
Ethics, the section on "Christ, Reality, and the Good" has been
moved to the beginning.[10] This
section lays out the theological grounding of Christian ethics.
According to Bonhoeffer, this theological grounding implies that we
must radically alter our common approaches to the ethical problem.
In particular, we need to abandon two typical forms of the ethical
question: "How can I be good?" and "How can I do good?" The key
ethical question is: "What is the will of God?"[11] When we ask the
first two questions, our focus is on the self and the world as the
ultimate ethical realities. Focusing on the will of God makes clear
that the reality of the self and the reality of the world are
rooted in the reality of God.
[8] Bonhoeffer identifies the starting point of Christian ethics
not as the reality of the self, of the world, or of standards and
values but as the reality of God revealed in the life, death, and
resurrection of Jesus Christ.[12] The
reality of God revealed in Jesus Christ defines the good. Apart
from this reality, there can be no human goodness or goodness of
the world. Apart from this reality, all standards and values are
mere abstractions. Christian ethics, therefore, has a theological
foundation. The theological problem is "the truth of the
revelational reality of God in Christ." The ethical problem is "the
realization among God's creatures of the revelational reality of
God in Christ." The question of the good "becomes the question of
participation in the divine reality which is revealed in
Christ."[13] Human beings
participate in this divine reality both as individuals in their
person and work and as members of the community of human beings and
all God's creatures.[14]
Ethics as Formation
[9] In Bonhoeffer's theologically grounded ethics, the method as
well as the content reflects his concern for ethical humility.
Ethics as formation is his primary methodological
motif.[15] Bonhoeffer claims he is
not using 'formation' in the customary sense. From his
perspective, formation does not focus on how we form individuals or
the world by means of plans and programs. Formation is a process of
being drawn into the form of Jesus Christ, of conformation with the
unique form of the incarnate, crucified, and resurrected one.
[16]
[10] Bonhoeffer's key methodological insight is that we do not
form ourselves or the world. We are not striving to become like
Jesus. We are not simply being instructed on living a good and
pious life. We ought not impose a Christian lifestyle or agenda on
our neighbor or the world. God does the forming. The form of Jesus
Christ is the will of God in the world. In ethics as
formation the question concerning the will of God becomes a matter
of discerning how Christ is taking form in the world. The good is
"action conforming to the reality of Jesus Christ; action
conforming to Christ is action conforming to
reality."[17]
[11] According to Bonhoeffer, formation is both individual and
corporate. Individual formation is a process of becoming a person
before God. One becomes a person before God by being conformed to
the incarnate, crucified, and resurrected Jesus Christ. To be
conformed to the incarnate Jesus Christ is to be free to be a real
human being. To be conformed to the crucified Jesus Christ is to be
a human being sentenced by God. We humbly acknowledge our own
sinfulness and our dependence on God's grace. We do not present
ourselves in any way as a model of goodness or the godly life. We
willingly suffer for others, as Christ first suffered for us. To be
conformed to the resurrected Jesus Christ is to be a new human
being before God. New human beings do not elevate themselves above
others, but willingly live in the midst of sin and death. Being
conformed to Jesus Christ does not entail becoming like God. We are
formed by God into real human beings--that is our proper form. God
became a human being in Jesus Christ so that we might become real
human beings.[18]
[12] Corporate formation refers to the process of Jesus Christ
taking form in the church. As the body of Christ, the church is the
corporate form of Jesus Christ in the world. Bonhoeffer insists
that the church ought never be considered a separate form alongside
of the form of Jesus Christ. The church is the "section of humanity
in which Christ has really taken form." [19]
Responsible Action
[13] Bonhoeffer's concern for ethical humility pervades the
central concepts he employs to develop his ethics. Responsible
action is one of those central concepts. In Bonhoeffer's view,
ethical humility is built into the structure of the responsible
life. Responsible persons are free to live and make decisions, but
that freedom is always conditioned by our obligation to God and to
our neighbor.[20] Our obligation to God
and neighbor is fulfilled by `responsible action'--that is, action
on behalf of or in the place of others. Thus, we never engage in
responsible action or make ethical decisions in isolation. The
community of God is built upon the actions of responsible persons
on behalf of or in the place of others.
[14] Bonhoeffer depicts Jesus as the responsible person
par excellence.[21] He gave himself
completely on behalf of others. He demonstrates the ultimate
ethical humility by taking upon himself the guilt of all human
beings and dying on the cross. Those who act responsibly will not
shun the guilt of other human beings. Trying to maintain our
personal innocence cuts us off from Jesus Christ. Real innocence is
a willingness to enter into the community of guilt.[22]
[15] Responsible action comes in two forms: everyday and
extraordinary. Bonhoeffer's involvement in the conspiracy
against Hitler was an extraordinary "venture of responsibility." He
had to consider the people involved, the given circumstances, the
relevant questions of principle, his own motives, the chances for
success, and the purpose of the action. He was responsible to weigh
all these factors, to make a decision, and to act. He could not,
however, as a responsible person, use any of these factors to
justify his action. Such responsible action is "performed wholly
within the domain of relativity, wholly in the twilight which the
historical situation spreads over good and evil; it is performed in
the midst of the innumerable perspectives in which every given
phenomenon appears. It has not to decide simply between right and
wrong and between good and evil, but between right and right and
between wrong and wrong." For this reason, "responsible action is a
free venture; it is not justified by any law; it is performed
without any claim to a valid self- justification, and therefore
also without any claim to an ultimate valid knowledge of good and
evil."[23] Only God, who directs
the course of history, can ultimately judge our actions.
[16] We need to resist the temptation to turn extraordinary
responsible action into the measure of all action, for not all
responsible action is exercised in extraordinary situations. We do
not live our whole lives as "Hercules at the
crossroads."[24] God does not want us to
wear ourselves out in a constant conflict of obligations and
decisions. God does not intend for each moment in life to be a
great crisis. Responsible action also takes a more common, ordinary
form. Everyday responsible action focuses on the four mandates:
marriage/family, labor, church, and government. Bonhoeffer defines
a mandate as a divinely imposed task.[25] Parents, for example,
are called to act on behalf of or in the place of their children.
Their responsible action includes providing, caring, interceding,
and suffering for them. The work of a responsible teacher is to act
on behalf of his or her students. A responsible police officer acts
on behalf of the citizens of a community. Everyday responsible
action is also exercised in the domain of relativity. But in order
to fulfill their tasks, responsible persons must be free of the
constant torment of ethical conflict and decision.
[17] In Ethics Bonhoeffer moves toward a concept of the church
as the responsible community, the corporate form of Jesus Christ in
the world. The mandate of the church is to proclaim the reality of
God revealed in Jesus Christ.[26] This
mandate includes responsible action on behalf of and in the place
of others. The political responsibility of the church entails
holding government accountable to its God-given task . The church
must call sin by its rightful name and warn against sin without
insisting on its own innocence.[27] As
the responsible community, it willingly bears its own guilt and the
world's guilt toward Jesus Christ. The church is not called to
co-opt the task of government. In exercising political
responsibility, the church must not lose sight of its main task of
proclaiming Jesus Christ.
Prophetic Boldness or Ethical Arrogance?
[18] The theological grounding of Christian ethics is often
overlooked or neglected in ethical reflection and decision-making
in contemporary church circles. In my own Evangelical Lutheran
tradition this lack of theological grounding can become painfully
obvious on the floor of synod assemblies, when we rush to pass
resolutions on the latest controversial ethical or political issue.
We are quick to pronounce ethical judgments or to baptize our
personal political views as God's will. Often we do not have enough
time for debate, or the resolutions are not written carefully. The
most serious flaw, however, is a lack of attention to the
theological basis for the position. It is not clear why the church
is compelled to take a public stand on the given issue. On the one
hand, we do not want to tarry too long in taking a stand. On the
other hand, in our eagerness to take a stand, we need to remember
that prophetic boldness can easily become ethical arrogance. We
need to be careful not to neglect the daily theological and ethical
homework that lays the groundwork for responsible action and
decision-making.
[19] In May 1993 the Oregon Synod Assembly of the Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) passed Resolution
6[28] reaffirming our
denunciation of the political activities of the Oregon Citizens'
Alliance (OCA) against gay and lesbian people. The OCA sponsored
Ballot Measure 9 in the November 1992 Oregon General Election. The
OCA wanted to make it illegal to grant any sort of minority status
to gays and lesbians or to promote homosexuality as an acceptable
lifestyle. Opponents of Measure 9 viewed it as an attempt to
compromise the civil rights of gays and lesbians. Measure 9 was
defeated. But the narrow margin of defeat encouraged the OCA to
continue its efforts to get some sort of legislation passed. In May
of 1993, shortly before the Oregon Synod Assembly, a local
initiative sponsored by the OCA passed by a substantial margin in a
Portland suburb.
[20] From my point of view, Oregon Synod Resolution 6 betrayed a
lack of ethical humility. The tone of the resolution gave the
impression that we were too sure of the goodness of our position
over against the evilness of the OCA's position. Some of the
rhetoric bordered on being inflammatory. It struck me that
opponents of OCA measures needed to examine how our own rhetoric
had thwarted fruitful dialogue and contributed to the polarization
of our communities.
[21] The lack of a clear statement of the theological basis for
Resolution 6 concerned me most. The only explicit theological
reference was contained in the fifth and final `WHEREAS': "the ELCA
is committed to an inclusive ministry recognizing that the Gospel
of Jesus Christ is for all." No one in my congregation would argue
that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not for all. But a number
continue to struggle with the issue of whether a homosexual
lifestyle is consistent with the Gospel. These members are not
card-carrying OCA extremists. They are faithful Christians who need
"education, understanding, and compassion on issues of human
sexuality."[29] Being devoted Lutherans
they want this education, understanding, and compassion to be
biblically and theologically grounded.
[22] My contention was that we had a solid biblical and
theological argument against the OCA position. According to Lon
Mabon, the director of the OCA, their overall agenda was to
reestablish biblically-based moral absolutes in society. Ballot
Measure 9 was the first step in fulfilling this agenda. This agenda
lacked the very ethical humility Bonhoeffer so forcefully appeals
for on biblical and theological grounds. We needed a
straightforward warning to voters of the pitfalls of presuming
moral certainty. My hunch was that such a warning would have
carried a great deal of weight even with those inside and outside
of our churches who have strong objections to homosexuality as a
lifestyle. Our own lack of humility in our rhetoric may have
contributed to the strength of the vote in favor of the OCA
sponsored measure. We may have upped the ante too quickly and
fancied ourselves to be in an extraordinary situation, when more
ordinary measures were called for to expose the folly of the OCA.
The force of our rhetoric gave the OCA position more
credibility than it warranted. In our eagerness to be prophetic it
appears that we fell into the trap of ethical arrogance. We seemed
to lose sight of the fact that in this particular situation the way
to stop the OCA was to make sure they did not win the vote. An
important part of ethical humility is perceiving what is needed in
a given situation.
Conclusion
[23] Bonhoeffer's appeal for ethical humility is, in effect, a
call for us to remove the log of ethical arrogance from our own eye
so that we can see clearly the ethical pitfalls into which we
and others are falling. In particular, Bonhoeffer alerts us
to the danger of the quest for moral certainty and to the
limitations of one principle or one theme ethical approaches,
whether philosophical or theological. A proper understanding of the
theological grounding of ethics in God's self-revelation in Jesus
Christ, the responsible person par excellence, ought to instill a
strong measure of ethical humility in us. The point is not to
discourage us from engaging, if necessary, in bold ventures of
responsibility, such as Bonhoeffer did in the conspiracy against
Hitler, but to lead us to acknowledge our ethical limitations and
to recognize that the ultimate judgment and fulfillment of our
ethical ventures are in the hands of God. In the final analysis
Bonhoeffer's ethical courage, for which he is so admired, grew out
of his profound sense of ethical humility; for he was confident
that he and his co-conspirators were not acting on their own but in
the presence of the God of history who can transform even our
mistakes and shortcomings into good.
[1] Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Man of Vision,
Man of Courage (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1970),
734.
[2] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 734
[3] First Touchstone Edition (New York:
Simon & Schuster, 1995). The order followed in this edition is
based on the sixth German edition, 1949. Work has been completed on
the new German critical edition of Ethik, edited by Ilse Tödt,
Heinz Eduard Tödt, Ernst Feil, and Clifford Green (Munich:
Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1992). Both the order and the content have been
revised, and a wealth of editorial information has been added. This
new edition is being translated into English as part of the
Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works Translation Project. The new English
edition will be published by Fortress Press.
[4] Ethics, 21.
[5] Ethics, 363n. 1.
[6] Ethics, 21.
[7] Ethics, 21.
[8] Ethics, 22.
[9] In Church Dogmatics II/2 Karl Barth
is more explicit. Critiquing the general conception of ethics he
writes: "Strange as it may seem, that general conception of ethics
coincides exactly with the conception of sin" (518). Human beings
want to be like God. They want to know, as God knows, what is good
and evil. Thus, asserts Barth, "as a result and in prolongation of
the fall, we have `ethics,' or, rather, the multifarious ethical
systems, the attempted human answers to the ethical question"
(517).
[10] Ethik, 31-61.
[11] Ethics, 186.
[12] Ethics, 187-188.
[13] Ethics, 188.
[14] Cf. Larry Rasmussen's essay on
Bonhoeffer's "Method" in Dietrich Bonhoeffer-His Significance for
North Americans (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 89-110.
[15] Cf. Larry Rasmussen's essay on
Bonhoeffer's "Method" in Dietrich Bonhoeffer-His Significance for
North Americans (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 89-110.
[16] Ethics, 220-221. Bonhoeffer is
building on Paul's understanding of freedom in Galatians 5:13: "For
you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use
your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence. but through
loves become slaves to one another" (NRSV).
[17] Ethics, 220-221. Bonhoeffer is
building on Paul's understanding of freedom in Galatians 5:13: "For
you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use
your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence. but through
loves become slaves to one another" (NRSV).
[18] Ethics, 220-221. Bonhoeffer is
building on Paul's understanding of freedom in Galatians 5:13: "For
you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use
your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence. but through
loves become slaves to one another" (NRSV).
[19] Ethics, 220-221. Bonhoeffer is
building on Paul's understanding of freedom in Galatians 5:13: "For
you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use
your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence. but through
loves become slaves to one another" (NRSV).
[20] Ethics, 220-221. Bonhoeffer is
building on Paul's understanding of freedom in Galatians 5:13: "For
you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use
your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence. but through
loves become slaves to one another" (NRSV).
[21] Ethics, 222.
[22] Ethics, 245.
[23] Ethics, 245.
[24] Ethics, 279.
[25] Ethics, 204. For more on the
mandates, see Ethics, 204-210, 281-297.
[26] Ethics, 294.
[27] Ethics, 345.
[28] The vote was as follows: Yes-216;
No-77; Abstain-14.
[29] This phrase comes from the text
of Resolution 6. At its best, Resolution 6 tried to provide
education, understanding, and compassion on issues of human
sexuality. Unfortunately, this purpose tended to get lost in the
rhetoric attacking the OCA. My suspicion is that Ballot Measure 9
would have been more soundly defeated if its opponents had resisted
the temptation to fight the OCA's inflammatory rhetoric with their
own inflammatory rhetoric. It was a revelation for some members of
my congregation that even if they considered homosexuality a sin,
it did not necessarily mean that they had to support OCA
measures.