 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > Bonhoeffer Ethics Chapter II | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/15/2002 3:25 AM (GMT -6) |   | Bonhoeffer Chapter II
We're continuing our discussion on Bonhoeffer's Ethics. All who want to read Bonhoeffer's Ethics are invited to join in. The first thread covered chapter I, and it was incredible. This thread will cover chapter II. I shall soon begin another thread on chapter III (because chapter two is very short ).
As in the first thread, I shall offer a brief summary to get the discussion going.
Summary
Jesus said "He that is not against us is for us" (Mk 9:40) as well as "He that is not with me is against me" (Mt 12:30). The statements appear logically contradictory. Which is it? Is it only those who don’t oppose Christ that are not part of Christ (the claim to inclusivity) or is it only those who are explicitly part of Christ that are not against Christ (the claim to exclusivity)?
According to Bonhoeffer. it is BOTH. He writes, "For abstract analysis these two sayings of Jesus are a in irreconcilable contradiction; but in reality they necessarily belong together." (59) Indeed, if either claim is taken in isolation of the other, it leads to damaging results. "…in isolation the claim to exclusiveness leads to fanaticism and to slavery; and in isolation the claim to totality leads to the secularization and self-abandonment of the Church" (60).
In isolation, the claim to exclusiveness sets the Church against the culture. In isolation, the claim to inclusiveness absorbs the Church into the culture. "The cross of Christ makes both sayings true…" (61). Christ’s death redeems culture (viz. cultural principles of justice, truth, and freedom).
Held in tension, the Church as the witness to the crucified Christ becomes a distinct testimony to the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord of culture. "It is not Christ who must justify Himself before the world by the acknowledgment of the values of justice, truth and freedom (in culture), but it is these values which have come to need justification, and their justification can only be Jesus Christ." (61).
The gist of this entire chapter is summarized, I think, when B. writes: "Christ belongs both to the wicked and the good". He belongs to them both only as sinners, that is to say, as people who in their wickedness and in their goodness have fallen away from the origin. He summons them back to their origin so that they shall no longer be good and evil but justified and sanctified sinners" (63).
As I read it, Bonhoeffer is saying that the Church should have a distinct identity, but this identity is not found in any exclusive claim to cultural values, but in our distinct witness to the one who supports and redeems all cultural values. This is the balance of exclusivity and inclusivity. The distinct witness of the Church is its witness to the One who belongs to all, however good or evil they are, and in our call to "return to the origin" where people can be "no longer ..good and evil but justified and sanctified sinners." The Church can and should affirm cultural values that are good, but not as the goal of life. The goal is rather found in Jesus Christ who supports, but transcends, cultural values.
I have two initial comment and one initial question.
Comment #1: If the Church is to be a distinct witness to the One who transforms us from good and evil people to sanctified sinners who live out of our "origin," it must be distinct in terms of its LOVE. For to live out of union with Christ (our origin) is to live out of love. The Church may not be distinct in terms of the principles of justice and freedom we stand for. But if it is true to its calling -- rooted in the new reality in Christ which believers participate in -- it cannot help but be distinct in terms of its love. B. didn't talk about this in this chapter, but I think it was implied (based on chapter I).
Comment #2: I agree that the principles that characterize most positive cultural values are not distinct from those the Church stands for. But the crucial issue, one which B. doesn't explore in this chapter, is on what defines "positive." There are many values the Church stands for, flowing from its commitment to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves that culture as a whole does not share. And there are many values which a culture might deem as positive which the Church would deem as negative.
For example, our culture places a lot of value on material goods, on pursuing the American dream, on respect and prestige, on sexual pleasure, etc.. These are seen as being "good." It seems to me that they contradict living in the reality of Christ which places a premium on valuing God and his kingdom above all else and which therefore places a premium in obeying God's will. Hence, while the central distinctive of the Church is its witness to Jesus Christ, it seems to me there are a number of other distinctives which flow from this witness.
Questions: As I observe it, the Church as a whole is known for a lot of distinctives, but NEVER for its LOVE. And because it holds to a number fo distinctives without love as the primary distinctive, the distinctives it DOES hold to are largely experienced, and perceived, as negatives. The distinct lifestyle of Christians, for example, gets interpreted as prudish rule-abiding and as judgementalism, for it is not "clothed in love" (Col 3).
Do you agree with this? And why do you think this is so? Any comments?
Blessings
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:46 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|