I have been reading in Bonhoeffer's Ethics. What we have is really a series of unpublished papers written under the pressure of the years just before his arrest when he was involved in the plot against Hitler.
Bonhoeffer argues that responsible action is that which is most in accordance with reality. That reality is ‘the reality of the God who became human’. This action, however, is neither an endorsement of the status quo nor a blessing of revolution. It begins with the action of God in Christ ‘reconciling the world to himself’ (2 Cor 5:18).
Responsible action is grounded and circumscribed in Jesus Christ. Bonhoeffer is clear that this is not merely an ideology which carries all before it. ‘The task is not to turn the world upside down but in a given place to do what, from the perspective of reality, is necessary objectively and to really carry it out’ – that is, to do what is possible within the human domain. God becoming human means that responsible actions likewise have to occur within that domain. The ultimate evaluation of these actions is only for God. Responsible action ‘must completely surrender to God both the judgment on this action and its consequences’.
Bonhoeffer turns to the Sermon on the Mount, where he finds a powerful picture of suffering action:
"The Sermon on the Mount confronts those who are compelled to act within history with the event of the reconciliation of the world with God in Jesus Christ, thus placing them into genuine Christian responsibility."
The Sermon on the Mount is not a manifesto of withdrawal from the historical-political sphere, contrary to the way in which it has been read for much of Christian history. Historical-political action and Christian action have been seen as opposites – statehood without self-assertion or force is thought impossible. ‘Turning the other cheek’ or ‘love your enemies’ are not plans for kings to rule by, as ordinarily conceived. Bonhoeffer also points out that even the most cynical uses of power in the west ‘always need a mask of Christian concepts in order to succeed’.
Again the response is christologically framed: the action of God in taking human flesh and inserting himself into the world of real human beings, in its very particularity shows that he is concerned for real human beings in the concreteness of their existence and not merely for the idea of them. The Sermon on the Mount is the voice of the incarnate love of God calling people to love one another and to a renunciation of everything that gets in the way of that possibility. This must include action in the sphere of the political, because God’s love for the world is not partitioned. To act in accordance with Christ is to recognize that ‘the world is loved, judged and reconciled in Jesus Christ by God’, which is the true reality of things.
Responsibility’ (Verantwornung) is a key notion for Bonhoeffer, and includes the sense of ‘answering’ not perhaps captured in the English word. Bonhoeffer expounds responsibility in terms of Stellevertretung, or ‘vicarious representative action’. Jesus was the model of this type of action in becoming human, in dying as crucified and in the resurrection; and ‘all of life through him is destined to be vicarious representative action’ - to act as a representative of his people, in their stead and for their good. However, Bonhoeffer differentiates Stellevertretung from a self-appointed representation by claiming that only the selfless person is able to act responsibly – as parent, as pastor, as citizen.
5 comments:
The English word "responsibility" also entails the notion of answering -- a "response" is an "answer" and to "respond" is to "answer", after all. One word ("response" from Latin responsus, past participle of respondere = to respond) is latinate the other ("answer" from Old English andswaru, akin to Old Norse andsvar answer and cf. modern German 'Antwort') is Germanic.
This represents a problem with the English language. Ours is a Germanic language with a majority of words of latin origin (often via an older form of French). That means that concepts inherent in words of latinate origin tend not to hit us as hard in the face as those of germanic origin since the former are constructed of essentially "foreign" roots. I am much more at home with the germanic "answer" than I am with "response". And this seems to ring true for the word responsibility.
It should be obvious to a German speaker that smack bang in the middle of the word "Verantwortung" (= responsibility) is the word "Antwort" (= answer). But this is not so obvious in English. We don't see the "answer" ("response") in the latinate "responsibility" the same way we see the "answer" in the germanic "answerability". I wonder how speakers of romance languages, whose word for responsibility is almost identical to English (e.g. French "responsabilité"), see this word. Do French speakers see the "réponse" in "responsabilité" the same way a German speaker would see the "Antwort" in "Verantwortung" or an English speaker sees the "answer" in "answerability" but seems to miss in "responsibility"?
This very point is made by the editors of the English edition of Bonhoeffer's work.
G'day Michael. I've just posted on Oliver O'Donovan's new position at Edinburgh. Since you're studying with O'Donovan at the moment, do you happen to have any extra information about all this, or about his reasons for wanting to make the move to Scotland? The parallels with John Webster seem very striking!
No juicy gossip to share I am afraid other than I think a change will do him good, he feels. He has seven years to go before retiring and whatever gets in the way of him publishing more excellent books should be removed!
Certainly OXford has appointed less confessional theologians and more philosophical theologians of late it has to be said. I don't know OO'D's views on that, and I don't really see how it directly affects him.
Bummer for me, great for Edinburgh!
Thanks, Michael. There's an excellent post about O'Donovan's move here too.
Post a Comment