Good read. I don't know much Bonhoeffer, but I do know that he was deeply influenced by Barth. Barth's view of soteriology--which extends to ethics--is inextricable form his view of history and eschatology. To put it simply, there is an emphasis on the immanent (or penultimate dimension to borrow your terminology) that must see itself as necessarily contingent on but simultaneously towards the transcendent (or ultimate). Commentators coin this term as a dialectic existentialism. I can smell this in Bonhoeffer, but what do you think? It reminds me also of Jurgen Moltmann's soteriology--God suffers alongside us insofar as to embody the totality of suffering towards an authentic salvation. Kenosis is not enough--there has to be the encounter of the immanent, phenomenological experience of suffering. The dialectic Christians sidestep this issue by saying that the logic of dialectics do indeed encounter all possible permutations of suffering by virtue of its being universal, transcendent, and absolute. However, circling back to your article on reductionism, could it not be also that each individual experience of suffering is a quantitatively immeasurable phenomenon onto itself? A self-contained universal among universals, perhaps? (Of course this would call into question the position the status of penultimate relative to the ultimate, so this necessitates the need for reframing the ethical roadmap in its entirety). Bonhoeffer's view posits something along the lines of not so much a mutually contingent dialectic, but maybe a reflexive, self-referrential one along the lines of Kierkegaard. Analogous to kenosis, could it be that the penultimate is a mere modality of the ultimate, which instantiates itself reflexively in order to manifest itself as other? Thoughts?
Also, let's not forget the African bull elephant in the room--there seems to be a lot of emphasis on *work* in Bonhoeffer's theology. Rendering the ultimate manifest vis-a-vis the penultimate. Isn't that just dandy? There's a theology of Christians functioning as catalysts and agents of making the kingdom manifest in both an empirical and spiritual sense. I'm tired of all these non-action evangelicals that vibe and just hope God will figure out and act on his salvation plan, and we're along for the ride. The context Bonhoeffer exists in speaks to the necessity of historical agency. This is a theological trend that was popular amongst 20th century theology in continental Europe it seems, as most of them were quite privy to dialectic readings of eschatology and its relation to all facets of Christian life. Isn't that so badass? That we're not merely along for the ride? We're not driving, but we sure as hell could help in planning the route. Wolfhart Pannenberg's dialectical eschatology and Hans Urs von Balthasar's theo-drama come to mind. I'd love to see if Bonhoeffer's ethics are compatible with these ideas.
Astute. Yes, Bonhoeffer drew heavily from Barth and Kierkegaard. In addition, yes, I think Bonhoeffer might agree with the notion of the ultimate instantiating itself through the penultimate in a dialectic, as the final word, so to speak, is indeed the ultimate. However, the manner or “mode” of the ultimate's processional working out through the penultimate is contingent on us, on the Church, in some way. But that, again, the Church begins from the ultimate (from God's Word) and ends with the ultimate (in bodily resurrection and redemption). I'm not sure if I understand all the implications of you saying the penultimate is a “mere” modality, but I think Bonhoeffer would agree insofar as we're still talking about ethics (he understood some metaphysics, but mind you, he was a theologian first and foremost).
As to your elephant in the room, apparently I misrepresented Bonhoeffer, because his emphasis is on “grace.” However, without works, without the penultimate, and without the kenosis of Christ, grace becomes “cheap.” I agree that “Christians function as catalysts and agents of making the kingdom manifest in both an empirical and spiritual sense.”
God's salvation plan is indeed his own. To pretend as though we, finite and flawed as we are, could save ourselves is not only silly, it's unbiblical, and certainly not what Bonhoeffer has in mind. Historical agency and action of the church is a necessity, but we cannot bring the final telos, the ultimate, as though the Church will somehow force all reality to become the ultimate--in your understanding, how could the church, apart from Christ's saving grave, make the World sublate? In other words, I don't think salvation merely equates to “making the world the best place we can make it,” that's no more than humanism. There is a terminus of history. The church does have "the keys to the kingdom of heaven" in that we preach the gospel and bring God's kingdom (the ultimate) to the world (penultimate) while realizing that the penultimate is NOT the ultimate.
I think your mistake, or our misunderstanding, is that I agree, one should have a dialectic reading of eschatology--especially Revelation. That's precisely the point of Bonhoeffer. The future ultimate kingdom, brought solely by Christ, has a massive, reality-shattering ethical/historical effect NOW. So, yes, I think Bonhoeffer is compatible with some of these ideas, but the reason we can act in the world, historically, is because of his Christocentric theology, which includes kenosis, and Lutheran ideas of justification and Grace (although he was ecumenical, he was primarily a Lutheran).
Maybe we end up agreeing, but I want to avoid “cheapening” grace in any way, either by making it purely about our works or by saying we can "vibe along." The answer is not compromise, but a third thing: Christocentrism.
I hadn't thought about Revelation being both the eschatologic telos *and* ethos. That is an excellent and very thought-provoking point. Wow. In hindsight, it seems almost completely absent in the vast majority of Catholic theology afaik (where it is instead reduced to ethos as preparatory for telos; ethos is not at all emphasized to the same extent as telos). That is an awesome point and I honestly can't stop thinking about it, you majestic goober. I'll take this L provisionally; surely you need to concede that on some level Revelation as ethos and Revelation as telos are distinct things that are not identical, right? If they are identical, then at least they are grounded on the same thing, but distinct modally? Or is it that they are one and the same thing (which I may have some trouble understanding at the moment).
Also, it was not my intention to allude to ignore the importance of grace, and any self-respecting Christian would say that grace is an absolutely essential component of all facets of theology. I did not, however, get a good sense of what nature this grace represents (but this may just be a skill issue on my part). Grace is etiologically necessary for both works and faith, for sure. But in the Catholic perspective, there are distinct types of grace. The commonly accepted one is sanctifying grace and actual grace. Sanctifying grace is like a substantial thing--a spiritual disposition that enables the relationship between God and the soul. I think all human beings have this as a sui generis property (Although others believe that this is really only obtained upon the sacramental baptism of a believer into Christianhood.) But actual grace is cultivated, much like virtue is. It's more nebulous in its definition, but I suppose Aquinas would say something along the lines of the propensity to bear witness to how God acts in the lives of believers. Actual grace is, however, not a requirement for salvation. But actual grace is a consequence of living a life with sanctifying grace, which is more important (I admit, Aquinas might not be the best theologian here as he strongly emphasizes theocentrism in his theology; i.e., God the Father is the starting point of inquiry.)
It is my understanding that Bonhoeffer also operates with a similar distinction, albeit with key differences (i.e., cheap grace vs. costly grace). But I'm wondering as to whether this collapses something like sola gratia or sola fide. For Catholics, for example, sanctifying grace is necessary for salvation, but actual grace is only sufficient. I suppose to word the question more succinctly is whether there are any serious soteriological consequences to having cheap grace (i.e., vibing along; God will take care of it; etc.)? What happens if I live a life of cheap grace? Are there degrees of salvation in the sense that I--sorry for being facetious--unlock higher tiers if I live a life of costly grace? Or are the consequences more eccumenical (i.e., weakening the Church)? (Also, I might be misunderstanding the theology of the solas; I forget whether they were sufficient or necessary).
I don't think Bonhoeffer was a universalist. Perhaps it's best to understand that grace (from the Greek Karis) means gift/forgive/give. In that sense, everyone's been given the gift of life and existence. In another sense, God offers salvation (I think) to all as a gift (mysterious), but people can, and do, seemingly mostly, reject this gift. I recently heard a distinction that grace is not unconditional, but unconditioned. In other words, we receive the gift of salvation without deserving it, without merit, but we don't receive it with no strings attached. There are many, many works for us to do. Those works depend on our salvation, salvation doesn't depend on them. Hopefully, that helps. It's still a tension, and I can't solve it in a Substack comment (or at all), but I think that's most helpful. You too, are a majestic goober. God bless
Just stumbled here by accident, and only wanted to note two things.
"He joined an underground, anti-Hitler group called Abwehr..."
-The Abwehr was part of Germany's intelligence apparatus, it's military intelligence service, and was not an "anti-Hitler group." From what I can gather, most biographers describe Bonhoeffer as joining as a "double agent" who gathered and shared information to help the Allies and those in the resistance.
- Wilhelm Franz Canaris, who led the Abwehr while Bonhoeffer was an agent and was executed awith Bonhoeffer, had long been a murderous extreme German nationalist since immediately following WWI, helped organize the Freikorp, and was enthusiastic in his support of the Nazis and Hitler's regime including it's anti-Semitism until the late 1930s. Canaris' opposition and involvement in plans to overthrow Hitler did not reflect the same kind of ethical stance or commitment one finds in Bonhoeffer or other members of the resistance, and his execution hardly would merit the name "accolade." Like other former and perceived former Nazi loyalists, he reaped what he sowed.
Firstly, thank you for reading and engaging with the essay.
Second, when I hit publish on this article, there were exactly two phrases that gave me pause, but I didn't edit for further clarity because of, well, laziness/word count considerations, and you hit on both of them.
You're correct. The Abwehr was a German intelligence agency. Bonhoeffer did join as a kind of double agent (ish), but there more nuance exists. Many officers in the Abwehr agency were secretly against the Hitler/Nazi regime and were a part of the resistance. The SS arrested many agents, and saw them as a competing influence by the end of the power. Dohnányi, an Abwehr agent, led several assassination attempts and coups before the end of the war, and he was one of Bonhoeffer's main connections. As an aside, many in the resistance, including Bonhoeffer, wanted Germany to be treated better than they were by the Treaty of Versailles if they deposed Hitler, but were ultimately given no such assurances from the British. They went ahead anyway. As an added bonus for Bonhoeffer, being a part of the Abwehr meant he wasn't enlisted. In short, I felt justified in summarizing the Abwehr as an "anti-Hitler group," because, by the end of the War, many within the agency were actively trying to overthrow him. I should have been more specific, and I'll make an update to the essay.
Second, I don't know as much about Canaris, but from what I gather on wiki, he was indeed a radical Hitler supporter, but later turned against him (but that it's complicated). I entirely agree, regardless, that my phrasing was unclear. It would also be problematic if my language implied that the millions of Jews who were executed received some kind of “accolade” since they had no choice about it. That's certainly not what I meant. In context, I mean that anyone who had a choice and died for opposing Hitler, especially through and through, from the beginning, like Bonhoeffer, has a kind of historical (spiritual? Ethical?) accolade.
Good read. I don't know much Bonhoeffer, but I do know that he was deeply influenced by Barth. Barth's view of soteriology--which extends to ethics--is inextricable form his view of history and eschatology. To put it simply, there is an emphasis on the immanent (or penultimate dimension to borrow your terminology) that must see itself as necessarily contingent on but simultaneously towards the transcendent (or ultimate). Commentators coin this term as a dialectic existentialism. I can smell this in Bonhoeffer, but what do you think? It reminds me also of Jurgen Moltmann's soteriology--God suffers alongside us insofar as to embody the totality of suffering towards an authentic salvation. Kenosis is not enough--there has to be the encounter of the immanent, phenomenological experience of suffering. The dialectic Christians sidestep this issue by saying that the logic of dialectics do indeed encounter all possible permutations of suffering by virtue of its being universal, transcendent, and absolute. However, circling back to your article on reductionism, could it not be also that each individual experience of suffering is a quantitatively immeasurable phenomenon onto itself? A self-contained universal among universals, perhaps? (Of course this would call into question the position the status of penultimate relative to the ultimate, so this necessitates the need for reframing the ethical roadmap in its entirety). Bonhoeffer's view posits something along the lines of not so much a mutually contingent dialectic, but maybe a reflexive, self-referrential one along the lines of Kierkegaard. Analogous to kenosis, could it be that the penultimate is a mere modality of the ultimate, which instantiates itself reflexively in order to manifest itself as other? Thoughts?
Also, let's not forget the African bull elephant in the room--there seems to be a lot of emphasis on *work* in Bonhoeffer's theology. Rendering the ultimate manifest vis-a-vis the penultimate. Isn't that just dandy? There's a theology of Christians functioning as catalysts and agents of making the kingdom manifest in both an empirical and spiritual sense. I'm tired of all these non-action evangelicals that vibe and just hope God will figure out and act on his salvation plan, and we're along for the ride. The context Bonhoeffer exists in speaks to the necessity of historical agency. This is a theological trend that was popular amongst 20th century theology in continental Europe it seems, as most of them were quite privy to dialectic readings of eschatology and its relation to all facets of Christian life. Isn't that so badass? That we're not merely along for the ride? We're not driving, but we sure as hell could help in planning the route. Wolfhart Pannenberg's dialectical eschatology and Hans Urs von Balthasar's theo-drama come to mind. I'd love to see if Bonhoeffer's ethics are compatible with these ideas.
https://preview.redd.it/adt05b807zu61.png?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=248ce278e9a0c552158e816ca34dd9c3f578f09f
Astute. Yes, Bonhoeffer drew heavily from Barth and Kierkegaard. In addition, yes, I think Bonhoeffer might agree with the notion of the ultimate instantiating itself through the penultimate in a dialectic, as the final word, so to speak, is indeed the ultimate. However, the manner or “mode” of the ultimate's processional working out through the penultimate is contingent on us, on the Church, in some way. But that, again, the Church begins from the ultimate (from God's Word) and ends with the ultimate (in bodily resurrection and redemption). I'm not sure if I understand all the implications of you saying the penultimate is a “mere” modality, but I think Bonhoeffer would agree insofar as we're still talking about ethics (he understood some metaphysics, but mind you, he was a theologian first and foremost).
As to your elephant in the room, apparently I misrepresented Bonhoeffer, because his emphasis is on “grace.” However, without works, without the penultimate, and without the kenosis of Christ, grace becomes “cheap.” I agree that “Christians function as catalysts and agents of making the kingdom manifest in both an empirical and spiritual sense.”
God's salvation plan is indeed his own. To pretend as though we, finite and flawed as we are, could save ourselves is not only silly, it's unbiblical, and certainly not what Bonhoeffer has in mind. Historical agency and action of the church is a necessity, but we cannot bring the final telos, the ultimate, as though the Church will somehow force all reality to become the ultimate--in your understanding, how could the church, apart from Christ's saving grave, make the World sublate? In other words, I don't think salvation merely equates to “making the world the best place we can make it,” that's no more than humanism. There is a terminus of history. The church does have "the keys to the kingdom of heaven" in that we preach the gospel and bring God's kingdom (the ultimate) to the world (penultimate) while realizing that the penultimate is NOT the ultimate.
I think your mistake, or our misunderstanding, is that I agree, one should have a dialectic reading of eschatology--especially Revelation. That's precisely the point of Bonhoeffer. The future ultimate kingdom, brought solely by Christ, has a massive, reality-shattering ethical/historical effect NOW. So, yes, I think Bonhoeffer is compatible with some of these ideas, but the reason we can act in the world, historically, is because of his Christocentric theology, which includes kenosis, and Lutheran ideas of justification and Grace (although he was ecumenical, he was primarily a Lutheran).
Maybe we end up agreeing, but I want to avoid “cheapening” grace in any way, either by making it purely about our works or by saying we can "vibe along." The answer is not compromise, but a third thing: Christocentrism.
Thoughts?
I hadn't thought about Revelation being both the eschatologic telos *and* ethos. That is an excellent and very thought-provoking point. Wow. In hindsight, it seems almost completely absent in the vast majority of Catholic theology afaik (where it is instead reduced to ethos as preparatory for telos; ethos is not at all emphasized to the same extent as telos). That is an awesome point and I honestly can't stop thinking about it, you majestic goober. I'll take this L provisionally; surely you need to concede that on some level Revelation as ethos and Revelation as telos are distinct things that are not identical, right? If they are identical, then at least they are grounded on the same thing, but distinct modally? Or is it that they are one and the same thing (which I may have some trouble understanding at the moment).
Also, it was not my intention to allude to ignore the importance of grace, and any self-respecting Christian would say that grace is an absolutely essential component of all facets of theology. I did not, however, get a good sense of what nature this grace represents (but this may just be a skill issue on my part). Grace is etiologically necessary for both works and faith, for sure. But in the Catholic perspective, there are distinct types of grace. The commonly accepted one is sanctifying grace and actual grace. Sanctifying grace is like a substantial thing--a spiritual disposition that enables the relationship between God and the soul. I think all human beings have this as a sui generis property (Although others believe that this is really only obtained upon the sacramental baptism of a believer into Christianhood.) But actual grace is cultivated, much like virtue is. It's more nebulous in its definition, but I suppose Aquinas would say something along the lines of the propensity to bear witness to how God acts in the lives of believers. Actual grace is, however, not a requirement for salvation. But actual grace is a consequence of living a life with sanctifying grace, which is more important (I admit, Aquinas might not be the best theologian here as he strongly emphasizes theocentrism in his theology; i.e., God the Father is the starting point of inquiry.)
It is my understanding that Bonhoeffer also operates with a similar distinction, albeit with key differences (i.e., cheap grace vs. costly grace). But I'm wondering as to whether this collapses something like sola gratia or sola fide. For Catholics, for example, sanctifying grace is necessary for salvation, but actual grace is only sufficient. I suppose to word the question more succinctly is whether there are any serious soteriological consequences to having cheap grace (i.e., vibing along; God will take care of it; etc.)? What happens if I live a life of cheap grace? Are there degrees of salvation in the sense that I--sorry for being facetious--unlock higher tiers if I live a life of costly grace? Or are the consequences more eccumenical (i.e., weakening the Church)? (Also, I might be misunderstanding the theology of the solas; I forget whether they were sufficient or necessary).
I don't think Bonhoeffer was a universalist. Perhaps it's best to understand that grace (from the Greek Karis) means gift/forgive/give. In that sense, everyone's been given the gift of life and existence. In another sense, God offers salvation (I think) to all as a gift (mysterious), but people can, and do, seemingly mostly, reject this gift. I recently heard a distinction that grace is not unconditional, but unconditioned. In other words, we receive the gift of salvation without deserving it, without merit, but we don't receive it with no strings attached. There are many, many works for us to do. Those works depend on our salvation, salvation doesn't depend on them. Hopefully, that helps. It's still a tension, and I can't solve it in a Substack comment (or at all), but I think that's most helpful. You too, are a majestic goober. God bless
Just stumbled here by accident, and only wanted to note two things.
"He joined an underground, anti-Hitler group called Abwehr..."
-The Abwehr was part of Germany's intelligence apparatus, it's military intelligence service, and was not an "anti-Hitler group." From what I can gather, most biographers describe Bonhoeffer as joining as a "double agent" who gathered and shared information to help the Allies and those in the resistance.
- Wilhelm Franz Canaris, who led the Abwehr while Bonhoeffer was an agent and was executed awith Bonhoeffer, had long been a murderous extreme German nationalist since immediately following WWI, helped organize the Freikorp, and was enthusiastic in his support of the Nazis and Hitler's regime including it's anti-Semitism until the late 1930s. Canaris' opposition and involvement in plans to overthrow Hitler did not reflect the same kind of ethical stance or commitment one finds in Bonhoeffer or other members of the resistance, and his execution hardly would merit the name "accolade." Like other former and perceived former Nazi loyalists, he reaped what he sowed.
Hey Charles,
Firstly, thank you for reading and engaging with the essay.
Second, when I hit publish on this article, there were exactly two phrases that gave me pause, but I didn't edit for further clarity because of, well, laziness/word count considerations, and you hit on both of them.
You're correct. The Abwehr was a German intelligence agency. Bonhoeffer did join as a kind of double agent (ish), but there more nuance exists. Many officers in the Abwehr agency were secretly against the Hitler/Nazi regime and were a part of the resistance. The SS arrested many agents, and saw them as a competing influence by the end of the power. Dohnányi, an Abwehr agent, led several assassination attempts and coups before the end of the war, and he was one of Bonhoeffer's main connections. As an aside, many in the resistance, including Bonhoeffer, wanted Germany to be treated better than they were by the Treaty of Versailles if they deposed Hitler, but were ultimately given no such assurances from the British. They went ahead anyway. As an added bonus for Bonhoeffer, being a part of the Abwehr meant he wasn't enlisted. In short, I felt justified in summarizing the Abwehr as an "anti-Hitler group," because, by the end of the War, many within the agency were actively trying to overthrow him. I should have been more specific, and I'll make an update to the essay.
Second, I don't know as much about Canaris, but from what I gather on wiki, he was indeed a radical Hitler supporter, but later turned against him (but that it's complicated). I entirely agree, regardless, that my phrasing was unclear. It would also be problematic if my language implied that the millions of Jews who were executed received some kind of “accolade” since they had no choice about it. That's certainly not what I meant. In context, I mean that anyone who had a choice and died for opposing Hitler, especially through and through, from the beginning, like Bonhoeffer, has a kind of historical (spiritual? Ethical?) accolade.
Thanks for the thoughtful corrections.
Have a great Sunday!
Enjoyed the article! Bonhoeffer is everywhere on social media right now, but theology is not my bag so I appreciated your break down of his ethics.