Wheaton just completed their 21st annual Theology Conference on April 12 and 13, which was dedicated to Dietrich Bonhoeffer. My wife and I gladly attended both evening plenary lectures, the first given by Dr. Stephen Plant on Bonhoeffer's theopolitics and the second by Dr. Charles Marsh on Bonhoeffer's conversion. One question on Thursday night was about the difficulty of reconciling Bonhoeffer's ethical claims about suffering and loving others with his willingness to get involved in the assassination plots of Hitler. As I discussed Plant's answer with another colleague of mine who attended, we were not sure if we found his answer satisfactory. I'll let you find the audio of his lecture on your own as I won't go into his answer here, but this question of consistency has caused me to pause. My question is whether or not a presupposed standard of consistency, which more often than not allows us to identify the inconsistent speck in our brother's eye without noticing or reflecting on the inconsistent log in our own, is a realistic goal. I have always thought that it was a realistic goal, and I certainly am not willing to change my mind yet. However, is consistency something that can even be achieved in the changing world? Eric Metaxas, in his recent biography, has argued that Bonhoeffer's circumstances led him to believe that one cannot simply live by an unchanging set of principles if they want to be obedient to God's call. Bonhoeffer's life highlights the "anxious middle" as Charles Marsh spoke of last night. He was spared from being drafted because he had friends in high places. Many of his confirmands were not as fortunate. What is interesting is that Bonhoeffer still wrote letters of encouragement to his former students who were fighting against the anti-Nazi forces in service of Hitler. Being a conscientous objector, which meant you were weak and traitorous, would have landed these young men in the fast lane to prison, and so some did not resist being drafted. Bonhoeffer tried (and it appears he was quite successful) not to impose on his students the beliefs that were unique to him, which means that he had to be quite aware of himself, a task that is far from easy. And if Plant is right in saying that Bonhoeffer believed he was in some way vicariously taking upon himself the sinful act of assassination and all the deception that came with it, then he was actually sinning so that other would not have to. Bonhoeffer's later years are a display of the life application of Luther's pecca fortiter, sin boldly, which is only successful if the application is matched by a confidence in God as the Justifier; that is, Luther's pecca fortiter only works if you believe in Luther's justification by faith. Bonhoeffer embodies an ethic that resists any extreme position on Christians and politics, whether pacifism or civil responsibility, which is why I am so interested in his life. Maybe consistency is only a virtue for those theologians who fail to put at least one foot in the mess which is the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment