The hungry

678 The Hungry Man and I

To allow the hungry man to remain hungry would be blasphemy against God and one’s neighbor, for what is nearest to God is precisely the need of one’s neighbor. It is for the love of Christ, which belongs as much to the hungry man as to myself, that I share my bread with him and that I share my dwelling with the homeless. If the hungry man does not attain to faith, then the fault falls on those who refused him bread. To provide the hungry man with bread is to prepare the way for the coming of grace.—Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Hymns for the Family of God

A Morning Prayer

103 Morning Prayer

O God,
Early in the morning do I cry unto Thee
Help me to pray,
And to think only of Thee
I cannot pray alone

In me there is darkness,
But with Thee there is light.
I am lonely, but Thou leavest me not.
I am feeble in heart, but Thou leavest me not.
I am restless, but with Thee there is peace.
In me there is bitterness, but with Thee there is patience;
Thy ways are past understanding, but
Thou knowest the way for me.

O heavenly Father,
I praise and thank Thee
For the peace of the night.
I praise and thank Thee for this new day.
I praise and thank Thee for all Thy goodness
and faithfulness throughout my life.
Thou hast granted me many blessings:
Now let me accept tribulation
from Thy hand.
Thou wilt not lay on me more than I can bear.
Thou makest all things work together for good
for Thy children.
—Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Hymns for the Family of God

Quantity vs. Quality

Quality is the strongest foe of every kind of leveling of society. Socially this means abandoning the pursuit of position, breaking with the star cult, an opening out upward and downward particularly in connection with the choice of one’s friends, a delight in private life and courage for public life. Culturally the experience of quality signals a return from the newspaper and radio to the book, from haste to leisure and stillness, from distraction to composure, from the sensational to reflection, from idealized virtuosity to art, from snobbery to modesty, from extravagance to moderation. Quantities compete for space; qualities complement one another.—Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in After Ten Years, 27

<idle musing>
He could be writing that today, couldn't he?

That's the final quotation from that short little book. I highly encourage you to read the whole thing; it's only about 34 pages long, including the introduction. But it's a high-charged 34 pages!
</idle musing>

Good out of bad (Bonhoeffer)

I believe that God can and will let good come out of everything, even the greatest evil. For that to happen, God needs human beings who let everything work out for the best. I believe that in every moment of distress God will give us as much strength to resist as we need. But it is not given to us in advance, lest we rely on ourselves and not on God alone. In such faith all fear of the future should be overcome. I believe that even our mistakes and shortcomings are not in vain and that it is no more difficult for God to deal with them than with our supposedly good deeds. I believe that God is no timeless fate but waits for and responds to sincere prayer and responsible actions.—Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in After Ten Years, 25

The danger of contempt

The danger of allowing ourselves to be driven to contempt for humanity is very real. We know very well that we have no right to let this happen and that it would lead us into the most unfruitful relation to human beings. The following thoughts may protect us against this temptation: through contempt for humanity we fall victim precisely to our opponents’ chief errors. Whoever despises another human being will never be able to make anything of him. Nothing of what we despise in another is itself foreign to us. How often do we expect more of the other than what we ourselves are willing to accomplish? Why is it that we have hitherto thought with so little sobriety about the temptability and frailty of human beings? We must learn to regard human beings less in terms of what they do and neglect to do, and more in terms of what they suffer. The only fruitful relation to human beings—particularly to the weak among them—is love, that is, the will to enter into and to keep community with them. God did not hold human beings in contempt but became human for their sake.—Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in After Ten Years, 24

<idle musing>
He hits the nail on the head with this one! When we dehumanize our opponents, we do unto them just as they are doing unto us. The inverse of the Golden Rule! And the inverse of what God did in Christ. May we always remember that...
</idle musing>

Herein lies the danger

[I]t seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances. The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.—Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in After Ten Years, 23

A famous quotation and its missing context

Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind at least a sense of unease in human beings. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believe—in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical—and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.—Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in After Ten Years, 22

<idle musing>
This is probably one of the most famous quotations from Bonhoeffer. But, it is usually just thrown out there without any context and without the following paragraph.

If we want to know how to get the better of stupidity, we must seek to understand its nature. This much is certain, that in essence it is not an intellectual defect but a human one. There are human beings who are of remarkably agile intellect yet stupid, and others who are intellectually quite dull yet anything but stupid. We discover this to our surprise in particular situations. The impression one gains is not so much that stupidity is a congenital defect but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or that they allow this to happen to them.

Did you catch that? He isn't saying that stupidity is an intellectual problem. Stupidity is a learned behavior in response to situations.

Being sensitive to the Holy Spirit can keep us from being stupid. As we walk in his power, we can walk in love, which is the exact opposite of stupid. Sure, we can make dumb decisions and mistakes, but that's not being stupid...

Just an
</idle musing>

Attacking the red cape

The fanatic believes that he can meet the power of evil with the purity of a principle. But like the bull in the arena, he attacks the red cape rather than the person carrying it, grows tired, and suffers defeat. He becomes entrapped in nonessentials and is caught in the trap of the cleverer one.—Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in After Ten Years, 19

For the sake of the common good

In whatever particular historical moment we find ourselves, we are summoned to determine what our place in history will be, to think and act beyond our self-interest for the sake of a common good: not just the common good of the moment, our particular political group, or even our society, but of our times—to act, as Bonhoeffer put it, on behalf of history itself and for the sake of future generations and the kind of society we would wish for them.—Victoria J. Barnett in Dietrich Bonhoeffer, After Ten Years, 16

A consistent pacifistic christoform hermeneutic

Bonhoeffer operated with one of the most consistently pacifistic christoform hermeneutics in the history of the church. But it was a hermeneutic, not a rule. As a hermeneutic it had to be worked out in specific contexts and I turn now to explore a christoform hermeneutic in the face of dying for others, perhaps the most exacting explication in the history of the church on what elf-denial as participation in Christ means. Here we find utter Christoformity.

Bonhoeffer was against rule-making. Discernment — rather than law-making or undeviating principle-formation — was his method of knowing what to do in a concrete situation.—Scot McKnight, The Audacity of Peace, 66–67

Bonhoeffer and the suffering of God

For Bonhoeffer, “our God is a suffering God”—one who bears our sin, pain, and anguish. The deepest meaning of the cross of Christ is that there is no suffering on earth that is not also borne by God. The church, for Bonhoeffer, is the continuing presence of the suffering Christ in history, a body of persons called to share in the messianic suffering of God by being there for others, carrying their burdens and thus fulfilling the duty laid on them by Christ himself. It is through suffering that Christians learn to turn the final outcome of their actions over to God, who alone can perfect them in glory. And it is in dying that they find true freedom as they meet God face to face. A suffering God, according to Bonhoeffer, has not abandoned his people. Far from it; he stands by them as a fellow-sufferer, and will bring them home to a place from which suffering and pain have been removed.—Alister McGrath, Theology: The Basics (2nd ed.), 16

Cheap grace?

Most of the confusion about the gospel in our contemporary church culture stems from a failure to see that “Jesus is the king” is the high point of the good news. In a “salvation culture” it may be eagerly acknowledged that “Jesus is Lord,” but Jesus’s cross is what saves us, not his resurrection or lordship, so that lordship can be freely ignored without risking salvation. This is a dangerous error. A “gospel culture,” on the other hand, recognizes that “Jesus is king” is integral to the good news itself, affirming that we indeed are saved by Jesus’s sacrifice and resurrection, but these are only personally effective when allegiance to Jesus as king forges a union with him.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 199

<idle musing>
Bonhoeffer had a word for that: Cheap grace. Which isn't really grace at all; it is presumption. And it cheapens the cross and makes a mockery of Christianity.
</idle musing>

Recently read

Over the weekend, I read Women and Power by Mary Beard. I saw it at the local used bookstore (Fair Trade Books) and grabbed it on Friday. It's a short little book, barely 100 pages with the appendix. Unfortunately, it's not one that you can easily extract short little thoughts from, so you won't see any snippets here. But, do take the time to read it. Highly recommended!

Going back to last month, on the way to the atla conference in Vancouver, I read The Battle for Bonhoeffer. I saw it a the AAR/SBL conference last November and begged a copy from Andrew Knapp, the acquisitions editor (and former Eisenbrauns employee). Again, it doesn't lend itself to extracts—or maybe the fact that I was on a plane made me less willing to extract! At any rate, here's what I told Andrew about the book in an email thanking him for it:

It’s a great book! Very balanced. I guess I must have been living in a bubble, because I wasn’t aware of the pre-Metaxus use of Bonhoeffer by the right-wing. I just remember that when I first became a Christian back in 1972, I was warned to stay away from him—which of course means I read him and loved him. I assumed that was the default position of most conservative Evangelicals.

Those of you who have followed this blog over the years might remember that I extracted from Ethics as I was reading it. You can see all the posts here.

Speaking of Bonhoeffer, I finally completed my set last month, taking advantage of the atla conference discount. So now I have a complete set of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Works in English, even the index volume! Now, to find the time to read them all. . .

On the return flight from atla, I read Christians in Caesar’s Household: The Emperors’ Slaves in the Makings of Christianity, the first book in the series Inventing Christianity. It's a good book, but I think he's a bit pessimistic about the number of Christian convert's in the imperial household. That being said, it is a healthy corrective to the habit of too many in finding converts on every grave marker. He looks at the grave inscriptions that are considered "Christian" and points out the flawed logic behind that identification. A must-read if you are specializing in early Christian history.

Right now, as you know from the recent posts, I'm working my way through The Unfavored. And I'm also reading New Testament Christological Hymns, another book I picked up at AAR/SBL last year. You will (hopefully) see extracts here after I finish The Unfavored. I have other books at various stages of being read, but those the two I'm really reading. Well, the books I'm editing, too, of course. Some of those end up being extracted on this site, too.

Bonhoeffer's birthday

Tomorrow (Sunday) is Bonhoeffer's birthday. In anticipation, Englewood Review of Books has posted a few excerpts from his collected works.

Here's the first one, but the other ones are well-worth the reading, as well.

What is the meaning of weakness in this world? We all know that Christianity has been blamed ever since its early days for its message to the weak. Christianity is a religion of slaves, of people with inferiority complexes; it owes its success only to the masses of miserable people whose weakness and misery Christianity has glorified. It was the attitude towards the problem of weakness in the world, which made everybody to followers or enemies of Christianity. Against the new meaning which Christianity gave to the weak, against this glorification of weakness, there has always been the strong and indignant protest of an aristocratic philosophy of life which glorified strength and power and violence as the ultimate ideals of humanity. We have observed this very fight going on up to our present days. Christianity stands or falls with its revolutionary protest against violence, arbitrariness and pride of power and with its apologia for the weak. – I feel that Christianity is rather doing too little in showing these points than doing too much. Christianity has adjusted itself much too easily to the worship of power. It should give much more offence, more shock to the world, than it is doing. Christianity should take a much more definite stand for the weak than to consider the potential moral right of the strong.—Sermon on 2 Corinthians 12:9, London, 1934 in Works, Vol 13, 402-3 (emphasis added by Englewood)

Far too common

A church in which only grace is being preached not only reminds us of the temple cult in Amos’s day (cf. Amos 5:21–23) but is a place where sins are easily covered. It is a place where people do not repent of their wrongdoing and certainly do not wish to be freed from their sins (why should they, if God forgives them anyway?). “Cheap grace is justification of the sins and not the sinner.”[fn. My translation of “Billige Gnade heisst Rechtfertigung der Sünde und nicht des Sünders.” By Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “Nachfolge: DBW 3] Ignorance, sloth, or a self- serving theology are clear symptoms of a theology of cheap grace.—Standing in the Breach, page 502

The cross beckons us

The Sermon on the Mount is not law that can save us; it is, rather, the texture of the life of those who have died with Christ and are now made alive with him through resurrection (e.g., blessed are those who mourn, who hunger and thirst for righteousness, who turn the other cheek, etc.). The disciple is called to the cross, to come and follow Jesus into death. And this is not because Jesus’s call seeks masochism, but rather because Jesus’s call is the gift of giving us new life through the Stellvertretung (the place-sharing) of Jesus’s very person. The disciple is called to the cross because it is from the cross that Jesus calls us, calling us to carry our cross, calling us to love the person of our neighbor in and through suffering of the cross that they bear.—Bonhoeffer as Youth Worker, page 189

Costly Grace

Grace is costly, then, not because it is an idea; it is no principle, program, or doctrine. Grace is costly because it is a person; it is the very Christ who calls us. Jesus’s person is the living reality of grace itself. And because it is a person who calls us to come and follow, it is not base in our own works, it is not based in the power of the human will to create for itself. Grace is based solely on the encounter with the person who lives and calls us to himself through love and life.

Christian faith is no “idea”; it is, at its core, first and finally, a person. Christian faith exists not through its ideas, institutional programs, principles, and doctrines, but only because the person of Jesus Christ lives and continues to call us, even today, Bonhoeffer would say, beckoning our young people to come and Nachfolgen, to come and follow. Christian faith is not believing in the ideas of Christianity, but following the person of the living Christ.—Bonhoeffer as Youth Worker, page 182

More than head knowledge

Bonhoeffer was aware that the situation in which these young pastors would find themselves in the future would be one of great challenge, a test that could be met not by sheer intellectual book knowledge but only through a deep theological commitment that formed in them a rich spirituality. Bonhoeffer pushed them academically, bringing to bear the full weight of his academic credentials. But he did not do so outside of prayer, meditation, and confession. The student needed to encounter the living Christ as much as learn about him. Bonhoeffer would not settle for theology in his school but demanded a move into the theological, into concrete spiritual experiences of the living Christ.—Bonhoeffer as Youth Worker, pages 140-141

<idle musing>
And that is one of the reasons I like Bonhoeffer so much. His theology is rooted and grounded in the practical.
</idle musing>

But where is he?

He [Bonhoeffer] asserted in his dissertation and embodied in his ministry that it is not in the institution of the church that Jesus Christ is found, but in the communion of persons that we encounter the living Christ among us. Jesus is not found in the bricks and mortar of the church, or even in its ideologies and positions. Jesus Christ is found in the meeting and sharing in persons; we encounter the living Christ concretely in the life-community of the church.—Bonhoeffer as Youth Worker, page 123

Fear not!

Anxiety, as neuropsychologists today tell us, is toxic; our brains are wired to avoid anxiety. Anxiety corrupts the chemistry of the brain and leads us to depart (emotionally or physically) from the others to protect ourselves. Jesus’s words to his disciples “to fear not” (Luke 8:50 NRSV) become of utmost significance. Anxiety is so acidic that it is nearly impossible to have relationship, to be a place-sharer, where the air is poisoned with it.—Bonhoeffer as Youth Worker, page 100