Upload
ryan-hayes
View
220
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/29/2019 Mystery and Reality in Bonhoeffer's Ethics
1/23
LETTING REALITY BECOME REAL
On Mystery and Reality inDietrich Bonhoeffers Ethicsjore_479 321..343
Ulrik Becker Nissen
ABSTRACT
In Dietrich Bonhoeffers Ethics the notion of reality plays a central role.
The present article focuses on the ethical implications of the Chalce-donian Christology underlying this concept. This approach is tied to the
debate on the relationship between the universal and specific identity of
Christian social ethics in public discourse. In the opening section the
article outlines the pertinence of this debate with regard to Bonhoeffers
Christological ethic. In the following section the article analyzes Bonho-
effers concept of reality and the implied Chalcedonian traits. With this
foundation established the article raises the question about its social
ethical implications. The final part of the article argues that Bonhoeffers
ethics and ecclesiology cannot be separated from each other, explaining
why Bonhoeffers notion of reality leads to an assertion of the churchs
role in letting reality become real. In the light of Bonhoeffers notion of
reality the last section argues for the reconciliation of Christian witness
and participation in public discourse.
KEY WORDS: Dietrich Bonhoeffer, reality, social ethics, liberal democracy,
Chalcedonian Christology, Christian witness, universality, specificity
1. Introduction
The foundations of Christian ethics must be evangelical founda-
tions; or, to put it more simply, Christian ethics must arise from the
gospel of Jesus Christ. Otherwise it could not be Christian ethics
(ODonovan 1994, 11, emphasis in original). Forthright in its designa-
tion of the identifying signature of Christian ethics, ODonovan makes
a point one is well advised to consider. At one level it is simply a logical
point, but at another, deeper level, it is a fundamental and substantial
claim. Logically, it does not make sense to separate any ethical position
from its identifying origins, in this case Christian ethics from the good
news of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. More sub-
stantially, this claim points to the foundation of Christian ethics and
implies the material dimension of this identifying signature. Even if
JRE 39.2:321343. 2011 Journal of Religious Ethics, Inc.
7/29/2019 Mystery and Reality in Bonhoeffer's Ethics
2/23
only stated implicitly, the argument is that one cannot show the
meaning and significance of Christian ethics if it is isolated from the
Christ event. Even if one may agree with ODonovan on this point, it
also raises the question of the universality of the Christian ethicapoint which is also of central concern to ODonovan in his Resurrection
and the Moral Order. Throughout this book ODonovan argues that the
resurrection of Christ implies an affirmation of created order. For
ODonovan the ethics of the kingdom and the ethics of creation are
not to be understood in contrast to each other. Rather, the former
implies an affirmation of the latter.
[T]he very act of God which ushers in his kingdom is the resurrection of
Christ from the dead, the reaffirmation of creation. . . . In the resurrec-tion of Christ creation is restored and the kingdom of God dawns. Ethics
which starts from this point may sometimes emphasize the newness,
sometimes the primitiveness of the order that is there affirmed. But it
will not be tempted to overthrow or deny either in the name of the other
[1994, 15].
This discussion of the relationship between the specific and universal
dimension of Christian ethics is both a classical and a contemporary
debate. One of the reasons for the renewed necessity of this debate in
a contemporary context is the question about the role of religious voices(in this case Christian ethics) in public discourse, which has been a
highly debated issue in recent years. Some of the most prominent
contributors to this debate are John Rawls (1996; 1997) and Stanley
Hauerwas (for example, Hauerwas 1981)each marking polar oppo-
sites. Whereas Rawls argues for a liberal democratic assertion of public
reason, Hauerwas emphasizes the formative role of the church and how
this role may be at odds with the fundamental premises of liberal
democracy. The present article aims to contribute to this general
debate about the role of Christian ethics in a public discourse. Its pointof departure, however, is the Lutheran tradition, as Lutheranism is
particularly prone to a potential dichotomy between Christian ethics
and public discourse.1
This article wishes to argue that it is an essential challenge to the
truthfulness of Christian ethics to neglect either the universal or
specific dimension of a religious voice in the public discourse. Part of
this argument is to contribute to a position where it is possible to
maintain both at the same time. Hereby the article seeks to place itself
close to the positions delineated by, for example, Jeffrey Stout and
1See, for example, Ulrik B. Nissen 2004 and Tage Kurtn 2007 for relatively recent
analyses and critique of dichotomous approaches to Luther and the Lutheran tradition
on this question.
322 Journal of Religious Ethics
7/29/2019 Mystery and Reality in Bonhoeffer's Ethics
3/23
Nigel Biggar. Even if their argumentative premises are different, both
of these authors argue for a conversational model for public discourse.
Whereas Stout argues for a discursive or expressive rationality shaped
by the virtues of democracy (2005, 1011), Biggar opts for a polyglotliberalism (2009b).2 Both authors maintain a position between liberal-
ism and traditionalismterms that may be viewed as somewhat
similar to universalism and specificity, which I am striving to reconcile.
In making the distinction between the universal and specific, I do not
differentiate sharply between the terms universal or common, nor
am I drawing a sharp line between the specific or particular aspect
of Christian ethics. Whereas the former is simply seen as that which
a Christian ethic shares with worldviews or viewpoints different from
itself, the latter is seen as that which is derived more explicitly froma Christian foundation and possibly differs from other views. In pur-
suing this universality and specificity at the same time, the article
hopes to contribute to what may be called a Chalcedonian understand-
ing of Christian social ethics. In pursuing this Chalcedonian motif,
however, the article does not go into detailed historical or dogmatic
analyses of a Chalcedonian Christology, nor is it concerned with dif-
ferent church traditions understandings of this issue. Rather, Chalce-
donian Christology is used in a general sense, inspired by the central
formulation that the two natures of Christ are without confusion,change, division, or separation. The article uses this formulation as an
inspiration in its argument for a unity and difference of the universal
and specific identity of Christian social ethics at the same time. In
taking this approach to the notion of Christian social ethics, the article
furthers the contribution by Franklin Sherman (1964), who argued for
a similar understanding.
The following discussion of the universal and specific identification
of Christian ethics will be raised in the light of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.3
The focus will be his Ethics as the culmination of his theology andthereby a hermeneutical key to his theology in general.4 Other writings
2See also Biggars critical discussion of Stout and others in a recent essay (2009a).
Biggars recent book (2011) is highly relevant for the article, but unfortunately it
appeared too late to be included in any substantial way.3
Including Bonhoeffer in the aim of critically assessing the Lutheran traditions
understanding of the relation between universality and specificity in its social ethics
presumes, of course, a reading of Bonhoeffer as Lutheran. It would lead too far in thepresent context to make this argument. Instead, I refer the reader to a recent article,
where Bonhoeffers Lutheran background and theology is endorsed (Krtke 2008).4
The references to Bonhoeffer primarily refer to the volumes in the German original
edition of his collected works in the series Dietrich Bonhoeffer Werke (DBW). Quotations
in the text are taken from the English translation (DBWE) currently under publication.
Letting Reality Become Real 323
7/29/2019 Mystery and Reality in Bonhoeffer's Ethics
4/23
of Bonhoeffer will be discussed only when necessary.5 Within the
discussion of Bonhoeffers Ethics the focal point will be his understand-
ing of reality, as this is both an essential concept for his ethics and a
concept fundamentally shaped by the Christological understandingunderlying the entirety of his works.6 In the analysis of Bonhoeffers
notion of reality, I hope to shed light on the thesis that Bonhoeffers
understanding of reality is shaped by a Chalcedonian Christology and
as such implies an affirmation of the universal and specific dimension
of Christian ethics at the same timeand that this understanding
holds essential implications for the understanding of social ethics and
the role of the churchs witness in a public sphere. The argument for
this thesis comes in three steps: The first part of the argument is an
analysis of Bonhoeffers understanding of reality. Here I attempt todemonstrate that even if we can find particular aspects of this concept
(such as the spatial, temporal, and ontological), the overarching idea is
the Chalcedonian differentiated unity of the universal and specific
identity. As this differentiated unity holds fundamental implications for
the identity of Christian ethics in a public discourse; the second part of
the argument turns to an assessment of these inferences. That section
raises the question, what does the Chalcedonian understanding of
reality found in part one (exemplified in the spatial, temporal, and
ontological dimension) imply for Bonhoeffers social ethics? After pon-dering this question, the article turns to the third and last step of the
argument, where the focus is on the churchs role in the world, which
is an issue closely linked to the two previous parts. If Bonhoeffer
argues for a differentiated unity of the universal and particular dimen-
sion of Christian ethics, this implies that one can also take a particular
stance and yet see this as an affirmation of the universal dimension.
This is the question in the third part, where we will ask, can Bonho-
effer argue for a positive role of the church in the public realm and yet
maintain the universal dimension?Methodologically, the present article employs both an analytic and a
more constructive approach. In the first part of the article the main
concern is to determine what Bonhoeffer means by reality. As such,
this part is based on an immanent reading of Bonhoeffers own writ-
ings. This will serve as the background for the second part of the
articlethe analysis of the socialethical implications Bonhoeffer
draws from this understanding of reality. The last part of the article
5
See, for example, Clifford Green 2002 for a substantiation of this hermeneuticalapproach to Bonhoeffer.
6The focus in this article is not on the concept of reality in general, but more
specifically how Bonhoeffer understands this notion. For an overview of reality as a
concept more generally, the reader is kindly referred to, for example, Krtke 2005 and
Janke 2004.
324 Journal of Religious Ethics
7/29/2019 Mystery and Reality in Bonhoeffer's Ethics
5/23
will turn to a more constructive reflection on the significance of
Bonhoeffers views in a contemporary context and how the social and
ecclesiological motifs in Bonhoeffers ethics substantiate the idea of
letting reality become real. This approach will be undertaken in adialogue with contemporary contributions to a Christian social ethic.
2. What Does Reality Mean for Bonhoeffer?
When we turn to Bonhoeffers understanding of reality in his Ethics,
we will not go far before seeing that a central concern for him is to
argue that there is only one realitythe Christ-reality. In this notion
Bonhoeffer finds the reality of God and the reality of the world affirmed
at the same time:
There are not two realities, but only one reality, and that is Gods reality
revealed in Christ in the reality of the world. Partaking in Christ, we
stand at the same time in the reality of God and in the reality of the
world. The reality of Christ embraces the reality of the world in itself.
The world has no reality of its own independent of Gods revelation in
Christ. It is a denial of Gods revelation in Jesus Christ to wish to be
Christian without being worldly or [to] wish to be worldly without
seeing and recognizing the world in Christ. Hence there are not two
realms, but only the one realm of the Christ-reality [Christuswirklichkeit],in which the reality of God and the reality of the world are united [DBWE
6, 58; DBW 6, 43, emphasis in original].
For Bonhoeffer the Christ-reality is a differentiated unity of the reality
of God and the reality of the world. Neither is understood separate
from the other or identified with the other. Rather, it is an appreciation
and affirmation of both realities in the same reality at the same time.
Therefore, Bonhoeffer argues that one cannot be Christian without
being worldly simultaneously. As the reality of Christ embraces the
reality of the world, the Christian is never separated from the world,nor is the world separated from Christ.
The understanding of the inseparability of the reality of God and the
reality of the world is closely related to Bonhoeffers anthropology. This
relationship is apparent when he relates these deliberations to his
understanding of human beings as indivisible wholes and links his
understanding to the concept of reality as the source of good:
Human beings are indivisible wholes, not only as individuals in both
their person and work, but also as members of the human and created
community to which they belong. It is this indivisible whole, that is, this
reality grounded and recognized in God, that the question of good has in
view. . . . To participate in the indivisible whole of Gods reality is the
meaning of the Christian question about the good [DBWE 6, 53; DBW 6,
38, emphasis in original].
Letting Reality Become Real 325
7/29/2019 Mystery and Reality in Bonhoeffer's Ethics
6/23
Following a summary critique of the positivist-empiricist and ideal-
istic approach, Bonhoeffer turns to the Christian ethical perspective.7
Here, Bonhoeffer claims that in Christian ethics reality is understood
as an ultimate reality [letzte Wirklichkeit] beyond and in all that exists.The notion of reality is fundamentally linked to the reality of God and
Gods self-revelation in Jesus Christ. It is in the reality of God as it has
been revealed in the real world in Jesus Christ that the reality of God
proves not to be just another idea. Bonhoeffer refers to the Christo-
logical hymn in St. Pauls letter to the Colossians (1:17) to suggest that
in Christ all things exist. Therefore, it makes no sense to speak of
reality separate from Jesus Christ. All concepts of reality that ignore
Jesus Christ are abstractions (DBWE 6, 54; DBW 6, 39). Conse-
quently, Bonhoeffer also rejects the idea that is and ought are to beregarded as opposing categories. This distinction is overcome in Jesus
Christ, where the good has become reality. The irreconcilable opposi-
tion of ought and is finds reconciliation in Christ, that is, in ultimate
reality. To participate in this reality is the true meaning of the question
concerning the good (DBWE 6, 55; DBW 6, 40).
As we have seen, Bonhoeffers understanding of the Christ-reality
implies that he cannot follow the traditional separations also so
common in contemporary Christian ethics. Bonhoeffer does not believe
the reality of God and the reality of the world are in opposition.However, at the same time he does not give up on the differentiation
between these concepts of reality. Rather, they are held together in
what he calls a polemical unity (DBW 6, 45), that is a differentiated
and tense unity where the differences are maintained and yet not
separated. Here the analogy to the Chalcedonian Christology becomes
quite clear, at least at a general level. Bonhoeffer does not make it
explicit here, but does elsewhere (see, for example, DBW 8, 44041 and
DBW 12, 32736).8 With this general understanding of reality in mind,
let us turn to more specific aspects of Bonhoeffers notion of reality, thespatial, temporal, and ontological, to see if we can find this same
differentiated unity.
Turning to the spatial understanding of reality, we see that for
Bonhoeffer it is important that there are not two realms, but only one
Christ-reality (DBW 6, 43). In the German original Bonhoeffer uses the
word Raum, which holds more explicit spatial connotations than the
7 The mentioned critique could be developed in more detail as a critical thrust of
Bonhoeffers notion of reality. This is an important aspect of Bonhoeffers ethics. In thepresent article, however, the emphasis is on the Chalcedonian traits in Bonhoeffers
understanding of reality and what this implies for the relationship between the universal
and specific dimension of a Christian social ethic.8
See also Nissen for an analysis of this Chalcedonian Christology as an underlying
structure in Bonhoeffers ethic as a whole (Nissen 2006b, 46366).
326 Journal of Religious Ethics
7/29/2019 Mystery and Reality in Bonhoeffer's Ethics
7/23
English rendering realm. When Bonhoeffer uses the term Raum to
describe the relationship between the worldly and the Christian
reality, he seems to be using the word primarily in a negative sense. He
refers to the position from which he distances himself and says thatthis position is under the spell of this conceptual framework of realms
[Raumdenkens] (DBWE 6, 58; DBW 6, 43). Thinking in two realms in
this way seems to imply that one can move from one space to the other.
There are two distinct spaces that can be seen as confronting each
other. One can place oneself in either one or the other, or one can try
to stand in both realms at the same time (DBW 6, 43). According to
Bonhoeffer, this type of thinking is a denial of the unity in the one
Christ-reality in which we stand. In this Christ-reality any attempt to
think in different Rume is rejected. Rather, the reality of God and thereality of the world are one in the Christ-reality. Consequently, Bon-
hoeffer rejects the theme of two realms [das Thema der zwei Rume]
and says that this contradicts both biblical and Reformation thought
(DBW 6, 44). Rather, everything is to be seen from the worldly reality
as drawn into and held together in Christ.
There are not two competing realms [Rume] standing side by side and
battling over the borderline, as if this question of boundaries was always
the decisive one. Rather, the whole reality of the world has already been
drawn into and is held together in Christ. History moves only from this
center and toward this center [DBWE 6, 58; DBW 6, 44].
In addition to the spatial understanding of reality, Bonhoeffer also uses
the concept in a temporal sense. In the section Heritage and Decay he
reflects on the Western Christian heritage. Bonhoeffer differentiates
between antiquity, Christianity, and what he calls the pre-Christian
past in tracing the roots of Western heritage. With regard to Chris-
tianity, he argues that this is a historical heritage and a common
Western heritage. This is where he uses the concept of reality in atemporal sense, claiming that [t]he unity of the West is not an idea,
but a historical reality whose only foundation is Christ (DBWE 6, 109;
DBW 6, 99, my emphasis). When Bonhoeffer relates the unity of the
West to Christ in this context, it is the historical continuity between
the Old Testament, the Jewish people, the fact that Jesus was a Jew,
and the foundation of the West in this same historical setting that
makes it possible for him to say that this is a historical reality founded
in Christ. Jesus Christ has made the West into a historical unit
(DBWE 6, 109; DBW 6, 99).In the later section of his ethic, History and Good [1], Bonhoeffer
returns to this temporal understanding of reality. He reflects on a
central passage of his ethicGood is the action that is in accordance
with the reality of Jesus Christ; action in accordance with Christ is
Letting Reality Become Real 327
7/29/2019 Mystery and Reality in Bonhoeffer's Ethics
8/23
action in accord with reality (DBWE 6, 22829; DBW 6, 228, emphasis
in original)and explains how this can be misunderstood in two ways.
It can either be seen as an endorsement of a new ethical ideology that
is in constant contrast to historical reality, or it can be seen as anaccommodation to this same reality (DBW 6, 228). With regard to the
first misunderstanding, Bonhoeffer relates this to his understanding of
history and claims that it would be a negation of historical reality. The
good cannot be separated from its historical setting without ignoring
the affirmation of reality which is implied in the incarnation of Christ
(DBW 6, 227). Therefore, the tendency of an ethic of Jesus, as
Bonhoeffer calls it, to ignore the historical setting may lead to a
privatization of Christian ethics and thereby a disregard of historical
responsibility (DBW 6, 229). In Bonhoeffers view, it is important thatboth of these misunderstandings are reminded of the concrete histori-
cal responsibility implied in the ethic of Jesus. Just as the first
misunderstanding tends to separate the two, the second misconception
tends to regard the historical reality as autonomous and thereby as
essentially different from the Christian ethic. According to Bonhoeffer,
both misconceptions are grave misinterpretations of the relationship
between, on the one hand, historical reality and, on the other hand, the
ethic of Jesusthat is the Sermon on the Mount and the incarnation
of Christ:
[W]hat is overlooked here is the decisive fact from which alone the
structure of what is real can be understood, namely, Gods becoming
human, Gods entering history, taking on historical reality in the reality
of Jesus Christ. What is overlooked here is the fact that the Sermon on
the Mount is the word of the one who did not relate to reality as a
foreigner, a reformer, a fanatic, the founder of a religion, but as the one
who bore and experienced the nature of reality in his own body, who
spoke out of the depth of reality as no other human being on earth ever
before. The Sermon on the Mount is the word of the very one who is thelord and law of reality. The Sermon on the Mount is to be understood and
interpreted as the word of the God who became human. That is the issue
at stake when the question of historical action is raised, and here it must
prove true that action in accord with Christ is action in accord with
reality [DBWE 6, 23031; DBW 6, 22930, my emphasis].
The ontological dimension of Bonhoeffers understanding of reality is ap-
parent in his distinction between the ultimate and penultimate things.9
With regard to reality, Bonhoeffer argues that [t]he relationship
9For a further elaboration on this distinction, see DBW 6, 13762. Also Feil 2005,
297303 may be consulted. The ontological dimension also holds fundamental epistemo-
logical implications; however, it exceeds the aim of the present article to examine these
implications. See, for example, 2006b for further analysis of theses issues.
328 Journal of Religious Ethics
7/29/2019 Mystery and Reality in Bonhoeffer's Ethics
9/23
between the penultimate and ultimate in Christian life can be resolved
in two extreme ways, one radical and the other as compromise (DBWE
6, 153; DBW 6, 144). The radical solution is concerned only with the
ultimate and endorses a complete break with the penultimate. In itsemphasis on Christ as the ultimate, it excludes and disregards the
penultimate and is expressed in exclusive categories of all or nothing.
According to the radical position, what happens to the world is not
interesting (DBW 6, 14445). The compromising solution, on the other
hand, also separates the ultimate from the penultimate, but it is done to
maintain the penultimate as having a right in itself. The relation to the
ultimate is rejected. The world stands as it is and human beings are held
accountable for it (DBW 6, 145). For Bonhoeffer both of these extremes
are false. To advocates of the radical solution it must be said that Christis not radical in their sense; to followers of the compromise solution it
must likewise be said that Christ does not make compromises (DBWE
6, 154; DBW 6, 146). What is important for Bonhoeffer is neither the
understanding of a pure Christianity as such nor the idea of the human
being as such. Rather, what is important is Gods reality and human
reality as they have become one in Jesus Christ. . . . In Jesus Christ
Gods reality and human reality take the place of radicalism and
compromise. This is the point where Bonhoeffer moves into an onto-
logical understanding of the notion of reality. In his rejection of both theradical and compromising positions, he argues that there is no human
being as such. Such an understanding would imply an exclusion of God.
Rather, [t]here is only the God-man Jesus Christ who is real, through
whom the world will be preserved until it is ripe for its end (DBWE 6,
155; DBW 6, 146). According to Bonhoeffer, the ontological foundation of
human reality is given in the unity and differentiation of the two natures
of Christ. Ontologically speaking, human reality and human being
cannot be understood rightly as separated from this foundation.
The ontological aspect of his understanding of reality is also appar-ent when Bonhoeffer speaks about the subject matter of a Christian
ethic being an issue of Gods reality revealed in Christ becoming real
[wirklichwerden] among Gods creatures (DBWE 6, 49; DBW 6, 34).
Bonhoeffer formulates the central concern of a Christian ethic as the
relation between reality and becoming real (DBWE 6, 50; DBW 6, 34).
Therefore, Christian ethics becomes a question of participating in the
reality of God as it is revealed in Jesus Christ. In Bonhoeffers view,
this means that the good is not separate from what exists.
Good is the real itself [das Wirklichke], that is, not the abstractly real
that is separated from the reality of God, but the real that has its reality
only in God. Good is never without this reality. It is no general formula.
And this reality is never without the good [DBWE 6, 50; DBW 6, 35].
Letting Reality Become Real 329
7/29/2019 Mystery and Reality in Bonhoeffer's Ethics
10/23
Bonhoeffer believes that the good is ontologically given with reality
as that which exists, but this is not a reality separate from God.
Rather, reality is only rightly understood in close connection to
God as the source of reality. It is only by participating in reality,understood as the reality revealed in Jesus Christ, that we share in
the good.
As we have seen in the spatial, temporal, and ontological aspects of
reality outlined in this section, a continuous theme in Bonhoeffer is the
affirmation of the reality of God and the reality of world as they are
both one and yet differentiated in the Christ-reality. This simultaneous
unity and differentiation is related to a Christological understanding of
reality shaped by a Chalcedonian view of the two natures of Christ. In
this sense, one can point to a certain mystery (Geheimnis) in Bon-hoeffers notion of reality:10
In Christ we are invited to participate in the reality of God and the
reality of the world at the same time, the one not without the other. The
reality of God is disclosed only as it places me completely into the reality
of the world. But I find the reality of the world always already borne,
accepted, and reconciled in the reality of God. That is the mystery of the
revelation of God in the human being Jesus Christ [DBWE 6, 55; DBW
6, 40].
However, for a Christian ethic it is not sufficient to point to this
mystery of reality. The Christian ethic must also ask how the reality of
Christ becomes concrete in human experience and how life should be
lived in this reality. For Bonhoeffer it is important that this Christ-
reality is not just an abstract idea, but rather has concrete, formative
implications for human life and reality. With this concrete formation of
the Christ-reality in the world, Bonhoeffer once again stresses that the
reality of God and the reality of the world are affirmed at the same
time:
The Christian ethic asks. . .how this reality of God and of the world that
is given in Christ becomes real in our world. . .the question is how the
reality in Christwhich has long embraced us and our world within
itselfworks here and now or, in other words, how life is to be lived in
it. What matters is participating in the reality of God and the world in
Jesus Christ today, and doing so in such a way that I never experience
the reality of God without the reality of the world, nor the reality of the
world without the reality of God [DBWE 6, 55; DBW 6, 40, emphasis in
original].
10In Bonhoeffers theology and ethics the notion of mystery plays a central role. See
the recent anthology by Busch Nielsen, Nissen, and Tietz 2007 for a collection of essays
on various approaches to this concept.
330 Journal of Religious Ethics
7/29/2019 Mystery and Reality in Bonhoeffer's Ethics
11/23
With this challenge to Christian ethics, we now move to the next
question of concern: the socialethical implications of Bonhoeffers
understanding of reality.
3. What Does the Notion of Reality Imply forBonhoeffers Social Ethics?
When we turn to our second question about Bonhoeffers notion of
reality, we will see that the dimensions of reality just outlined also play
an important role in his social ethics. The main question here is: What
does the Chalcedonian understanding of reality found in part one
(exemplified in the spatial, temporal, and ontological dimensions)
imply for Bonhoeffers social ethics?11 Before we can engage moredirectly with this question, we have to indicate what we mean by
social ethics, as Bonhoeffer is quite critical of this concept and
regards it as an ethical aporia (DBW 6, 36). Bonhoeffer criticizes this
notion for its implicit dissolution of the unity between the good and the
real or the person and his or her works. According to Bonhoeffer, it is
important that the question of the good is derived from the very
concept of reality including all of Gods creation, the human person,
and his motives and actions (DBW 6, 37). Therefore, the use of social
ethics in what follows is merely a convenient way to refer to issuesrelated to ethics in the political and social dimensions of human life.
One of the reasons why Bonhoeffer is reluctant about the concept of
social ethics stems from his understanding of human existence as
characterized by a fundamental sociality. In his classical work on
Bonhoeffer, Clifford Green argues that the concept of sociality is an
underlying structure throughout Bonhoeffers theology (Green 1999).
The belief that all of humanity is united in this common sociality has
fundamental implications for the understanding of ethics and is par-
ticularly clear in Bonhoeffers understanding of responsibility, in whichhe argues that reality is constituted in the moment of accepting the
responsibility for another person. In this moment the ethical situa-
tion arises. It is the concrete encounter with the other that is the
source of ethical responsibility:
The moment a person accepts responsibility for other peopleand only in
so doing does the person live in realitythe genuine ethical situation
arises. This is really something different from the abstract way in which
people usually seek to come to terms with the ethical problem. The
subject of the action is no longer the isolated individual, but the one who
11This approach focuses the reading on foundational issues in Bonhoeffers social
ethics. The reader is kindly referred to, for example, Nissen 2009 for more concrete
implications of Bonhoeffers political thought.
Letting Reality Become Real 331
7/29/2019 Mystery and Reality in Bonhoeffer's Ethics
12/23
is responsible for other people. The actions norm is not a universal
principle, but the concrete neighbour, as given me by God [DBWE 6, 221;
DBW 6, 220].
When Bonhoeffer says that one lives in reality in the very moment that
the individual accepts responsibility for the other, it is important to
note that he is not speaking of a philosophically understood constitu-
tion of ethical reality. Rather, Bonhoeffer states that in this very
moment one lives in reality, meaning that at this very point one lives
in accordance with reality as it really is (DBW 6, 221). For Bonhoeffer,
this responsive affirmation of reality is closely linked to the Christo-
logical character of reality. (Here we find the return of our Chalce-
donian motif.) It is the incarnation of Christ which makes it possible to
act in accordance with reality. Only through this incarnation is it
possible for the world to remain, as God has taken care of the world
and declared it under his rule (DBW 6, 223). In this understanding of
the reality of the world, the actual [faktische] is both affirmed and
limited. The affirmation and contradiction of the world is based on the
reality of the reconciliation of the world with God in Christ. Therefore,
action in accord with reality is only possible in Christ. In Christ, all
human reality is taken on. That is why it is ultimately only in and from
Christ that it is possible to act in a way that is in accord with reality
(DBWE 6, 224; DBW 6, 223). Bonhoeffer continues further with adialectical understanding of the affirmation and contradiction of the
worldly reality, which in the present context is read as a possible basis
of the universal and specific dimension of the Christian ethic at the
same time:
The origin of action that is in accord with reality is neither the pseudo-
Lutheran Christ whose only purpose is to sanction the status quo, nor the
radical, revolutionary Christ of all religious enthusiasts who is supposed
to bless every revolution, but rather the God who became human, JesusChrist, who loved human beings, judged them, and reconciled them with
God [DBWE 6, 224; DBW 6, 223].
If we return to the earlier-mentioned dimensions of reality, we see that
reality as the immediate encounter with the other is also reflected in
Bonhoeffers rejection of the two-realms thinking. When Bonhoeffer is
pondering the spatial dimensions of his notion of reality, he argues that
the church takes up space in the world. This affirmation of the spatial
dimension of reality is part of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.
But rather than mistaking this as strictly empirical, Bonhoeffer viewsthis as an act of Gods embracing of the whole reality of the world in
this narrow space and revealing its ultimate foundation in Jesus
Christ. The Church is not competing with the world, but rather
testifying to the world that it is still a world, loved and reconciled by
332 Journal of Religious Ethics
7/29/2019 Mystery and Reality in Bonhoeffer's Ethics
13/23
God (DBW 6, 4849). As such, the task of the church is to carry a
witness of Jesus Christ to the world. The Holy Spirit will equip Gods
church-community of sanctified life to this task. Bonhoeffer even makes
the point that it is a sign of the Churchs true life that it maintains thiswitness. Where that witness has become silent it is a sign of inner
decay in the church-community, just as failure to bear fruit is a sign
that a tree is dying (DBWE 6, 64; DBW 6, 50).12 Therefore, for
Bonhoeffer it is very important that one does not understand the role
of the church defined within a narrow realm without a role for the
world. The church cannot be confined to a narrow self-understanding
where it exists only for itself and forgets its witnessing role in the
world. According to Bonhoeffer the two-realms thinking endangers the
very concept of the church whereby the church forfeits its propheticrole in public discourse:
When one therefore wants to speak of the space of the church, one must
be aware that this space has already been broken through, abolished, and
overcome in every moment by the witness of the church to Jesus Christ.
Thus all false thinking in terms of realms is ruled out as endangering the
understanding of the church [DBWE 6, 64; DBW 6, 50].
In his rejection of two-realms thinking, Bonhoeffer points to an alter-
native image in which the relationship between the church and theworld can better be describedthe body of Jesus Christ (DBW 6, 5253).
It is in the body of Jesus Christ that God is united with humanity, all
humanity is accepted by God, and the world is reconciled to God (DBWE
6, 6667; DBW 6, 53). There is no part of the world that is not in Christ;
therefore, it makes no sense to withdraw the church from the world.
The world belongs to Christ, and only in Christ is the world what it is
(DBWE 6, 67; DBW 6, 53). Bonhoeffer considers the relation between
Christ and the world so close that just as the world is the world in Christ,
Christ is also Christ only in the midst of the world. The world and Christcannot be understood rightly if one is separated from the other.
A further argument for Christs inseparableness from the world can
be found in the temporal motif, as we saw earlier in the article. When
we turn to the socialethical implications of this view, it is important
to observe that it does not entail a political conservatism in Bonhoeffer.
An example is apparent in his notion of guilt. In the section titled
Guilt, Justification, Renewal, Bonhoeffer argues that a core issue in
Christian ethics is the formation of Christ among human beings. As
human beings can only be understood rightly in relation to Christ, they
12See, also, Bonhoeffers remarks on the dangers of Reformation theology in its focus
on the preaching of the word in its ecclesiology. This understanding implies the risk of
forgetting the role of the church in relation to the world (DBW 6, 410).
Letting Reality Become Real 333
7/29/2019 Mystery and Reality in Bonhoeffer's Ethics
14/23
are called to be conformed to him. The human being understood as the
self-creator has fallen away from the true nature of the human being.
According to Bonhoeffer, the only way to return to the true foundation
of human nature is to acknowledge ones guilt to Christ. The recogni-tion of guilt is an acknowledgment which takes place in the church as
the place of the preaching of the grace of Christ. Therefore, the church
is the place where guilt is both acknowledged and forgiven, and
thereby also the place where the formation of Christ in the world takes
place. It is at this crucial point where Bonhoeffer also links individual
and corporate guilt. The church is not only the place where the
individual guilt is acknowledged, but also the place where the Western
worlds falling away from Christ is acknowledged. As the place of
personal and corporate rebirth and renewal (DBWE 6, 135; DBW 6,126), the church is the place where Jesus makes his form real in the
midst of the world. Thereby, the historically acknowledged guilt (the
Western worlds falling away from Christ) serves in Bonhoeffer to
argue for the formative role of the church in the realization of Christ
in the world. This understanding of the churchs formative role is in
itself a significant socialethical motif, as the church as a social reality
is not separated from the world, but is ascribed a highly significant
role. This point is made even clearer in the following parts of this
section in his Ethics. Here, Bonhoeffer writes a confession of thechurch, structured around the Decalogue, in the historical situation of
his contemporary Germany. In this confession the socialethical
mandate of the church is repeatedly emphasized (DBW 6, 12936).
Following from Bonhoeffers understanding of discipleship, just as the
church as a whole is burdened with the guilt of the Western world, the
individual Christian is also called to carry the guilt of ones neighbor.
The Christian is called to follow Christ in carrying the guilt of the other.
Christ enters into human guilt and is burdened with the guilt of human
beings as real human beings (DBW 6, 233). Christ does not introduce anew human being. Rather, in his love for human beings he is burdened
with their guilt. In this being burdened with human guilt, the historical
dimension of human reality is also affirmed: As one who acts respon-
sibly in human historical existence, as a human being having entered
reality, Jesus becomes guilty (DBWE 6, 234; DBW 6, 233).
Lastly, we turn to the ontological motif in Bonhoeffers notion of
reality. This concept is a central notion in his argument for the ethical
responsibility of human beings toward each other. The ontological
motif is initially evident when Bonhoeffer reflects on the good as beingreality itself. Elsewhere in his Ethics, Bonhoeffer adds that the clas-
sical utilitarian and deontological ways of thinking about ethicsor, as
he calls them an ethic of consequences and an ethic of motivesare
insufficient (see, for example, DBW 6, 3539). Neither an ethic of
334 Journal of Religious Ethics
7/29/2019 Mystery and Reality in Bonhoeffer's Ethics
15/23
consequences nor one of motives can ensure the realization of the good,
because they both make an abstraction out of it and separate it from
reality (DBW 6, 37). For Bonhoeffer it is important that the good is
reality itself, as it is seen and recognized in God. It is created realityas a whole as it is held in the hands of God:
Good is not the agreement of some way of existence that I describe as
reality with some standard placed at our disposal by nature or grace.
Rather, good is reality, reality itself seen and recognized in God. Human
beings, with their motives and their works, with their fellow humans,
with the creation that surrounds them, in other words, reality as a whole
held in the hands of Godthat is what is embraced by the question of
good. The divine behold, it was very good meant the whole of creation.
The good desires the whole, not only of motives but also of works; itdesires whole persons along with the human companions with whom they
are given to live [DBWE 6, 53; DBW 6, 37].
Here Bonhoeffer seems to imply a more concrete understanding of
reality than we find in other passages. In the immediately preceding
passages, Bonhoeffer has given an account of Christ as reality, where
the central concern has been how Gods reality revealed in Christ can
become real among Gods creatures (DBW 6, 3335), but in the present
passage Bonhoeffer seems to understand reality as the created reality.
It is important, however, to notice that this emphasis is made in orderto avoid severing reality into separate parts. Therefore, in subsequent
passages Bonhoeffer argues for human beings as being indivisible
wholes, in both person and work, as members of the human and
created community (DBW 6, 38). Even if Bonhoeffer speaks about
reality in a more concrete sense in the passage cited above, he still
maintains a close link between this notion of reality and the under-
standing of Christ as the real one. In his section on the responsible life,
Bonhoeffer argues that reality is not something impersonal. Rather, it
is the Real One [der Wirkliche], namely, the God who became human(DBWE 6, 261; DBW 6, 261). The link between the two seemingly
different understandings of reality becomes apparent, when Bonhoeffer
maintains that the undivided whole is to be understood as creation in
terms of its origin and as the kingdom of God according to its goal.
Both of these are equally far from us and yet near to us, because Gods
creation and Gods kingdom are present to us only in Gods self-
revelation in Jesus Christ (DBWE 6, 53; DBW 6, 38).
In this section we have seen that Bonhoeffers notion of reality has
important socialethical implications. The very understanding ofreality is linked to his concept of responsibility and thereby the
indissoluble relatedness to the needs of the other. Further, this is
connected to both an affirmation and contradiction of worldly reality as
an expression of a Chalcedonian Christology. This understanding is
Letting Reality Become Real 335
7/29/2019 Mystery and Reality in Bonhoeffer's Ethics
16/23
closely related to spatial, temporal, and ontological dimensions. The
spatial understanding implies an emphasis on the churchs witness to
the world and an endorsement of the essentially socialethical meta-
phor of the church as the body of Jesus Christ. The temporal motifimplies an appreciation of the understanding of guilt as an individual
and corporate concept, the call to carry the guilt of the other, and the
church as the place where this guilt is confessed and forgiven. Finally,
the ontological motif implies an understanding of reality as fundamen-
tally linked to Jesus Christ. The good is derived from reality itself, and
this cannot be understood separate from Jesus Christ. Throughout this
analysis of the socialethical implications of Bonhoeffers understand-
ing of reality, we have seen the Chalcedonian Christology as an
underlying mode of thought. Just as the two natures of Christ areunited and yet differentiated, the reality of the world and the reality of
Christ are united and yet differentiated from each other. Bonhoeffer
considers this a unity and differentiation given in the Christ-reality.
The human being is within this reality and as such is in the world and
in Christ at the same time, implying that all human beings share a
fundamental Christological condition of being. We have also seen how
this Chalcedonian understanding of reality implies an ecclesiological
outlook, and how this is derived from the socialethical implications of
Bonhoeffers notion of reality. The following section provides a moreexplicit consideration of these ecclesiological motifs.
4. Letting Reality Become Real
As we have seen in the two preceding sections of this article,
Bonhoeffer stresses the notion of reality both in his ethic in general
and in his social ethics. His notion of reality is closely linked to his
understanding of the presence of Christ in the world. The reality of
Christ and the reality of the world cannot be separated from eachother. In this section we turn to what can be considered the epitome of
the particularity of a Christian ethic in a public discourse. In order to
test the thesis that Bonhoeffer maintains the differentiated unity of the
universal and particular dimension of Christian ethics, we now
examine the issue of the witness in the public context.
It is important to note that the following argument claims the
specificity of a Christian social ethic without giving up on the uni-
versality. The argument could also have taken the opposite posi-
tion and argued for the common dimension without neglecting theparticularity.13 It is a central aim hereby to assert the complete
affirmation of both dimensions without disregarding either, in the
13 See, for example, Nissen 2006a for such an approach.
336 Journal of Religious Ethics
7/29/2019 Mystery and Reality in Bonhoeffer's Ethics
17/23
Chalcedonian motif previously detailed. Arguing for the witness of a
Christian social ethic does not mean that common public discourse is
ignored. Rather, I argue for a differentiated unity of the universal and
specific dimension of a Christian social ethic. As previously mentioned,the intention is to place the argument close to the communicative and
conversational positions of, for example, Stout (2005) and Biggar
(2009a; 2009b). The affiliation with Biggars position is apparent, for
example, when he speaks of his polyglot liberalism as reconcilable
with the witness:
What this polyglot liberalism requires is not a single tongue, but a
responsible mannernot so much public reason, as public reasonable-
ness. This amounts to an ethic of communication, and it depends on a
certain anthropology, namely, a view of human beings as endowed witha special dignitythe dignity of beings who are equal in their capacity to
open themselves to what is good, to discern what is right, and to bear
witness to them [2009b, 168, my emphasis].14
In arguing for a Chalcedonian position, I also attempt to stress the
polemical and contradictory nature of this stance.15 By the assertion
of the simultaneous universal and specific dimension I attempt to go
beyond positions where these dimensions are simply contrasted or
merely reconciled. It is my aim to argue that each dimension affirms
and yet is different from the other. The specificity affirms the uni-
versality and vice versaand, at the same time, it maintains the
respective differences. Therefore, even if there are many common
concerns with Robin Lovins study of Bonhoeffers ethics and his
argument for a Christian realism, the present article deviates from
the argument for middle axioms (Lovin 1984, 173). I argue for the
differentiated unity of the specific and universal dimension of a
Christian social ethic based on a Chalcedonian Christology, and
contend that there is a communicative exchange between these two
dimensions. This exchange makes it possible to maintain either
dimension and, at the same time, see the other affirmed.16
14 The affinity to Stout 2005 can be seen when he, for example, argues for conver-
sation as a description of his aim (10) and when he argues for the inclusion of religious
views in the democratic conversation (8485).15
In this polemical position there is a certain affinity to Christ and Culture in
Paradox, as depicted in Richard H. Niebuhrs classical work, Christ & Culture (Niebuhr
1951). For a more recent assertion of a paradoxical position along the same lines, see
Robert Bennes The Paradoxical Vision (Benne 1995).16Consequently, the present article does not see the Christian witness and partici-
pation in public discourse as opposites, as Lovin tends to in his recent book on Christian
realism (Lovin 2008, 119). Even if I share the emphasis on Bonhoeffer and wish to argue
for a Christian realism, I contend that it is possible to maintain a paradoxical unity of
universality and specificity without giving up on either of them. In continuation of a
Letting Reality Become Real 337
7/29/2019 Mystery and Reality in Bonhoeffer's Ethics
18/23
The link between Bonhoeffers notion of reality and his ecclesiology
was already apparent in his endorsement of a spatial motif in his concept
of reality. It is a well-known characteristic of Bonhoeffers theology that
ethics, anthropology, and ecclesiology cannot be understood as separatefrom each other (see, for example, Rasmussen 1972, 20). The unity of
ethics, anthropology, and ecclesiology accounts for why Bonhoeffers
understanding of reality has fundamental implications for the indis-
soluble link between his ecclesiology and his social ethics. Earlier we
looked at the spatial motif and its socialethical implications for
Bonhoeffers notion of reality. This motif implies an understanding of the
church as the body of Jesus Christ that is visible and takes up space in
the world. The understanding of reality, the church, and the social
ethical implications are fundamentally linked to each other.The link is also apparent in a chapter on Bonhoeffers ethics where
Hauerwas speaks of the call to the church to live faithfully and witness
to the truth. Hauerwas argues that the visibility of the church was
crucial to Bonhoeffer and that the church can never give up on the
truthful proclamation of the Gospel (Hauerwas 2004, 5572). Hauer-
was is quite right in his emphasis on the church and the witness in
Bonhoeffer. Among other places, the emphasis is particularly clear in
Bonhoeffers Discipleship, where he stresses the visibility of the church
community and the notion of the church taking up space in the world.17We also find this emphasis in Ethics, when Bonhoeffer reflects on the
church taking up space in the world. For Bonhoeffer this understand-
ing does not imply that the church is separate from the world. Rather,
the church is called to be in the world and witness to the world about
its reconciliation to God through Jesus Christ (DBW 6, 49).18 It is a
task of the church which is extended to the members of the Christian
churchthey are called to be witnesses of Jesus Christ to the world.
But this role cannot be separated from the church, as Bonhoeffer
emphasizes that it is the Holy Spirit which equips Christians to fulfillthis task as it comes out of sanctified life in Gods church-community
(DBWE 6, 64; DBW 6, 50). Bonhoeffer believes that the notion of the
communicative approach, I argue that it is possible to maintain both the specific witness
and the claim of universality implied in public discourse.17
DBWE 4, 225: The body of Christ takes up physical space here on earth. By
becoming human Christ claims a place among us human beings. . . . anything that takes
up space is visible. Thus the body of Jesus Christ can only be a visible body, or else it
is not a body at all. See DBWE 4, 22552 for further elaboration on Bonhoeffers viewon the visibility of the church in his Discipleship. See also Hauerwas 2004, 4348.
18In the English edition of Bonhoeffers Ethics the prophetic role of the witness of the
church is not as explicit as in the German originalsee, for example, DBWE 6, 63.
Bonhoeffer repeatedly uses the German zeugen or bezeugen, but this is rendered into, for
example, demonstrating or testifying, which is something quite different.
338 Journal of Religious Ethics
7/29/2019 Mystery and Reality in Bonhoeffer's Ethics
19/23
churchs witness dissolves any attempt to think in separate realms and
isolated spaces of the church. He claims that this witness calls the
world into the community [Gemeinschaft] of the body of Christ to
which the world in truth already belongs (DBWE 6, 67; DBW 6, 54).Even if it is a call where the church community will experience itself
as strange to the world, it is still a witness that calls the world to let
the reality of its true nature become real.
The role and place of the witness in Bonhoeffers social ethics is also
made quite clear in his understanding of the mandates. Again we see
that the churchs witness fundamentally has an ethical character. The
church maintains its socialethical responsibility by witnessing to the
world. Bonhoeffers view of the mandates is an indirect critique of
the Lutheran understanding of the orders of creation among some ofhis Lutheran contemporaries (see, for example, DBWE 6, 74n93). Even
if Bonhoeffer was right in this critique, it is worth noting that Luthers
own understanding of the three estates holds similarities to Bonhoef-
fers notion of the mandates. Luther would also argue that there is
close connection between these estates, just as it is not part of Luthers
doctrine to argue for a division of the individual between these estates.
A significant difference between Luther and Bonhoeffer seems to be
Luthers theological foundation, whereas Bonhoeffer develops a more
christological position, but in the relationship between the estates orthe mandates the difference does not seem to be very strong.19 For
Bonhoeffer it was important to argue for the divine mandates of work,
marriage, government, and the church as divinely imposed tasks and
thereby move beyond a static notion of the orders of creation where
they are seen as determinate forms of being.20 What is important for
the present purpose is the role of the church in the affirmation of
reality.
In Bonhoeffers work the church plays a crucial role in letting reality
become real, as the divine mandate of the church is the commission ofallowing the reality of Jesus Christ to become real in proclamation
[Verkndigung], church order, and Christian life (DBWE 6, 73; DBW
6, 60). The mandate of the church reaches into the other mandates, as
all the mandates overlap with each other. This overlap is closely linked
to Bonhoeffers spatial understanding of reality, as he rejects any
division into separate realms [Rume]. Human beings as whole persons
partake in the one reality of Jesus Christ and are called to fulfill this
reality and thereby carry the witness of the church to the world:
19See DBW 6, 54n70 for an explanation of how Bonhoeffers mandates grow out of a
traditional Lutheran understanding and yet how he emphasizes the commissioning
word of God in his more dynamic understanding of the mandates.20 See DBW 6, 5461 and 392412 for an account of the mandates.
Letting Reality Become Real 339
7/29/2019 Mystery and Reality in Bonhoeffer's Ethics
20/23
Human beings as whole persons stand before the whole earthly and
eternal reality that God in Jesus Christ has prepared for them. Only in
full response to the whole of this offer and this claim can the human
person fulfill this reality. This is the witness the church has to give to theworld, that all the other mandates are not there to divide people and tear
them apart but to deal with them as whole people before God the Creator,
Reconciler, and Redeemerthat reality in all its manifold aspects is
ultimately one in God who became human, Jesus Christ [DBWE 6, 73;
DBW 6, 5960].
Rather than seeing the human person as the place where the mandates
are in mutual conflict, Bonhoeffer understands the mandates to be
directed at the whole person standing in reality before God. It is in the
human person, in concrete human life and action, that the mandatesare united. For Bonhoeffer this point again is closely related to recon-
ciliation in Christ, as he argues that the unity of the mandates in the
human person happens when people allow themselves to be placed
through Jesus Christ before the completed reality of Gods becoming
human, the reality of the world that was reconciled to God in the
manger, the cross, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ (DBWE 6, 73;
DBW 6, 60).
According to Bonhoeffer, the role of the church is to proclaim this
reality of the world and thereby witness to the world that the mysteryof reality implies that all of reality is one in Christ. With specific
reference to the socialethical implications of this view, Bonhoeffer
reminds the church of its calling not to withdraw from the world, but
to let the world be what it really is and bear witness to the world of its
true realitythe world as reconciled to God in Jesus Christ.
It is important to bear in mind that, for Bonhoeffer, the very core of
Christian ethics is related to the concept of reality. The essential
concern is how the reality of God as it is revealed in Jesus Christ
becomes real among Gods creatures. The pivotal issue is the relation-ship between reality and becoming real (DBW 6, 34). Bonhoeffer
connects the issue of reality to the Holy Spirit. The relationship
between Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit is so close that Bonhoeffer
considers it to be synonymous with the relationship between reality
and becoming real (DBW 6, 35). When Bonhoeffer writes on the will of
God elsewhere, this theme is also intimately related to the realization
of the one Christ-reality. It is a reality revealed in Jesus Christ that is
to become real in the world. The reality both affirms and transforms
the world at the same time:[T]he will of God is nothing other than the realization of the Christ-
reality among us in and in our world. The will of God is therefore not an
idea that demands to be realized; it is itself already reality in the
self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ. The will of God is neither an idea
340 Journal of Religious Ethics
7/29/2019 Mystery and Reality in Bonhoeffer's Ethics
21/23
nor is it simply identical with what exists, so that subjection to things as
they are could fulfill it; it is rather a reality that wills to become real ever
anew in what exists and against what exists [DBWE 6, 74; DBW 6, 61].
In the affirmation and transformation of what exists, the mystery ofthe Christ-reality implies a confirmation of both the universal and
particular dimension of Christian ethics. In its verification of all that
exists, this understanding of the Christ-reality recognizes the univer-
sality of Christian ethics, and yet at the same time the contradictory
transformation involves the affirmation of the particular. Bonhoeffers
notion of reality demands a polemical unity between the universal and
particular and thereby points to a source of Christian ethics that moves
beyond a futile dichotomy between the universal and specific under-
standing of the identity of Christian ethics. Even if Bonhoeffersapproach to the question of identity and the role of Christian ethics in
the public realm only provides us with a step in the right direction, it
is worth noting that fact. Bonhoeffers Chalcedonian-inspired under-
standing of the simultaneous identity and difference in the relationship
between the worldly and the Christian seems to point to a viable course
in the contemporary debate on Christian ethics in a public discourse.
The contribution stemming from Bonhoeffers ethics leads to an under-
standing that affirms the worldly reality and yet maintains the Chris-
tian specificity at the same time, and this position is a much-neededcontribution in our contemporary setting.21
REFERENCES
Benne, Robert
1995 The Paradoxical Vision: A Public Theology for the Twenty-First
Century. Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Fortress.
Biggar, Nigel
2009a Not Translation, but Conversation: Theology in Public Debateabout Euthanasia. In Religious Voices in Public Places, edited by
Nigel Biggar and Linda Hogan, 15193. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
2009b Saving the Secular: The Public Vocation of Moral Theology.
Journal of Religious Ethics 37.1: 15978.
2011 Behaving in Public: How to Do Christian Ethics. Grand Rapids,
Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans.
21
The article is part of a larger research project on Lutheran social ethics entitledSocial Ethics Between Universality and Specificity: A Study of the Identity of Theologi-
cal Social Ethics with Particular Emphasis on Dietrich Bonhoeffers Ethics. It was first
presented in March 2009 in a research seminar at The Faculty of Theology, Aarhus
University. I would like to express my gratitude to Peter Speiser and Christian Scharen
for help on revising the language of this article.
Letting Reality Become Real 341
7/29/2019 Mystery and Reality in Bonhoeffer's Ethics
22/23
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich
19861999Dietrich Bonhoeffer Werke (DBW). Band 117. Gtersloh: Chr.
Kaiser Verlag.
1995n.d. Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works (DBWE). Volumes 116. Minneapolis,Minn.: Fortress Press.
Busch Nielsen, Kirsten, Ulrik Nissen, and Christiane Tietz, eds.
2007 Mysteries in the Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Copenhagen
Bonhoeffer Symposium. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Feil, Ernst
2005 Die Theologie Dietrich Bonhoeffers: Hermeneutik, Christologie,
Weltverstndnis. Fnfte, durch ein aktuelles Geleitwort erweiterte
Auflage ed. Studien zur systematischen Theologie und Ethik,
band 45. Edited by E. Lessing, P. Neuner, and D. Ritschl. Berlin:
LIT Verlag.
Green, Clifford J.
1999 Bonhoeffer: A Theology of Sociality. Revised edition. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans.
2002 Ethical Theology and Contextual Ethics. New Perspectives on
Bonhoeffers Ethics. In Religion Im Erbe: Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Und Die Zukunftsfhigkeit Des Christentums, edited by Christian
Gremmels and Wolfgang Huber, 25569. Gtersloh: Chr. Kaiser
Verlag.
Hauerwas, Stanley1981 A Community of Character: Toward A Constructive Christian
Social Ethic. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.
2004 Performing the Faith: Bonhoeffer and the Practice of Nonviolence.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press.
Janke, Wolfgang
2004 Wirklichkeit. I. Philosophisch. In Theologische Realenzyk-
lopdie, Vol. 36. Edited by Gerhard Mller, 11420. Berlin and
New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Krtke, Wolf2005 Wirklichkeit. In Religion in Geschichte Und Gegenwart: Hand-
wrterbuch Fr Theologie Und Religionswissenschaft, Vol. 8. 4th
ed. Edited by Hans Dieter Betz, Don S. Browning, Bernd Jan-
owski, and Eberhard Jngel, 159496. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck.
2008 Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther. In Bonhoeffers Intellec-
tual Formation. Theology and Philosophy in His Thought, edited
by Peter Frick, 5382. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Kurtn, Tage
2007 The Christian Living in Two Worlds? Religious Contributions to
the Legitimacy of a Democratic Society. Studia Theologica 61.2:91112.
Lovin, Robin W.
1984 Christian Faith and Public Choices. The Social Ethics of Barth,
Brunner, and Bonhoeffer. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press.
342 Journal of Religious Ethics
7/29/2019 Mystery and Reality in Bonhoeffer's Ethics
23/23
2008 Christian Realism and the New Realities. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Niebuhr, H. Richard
1951 Christ & Culture. New York: HarperCollins.Nissen, Ulrik Becker
2004 Reconciliation and Public Law: Christian Reflections about the
Sources of Public Law. Studia Theologica 58.1: 2744.
2006a Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Ethics of Plenitude. Journal of the
Society of Christian Ethics 26.1: 97114.
2006b The Christological Ontology of Reason. Neue Zeitschrift fr
Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 48.4: 46078.
2009 Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Journey from Pacifism to Resistance. In
Christianity and Resistance in the 20th Century. From Kaj Munkand Dietrich Bonhoeffer to Desmond Tutu, edited by Sren Dosen-
rode, 14774. Leiden: Brill.
ODonovan, Oliver
1994 Resurrection and Moral Order. An Outline for Evangelical Ethics.
2nd ed. Leicester and Grand Rapids, Mich.: Apollos/William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Rasmussen, Larry L.
1972 Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Reality and Resistance. Nashville, Tenn.:
Abingdon.
Rawls, John
1996 Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
1997 The Idea of Public Reason Revisited. The University of Chicago
Law Review 64.3: 765804.
Sherman, Franklin
1964 The Vital Center: Toward A Chalcedonian Social Ethic. In The
Scope of Grace. Essays on Nature and Grace in Honor of Joseph
Sittler, edited by Philip J. Hefner, 23356. Philadelphia, Pa.:
Fortress Press.
Stout, Jeffrey2005 Democracy and Tradition. New Forum Books Series. Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Letting Reality Become Real 343