The Celebration of Life and the Culture of Death

Last week I spoke about Dietrich Bonhoeffer at Fountain Street Church, which identifies itself as a "non-denominational liberal church" here in Grand Rapids. I had been invited a few times previously and was finally able to accept the invitation in conjunction with both Holocaust Remembrance Day (April 21) and the anniversary of Bonhoeffer's execution (April 9).

As my host ushered me downstairs to the copy room to run off handouts for the talk, I was privy to a conversation between two members of the staff. The gist of the discussion concerned logistical details for taking up a collection and raising funds for Planned Parenthood. One of the things I'll always remember about this is that it happened on Fountain Street's "Celebration of Life" Sunday, for which attenders were encouraged to bring their pets to the day's service.

I won't go into any greater detail about my talk, which was intended to provide some historical context for an understanding of Bonhoeffer's life and thought. I wasn't able to get into Bonhoeffer's views regarding war and peace, for instance, and the rather mixed legacy of his reception in the secondary literature on these points.

But neither was I prepared to discuss Bonhoeffer's views of life, particularly with regard to abortion. Here's a critical section from his unfinished Ethics worth quoting at length:

Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent life. To raise the question of whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of its life. And that is nothing but murder.

A great many motives may lead to an action of this kind; indeed in cases where it is an act of despair, performed in circumstances of extreme human or economic destitution and misery, the guilt may often lie rather with the community than with the individual. Precisely in this connection money may conceal many a wanton deed, while the poor man’s more reluctant lapse may far more easily be disclosed. All these considerations must no doubt have a quite decisive influence on our personal and pastoral attitude towards the person concerned, but they cannot in any way alter the fact of murder.

I don't mean to minimize the importance of animals in general or of pets in the lives of human beings today, and I do agree with Lewis: "Man with dog closes a gap in the universe."

But the juxtaposition of a horrific disregard for what Bonhoeffer calls a "nascent human being" and the corresponding emphasis on non-human life is a mockery of any true "celebration of life." It's a valuation that has more in common with sacrifice to Molech (Leviticus) than "Christ existing as commmunity" (Bonhoeffer).

Update #1 (5/6/09): The quotation above from Bonhoeffer is taken from an older English translation. I'm now providing the full paragraph from the "Reproduction and Developing Life" section of the essay "Natural Life" from the new Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works English edition (which is the one linked above), vol. 6, pp. 206-7:

Marriage involves acknowledging the right of life that will come into being, but this is not a right that is at the disposal of the married couple. Without the basic acknowledgment of this right, marriage ceases to be marriage and becomes a relationship. In acknowledging this right, however, space is given to the free creative power of God, who can will to let new life come forth from this marriage. To kill the fruit in the mother's womb is to injure the right to life that God has bestowed on the developing life. Discussion of the question whether a human being is already present confuses the simple fact that, in any case, God wills to create a human being and that the life of this developing human being has been deliberately taken. And this is nothing but murder. Various motives may lead to such an act. It may be a deed of despair from the depths of human desolation or financial need, in which case guilt falls often more on the community than on the individual. It may be that on this very point money can cover over a great deal of careless behavior, whereas among the poor even the deed done with great reluctance comes more easily to light. Without doubt all this decisively affects one's personal, pastoral attitude toward the person concerned; but it cannot change the fact of murder. The mother, for whom this decision would be desperately hard because it goes against her own nature, would certainly be the last to deny the weight of guilt.

It should also be noted that the last line in the above paragraph was, according to the footnotes in the recent critical edition, not included in the earlier German editions and so did not appear in previous English translations. This longer quotation hopefully provides some more context and clarification, especially with regard to the assignment of guilt associated with the murder of developing life. Later this week I hope to post the original German for those who are especially interested.

Update #2 (5/9/09): I have tracked down the original German in case there are any residual questions of interpretation. This is the text from the 1963 edition, and therefore does not have the German text corresponding the last sentence contained in Update #1 above.

Here is the relevant paragraph from the section "Fortpflanzung und werdendes Leben" of the essay "Das Natürliche" in Bonhoeffer's Ethik, p. 187:

Mit der Eheschlieβung ist die Anerkennung des Rechtes des werdenden Lebens verbunded als eines Rechtes, das nicht in der Verfügung der Eheleute steht. Ohne die grundsätzliche Anerkennung dieses Rechtes hört eine Ehe auf Ehe zu sein und wird zum Verhältnis. In der Anerkennung aber ist der freien Schöpfermacht Gottes, die aus dieser Ehe neues Leben hervorgehen lassen kann nach seinem Willen, Raum gegeben. Die Tötung der Frucht im Mutterleib ist Verletzung des dem werdenden Leben von Gott werliehenen Lebensreschtes. Die Erörterung der Frage, ob es sich hier schon um einen Menschen handele oder nicht, verwirrt nur die einfache Tatsache, daβ Gott hier jedenfalls einen Menschen schaffen wollte und daβ diesem werdenden Menschen vorsätzlich das Leben genommen worden ist. Das aber ist nichts anderes als Mord. Daβ die Motive, die zu einer derartigen Tat führen, sehr verschieden sind, ja daβ dort, wo es sich um eine Tat der Verzweiflung in höchster menschlicher oder wirtschaftlicher Verlassenheit und Not handelt, die Schuld oft mehr auf die Gemeinschaft als auf den Einzelnen fällt, daβ schlieβlich gerade in diesem Punkt Geld sehr viel Leichtfertigkeit zu vertuschen vermag, während gerade bei dem Armen auch die schwer abgerungene Tat leichter ans Licht kommt, dies alles berührt unzweifelhaft das persöonliche und seelsorgerliche Verhalten gegenüber dem Betroffenen ganz entscheidend, es vermag aber an dem Tatbestand des Mordes nichts zu ändern.

Comments

[Michael D. Harmon]

Sometimes what bothers me about the abortion mindset is that it appears to be deliberately unreflective about what it produces. In my experience, the more evidence you amass about the humanity of the unborn, the more the abortion proponent refuses to listen. It is not a matter of us being unable to present proofs; it is a matter of the proofs being rejected precisely insomuch as they prove their point. Thus, the most decried pro-life image is that of the dismembered fetus (as in the new Priests for Life ad, "Raise your hand for life" -- an incredible, unforgettable image). If abortion were nothing, so would be the pictures of what it produces. Yet, except for abortionists and their accomplices, the basic pro-abortion person cannot bear to see such photos. "You'll scare the children," they say. Well, scare the children about what? Murdered children just like them, that their own parents consented to. It's not too little truth on our part that bothers them, it's too much truth, and they cannot bear it. Thus, we must be silenced.

[Wyman Richardson]

Thanks for this. I've always found that comment interesting.

But then I read Clifford J. Green’s Editor's Introduction to the “Bonhoeffer’s Works” English edition on this point:

“In Nazi Germany abortion was illegal, but the Law for the Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases was amended in 1936 to make compulsory the abortion of ‘genetically unfit’ fetuses up to six months in utero. Such Nazi ‘genetic engineering’ is clearly in Bonhoeffer’s sights: ‘this is nothing but murder.’ To be sure, that is not the only circumstance and motive he addresses in his one brief paragraph on abortion. It is very problematic, however, to extrapolate from that context a general principle on abortion that would apply to quite different cases and context. Making such an extrapolation the justification for state legislation is doubly problematic since in this manuscript Bonhoeffer defends the rights of the individual against state intrustion.”

I don't deny the historical particulars of Bonhoeffer's context, but I personally think that Green is absolutely overreaching and trying to minimize (i.e., "his one brief paragraph") what clearly is a principled objection to abortion on Bonhoeffer's part.

Would love your thoughts on Green's efforts to recast Bonhoeffer's comments (if this is how you view Green's efforts!).

[Jordan]

Wyman, I'm glad you pointed out that note from Green. I generally find Green to be a helpful and reliable interpreter of Bonhoeffer. He has done important work to emphasize the early parts of Bonhoeffer's work as a corrective to some of the more radical interpretations of Bonhoeffer based on his prison works. But in this case I have to agree with you and calling Green's comment a "recasting" of Bonhoeffer's statement is rather charitable. I think it borders on obfuscation.

From the section I quoted above, it is clear that Bonhoeffer is not talking about involuntary infanticide or coerced abortions. He's talking about the nature of marriage and the family, and this becomes indisputably clear from the surrounding context.

One explanatory motivation for these kinds of notes might be that some interpreters are trying to undermine the appropriation of Bonhoeffer by more militant contemporary Christians who use his example as a basis for targeting abortion clinics and shooting abortion providers, for instance.

For someone who has some of these motivations in mind, but who gives a generally helpful overview of the uses (and abuses) of Bonhoeffer in the American literature, see Stephen Haynes' The Bonhoeffer Phenomenon (Augsburg Fortress, 2004).

[Hunter Baker]

Jordan, this blog post disturbed me terribly. How do those attitudes end up socializing in the four walls of the church building?

[Jordan]

Hunter, it is hard to understand, a disturbing case of moral dissonance, so to speak. It may help to know that Fountain Street is functionally if not officially a unitarian/universalist church. And re: Michael's comment above, it also seems a case not where the lapse is in the first place rational, intellectual, or cognitive (and thus the ineffectiveness of rational argumentation), but rather willful or volitional disobedience, the suppression of the truth in unrighteousness.

One of the reasons I was willing to speak about Bonhoeffer there is that his moral witness is so clear, and because he's so fundamentally a Christian theologian. Even some of his more difficult ideas, e.g. "religionless Christianity" are completely incomprehensible without Christ. The idea wasn't a "Christless religion," after all.

[Wyman Richardson]

Thanks Jordan. I suspect you're right about Green trying to keep Bonhoeffer from being coopted by some of the more militant fringes. That's noble enough, I agree.

Overall, it seems to me that what Green has done in this instance is provide a cautionary tale about the powerful temptation to bring our heroes into line with our own agendas. Another example might be Walter Hooper's "Roman Catholicizing" of C.S. Lewis, or at least that's how I read him at times.

I myself am glad to let Bonhoeffer be Bonhoeffer. There are parts of his work I disagree with. There are many more parts I do agree with. But Bonhoeffer isn't me (thank God) and I have no desire for him to be! :-)

[Benighted Savage]

>>> A great many motives may lead to an action of this kind; indeed in cases where it is an act of despair, performed in circumstances of extreme human or economic destitution and misery, the guilt may often lie rather with the community than with the individual. <<<

I don't follow Bonhoeffer here. How can a "community" be guilty unless we have a case like Mainland China, where state-sponsored abortions are coerced?

A large number of poor persons never see the inside of a jail or prison.

[TimC]

Benighted,

I understand Bonhoeffer to be alluding to the "royal law" of James 2:8-13.

If I know my neighbor is hungry and do nothing to help him and then find out that he has robbed a convenience store simply to put bread on his table, I (the community) stand guilty before God. My crime is of a different kind, and I will never do jail time for it. But I expect God to judge me, perhaps even more severely than he judges the thief.

Likewise, there are those who feel driven to an abortion not because they want to but because they see no other alternative, perhaps because those who could and should have offered an alternative did nothing. This does not diminish the evil of abortion. Rather, it speaks to the great responsibility that we have to our neighbors. "And who is my neighbor?"

[Benighted Savage]

>>> I understand Bonhoeffer to be alluding to the "royal law" of James 2:8-13. <<<

Perhaps I'm being dense, but I don't think that I'm raising the issue of favoritism or "respect to persons" (unless, perhaps, the "person" here is that of the mother). The admonition to love my neighbor as myself is of course supremely relevant; but even if I were to offend the law of love in one point, and be guilty of all, I don't see how I would be guilty of the mother's crime of murdering her baby. Wouldn't the mother be guilty of THAT crime? Isn't the law of love indespensible to her, too?

Bonhoffer SEEMS to be arguing that the community is guilty NOT of abandoning their neighbors, the mother and her child, but of the murder of the child itself. THAT'S what I find puzzling. Is there a larger context of his theology where this would make sense?

>>> Likewise, there are those who feel driven to an abortion not because they want to but because they see no other alternative, perhaps because those who could and should have offered an alternative did nothing. This does not diminish the evil of abortion. Rather, it speaks to the great responsibility that we have to our neighbors. "And who is my neighbor?" <<<

The question of my responsibility to and love for my neighbor is a great one. However, I don't think it addresses my problem with Bonhoeffer's apparent "scapegoating" of a crime -- in his words, "the fact of murder" -- onto a community (no matter how hard-hearted the community's members).

[Michael]

>>The question of my responsibility to and love for my neighbor is a great one. However, I don't think it addresses my problem with Bonhoeffer's apparent "scapegoating" of a crime -- in his words, "the fact of murder" -- onto a community (no matter how hard-hearted the community's members).<<

I don't think it's scapegoating. Bonhoeffer rightfully observed that the well-being of a child is not solely on the head of its mother. The morality of the doctor performing the abortion is called into question, but also the obligations the family has to care for the mother and the baby. Consider the willful disintegration of the family in line with abortion and you'll see a better parallel:

if there was a social movement to make grandparents stronger parts of the family structure, if there was a strong attempt to include the father of the child in rearing and caring for him, if the "crisis pregnancy centers" that we have now offered material aid out of charity as opposed to governmental obligation...

When we care for the weakest of our society, this doesn't just mean the child. Sometimes it means the mother. This is a strange thought because modern conservatism has been sucked into the Left's hijacking of the individual right to choose, as opposed to the individual obligation to care. Bar the government and ask individuals to care for a child, and everyone will say they want to; no one wants children to die. But we have washed our hands of this obligation--we have foster homes, but it does not extend to the unborn--and put the sin on the head of the mother.

Certainly the participants in the actual act of abortion are guilty of high crimes; no one is excusing that choice. But Bonhoeffer is asking the society to consider what drove a mother to this despicable choice.

And sometimes that's not material aid. Sometimes it is that we have constructed a house of cards (feminism) that devalues motherhood. You may not be guilty of this individually, but socially, we have told mothers to go ahead and get an abortion. That blood is on the head of the society at large, if not all its individual members.

[Benighted Savage]

>>> I don't think it's scapegoating. I don't think it's scapegoating. Bonhoeffer rightfully observed that the well-being of a child is not solely on the head of its mother. The morality of the doctor performing the abortion is called into question, but also the obligations the family has to care for the mother and the baby. <<<

I admire the honesty of Bonhoeffer's words: abortion is "nothing but murder"; "All these considerations...cannot in any way alter the fact of murder."

He's on the right track, but then gets derailed (in my opinion) on the question of guilt. He writes "in cases where it is an act of despair, performed in circumstances of extreme human or economic destitution and misery, the guilt may often lie rather with the community than with the individual."

Look: he's not addressing the question of how family structures or society can best provide for the well-being of a mother or child. The question is: who is at fault? Unless the abortionist or family members threaten the mother with death unless she has the abortion, I can only think of one answer to this question.

Perhaps if he had finished his _Ethics_ he would have completed his thought.

[Benighted Savage]

>>> Bar the government and ask individuals to care for a child, and everyone will say they want to; no one wants children to die. But we have washed our hands of this obligation--we have foster homes, but it does not extend to the unborn--and put the sin on the head of the mother. <<<

I'm not so sure that "no one wants children to die." For example, "we" have a President who says in public that HE DOESN'T WANT his daughters to be punished with an unwanted child. That's pretty clear. Also, I can think of about 40+ million counter-examples (since 1973) to this statement.

If we have washed our hands of the obligation to care for the mother then we are guilty of this great sin. However, outside of regimes like the one presently in Mainland China, I can only think of one person who is culpable of deciding to murder a child with the help of an abortionist.

>>> Certainly the participants in the actual act of abortion are guilty of high crimes; no one is excusing that choice. But Bonhoeffer is asking the society to consider what drove a mother to this despicable choice. <<<

Look at Bonhoeffer's words again: unless he's a very muddled thinker, which I doubt very much, he's doing a lot more than this. He argues that in certain circumstances, the guilt is no longer hers -- it is the community's. Given the economy of sin, or just the definitin of "guilt," how is this possible?

>>> You may not be guilty of this individually, but socially, we have told mothers to go ahead and get an abortion. That blood is on the head of the society at large, if not all its individual members. <<<

If it is socially acceptable to hold slaves, are Abolitionists guilty of being slaveholders? If divorce is socially acceptable, are those who literally do not part from their marriage 'til death culpable of having a divorce? Are faithful spouses guilty of adultery given a modern "culture of adultery" where many indulge in this sin? If I take such a position seriously, I ignore not only those who are at fault but also the righteous who follow Christ and pursue the good. That's not right.

[Jordan]

I'd have to take a look at the German to be sure, but the way it reads in English it seems to me he is saying relatively more fault might lie with the community rather than with the mother in certain circumstances (e.g. where there are structural impediments/disincentives/obstructions to carrying a child to term).

I have to say too, Beknighted Savage, that you can't really have it both ways. If all of the guilt lies with the mother (outside of Mainland China), then no guilt is upon legislators or politicians who endorse, subsidize, or otherwise support abortion.

But I think you are right too to point to the fragmentary nature of the Ethics, as well as to note that this is a rather brief statement from which it might well be impossible to extrapolate Bonhoeffer's position on each individual ethical question. I'm struck by the emphasis he places on essentially pastoral concerns for the mother without, I think, denying the reality of the sin. It reminds me of advice he gives to pastors in Discipleship: sometimes you have to tell your parishioner "You are being disobedient," that's why you are not "feeling" like a child of God. I have a hard time imagining a lot of churches today where that kind of pastoral rebuke would be possible.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Benighted Savage: "The question is: who is at fault? Unless the abortionist or family members threaten the mother with death unless she has the abortion, I can only think of one answer to this question."

Jordan: "If all of the guilt lies with the mother (outside of Mainland China), then no guilt is upon legislators or politicians who endorse, subsidize, or otherwise support abortion."

I would imagine two possible rejoinders to Jordan's rejoinder.

#1. Push Benighted Savage's argument back a step or two. I.e., "Unless the pro-abortion legislators or politicians threaten the mother with death unless she has the abortion, I can only think of one answer to this question."

#2. The moral transgression of pro-abortion legislators and politicians is of a different kind than the aborting mother's. Related, but different.

Pax.

[Michael]

Benighted Savage:

If it is socially acceptable to hold slaves, are Abolitionists guilty of being slaveholders? If divorce is socially acceptable, are those who literally do not part from their marriage 'til death culpable of having a divorce? Are faithful spouses guilty of adultery given a modern "culture of adultery" where many indulge in this sin? If I take such a position seriously, I ignore not only those who are at fault but also the righteous who follow Christ and pursue the good. That's not right.

Me:

You may not be guilty of this individually, but socially, we have told mothers to go ahead and get an abortion. That blood is on the head of the society at large, if not all its individual members.

No, you really don't ignore the individual members who may or may not be guilty. Imagine, for example, a recent discussion on the role of the state in executing its duties. We hold the state to different standards than individuals. An individual may be guilty of vengeance murder, but the state is merely wielding the sword of justice with the death sentence. An individual may not be guilty of coercing others to give charitably, but the state is guilty of picking the pockets of the rich against their collective will to give to the poor.

The individual member may not be guilty. But the social reality is. This doesn't mean every individual member of the society has the blood on his hands; it is merely a collective term.

As an aside, I think Bonhoeffer's positon is related to Luther's treatment of suicide. Luther condemned suicide as a morally grievous act, just as Bonhoeffer does abortion, but questioned whether the suicider (suicidee...both?) can be held responsible for the despair in his life. If we are fallen, then despair is a consequence of the fall, a perversion visited upon us by our sin. Luther, therefore, argued--perhaps timidly, perhaps not quite so sure of himself, as I'm not sure of him--that a suicider does not necessarily want to kill himself, and thus does not have the intent to murder, but rather wants to escape the despair of sin and have had the temptations and power of the devil visited upon them, which they could not overcome.

Bonhoeffer likely was more than aware of this historical Lutheran take on suicide, and applied it to abortion: that an individual may have mitigating circumstances. Mitigating, not excusing.

Bonhoeffer:

In cases where it is an act of despair, performed in circumstances of extreme human or economic destitution and misery, the guilt may often lie rather with the community than with the individual.

I'll admit this is a tough quote to wrestle with, and I haven't read the German. Honestly, I haven't even read the passage in question in context. I am extrapolating based on other readings of Bonhoeffer and my familiarity with Lutheran theology. But perhaps we ought to question what Bonhoeffer means by "guilt" (which might be better revealed by an original language look at the text).

Merriam-Webster's first definition for guilt reads thus: ": the fact of having committed a breach of conduct especially violating law and involving a penalty." If this is what Bonhoeffer means by guilt, then the society is clearly in breach of a Lockean social contract, albeit a moral one rather than an economic one, in cases of abortion as a result of despair in surrounding conditions. A society ought to facilitate the rearing of a child in the form of support--however that support may come--but without that support, the society does not do this.

However, the second definition for guilt reads thus: "the state of one who has committed an offense especially consciously." In this case, the mother and the abortionist are clearly the guilty parties, for their actions were committed consciously, whereas the society's actions were omissions, not commissions.

[Benighted Savage]

>>> Imagine, for example, a recent discussion on the role of the state in executing its duties. We hold the state to different standards than individuals. An individual may be guilty of vengeance murder, but the state is merely wielding the sword of justice with the death sentence. An individual may not be guilty of coercing others to give charitably, but the state is guilty of picking the pockets of the rich against their collective will to give to the poor.

The individual member may not be guilty. But the social reality is. This doesn't mean every individual member of the society has the blood on his hands; it is merely a collective term. <<<

We don't hold "the State" to a different standard. We merely live in a modern nation-state where the government legally has a monopoly on coercive violence and taxation. Vigilantes and racketeers are criminal because they are not acting as agents of the state; and, even if they become agents, they have to follow the law (such as it is!) regulating their actions lest they descend to a different kind of criminality.

"The State" in your sense doesn't DO anything in this regard. It is a metaphor. And I don't think Bonhoeffer is trucking in metaphors here.

An agent of the State, an individual hangman, executes a condemned man. An agent of the state, an individual soldier, kills an enemy combatant. OR an agent of the Nazi State, an SS guard, shoots a Jewish girl dead at Birkenau. OR an agent of the Nazi State, a Waffen-SS soldier, "noodles" a Polish lawyer and kicks him into a ditch. How is "guilt" to be assessed in these four different situations?

Agents of the state get their instructions (and authority) through a state government that includes a bureaucracy, a system of laws, and a political system. All of these State systems are composed of individuals who have less or more authority, responsibilities, and power. In the case of Nazi Germany, where the State goes (very, very) bad, the trials at Nuremberg that resulted did not try "the State"; instead, it tried the INDIVIDUAL agents of the state (despite the fact they were merely "following orders") and their INDIVIDUAL superiors who gave the orders.

[Benighted Savage]

>>> Bonhoeffer likely was more than aware of this historical Lutheran take on suicide, and applied it to abortion: that an individual may have mitigating circumstances. Mitigating, not excusing. <<<

Suicide is self-murder. Abortion is the arranged murder of another person, not the self. Not comparable; I don't see why Bonhoeffer would make this leap. As for mitigation, are we talking about circumstances that mitigate guilt or mitigate punishment? Two very different things.

As for guilt, I think it telling that the translation states "the guilt may often lie RATHER WITH the community than with the individual," and not "the guilt may often lie MORE WITH the community than with the individual." Guilt is not being shared, it's being transferred.

[Benighted Savage]

>>> Merriam-Webster's first definition for guilt reads thus: ": the fact of having committed a breach of conduct especially violating law and involving a penalty." If this is what Bonhoeffer means by guilt, then the society is clearly in breach of a Lockean social contract, albeit a moral one rather than an economic one, in cases of abortion as a result of despair in surrounding conditions. A society ought to facilitate the rearing of a child in the form of support--however that support may come--but without that support, the society does not do this. <<<

"Society" may very well be in violation of some Lockean social contract (I'd prefer to say they are violating Christ's law of love, a very different thing), but how is that directly equivalent to being guilty of the murder of the child? A blase or coldly indifferent "society" would be in a "breach of conduct" here, but I don't see how it is the same breach as the mother's. Nor do I see how you can close this gap on the question of guilt between mother-murderer and "society" without some metaphoric violence -- i.e., scapegoating.

Of course, since I don't have access to the original German, nor to the larger context of the quotation, all of this is a purely speculative attempt to get my head around a very difficult passage. What I wouldn't give to see what German word was translated as "community," or the German behind "the guilt may often lie rather with the community than with the individual"!

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Benighted Savage: "Guilt is not being shared, it's being transferred."

The First Transfer:

The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it." (Genesis 3:12)

---------

With respect to shifting the culpability from the individual to the society/culture/community for moral transgression:

#1. Society/Culture/Community is ambiguous and amorphous. What a convenient scapegoat. I believe that secular liberals explain the origin and existence of evil as being the institutions of society and that's why they're constantly trying to take it over and transform it into their liberal utopian vision.

#2. If, indeed, the culpability of moral transgression is the fault of society/culture/community or nation-state, then isn't the Lord quite justified in wiping out nations? I.e., Caanite genocide.

[Benighted Savage]

>>> #1. Society/Culture/Community is ambiguous and amorphous <<<

Or, in what I remember of German: "gemeinschaft" is not "gesellschaft" is not "die Stadt." Which is why a peek at Bonhoeffer's original German would be quite useful here. I would guess "community" is probably from gemeinschaft, but it's just a guess.

>>> I believe that secular liberals explain the origin and existence of evil as being the institutions of society and that's why they're constantly trying to take it over and transform it into their liberal utopian vision. <<<

Oh, perhaps they're just being Cynical.

[Jordan]

I'm going to find the passage when I go to the library today and post it in full back here.

I will say that undoubtedly this passage would be better understood within the context of Bonhoeffer's larger theological emphasis on the sociality of the human person, e.g. on "vicarious-representative-action" (Stellvertretung) and the responsibilities of those of us who share life together (Gemeinsames Leben) in community.

[Jordan]

I have just updated the post with a longer and more recent translation of the relevant section.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Bonhoeffer: "The mother, for whom this decision would be desperately hard because it goes against her own nature, would certainly be the last to deny the weight of guilt."

Bonhoeffer might be surprised by the thinking and attitudes of some of today's modern, secular woman in America.

[Benighted Savage]

Jordan, much thanks for the update. This clarifies a lot. You're the best!

[Jordan]

Hopefully the final update necessary for this post is now up. Re: correlations with Lutheran treatments of suicide, there are a number of other "timely" topics treated by Bonhoeffer in this brief essay, including "self-murder," and the institution of marriage. I commend it for further study.