Assess the view that Bonhoeffer’s teaching on ethics still has relevance today.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer born 11 February 1906 is a widely regarded Christian scholar who grew up in Breslow Germany. This kind of biographical comment is of no relevance, wastes time, and also suggests the candidate is more interested in description than analysis. After his brothers tragic death in world war one, the outbreak of world war two in Germany lead by Hitler, sparked the beginning of his most famous ethical teaching. However due to the extreme time, Bonhoeffer’s ethical teachings where also highly extreme, for example his teachings of costly grace. And therefore, despite being led by Christian teaching, which people still follow today, they are too extreme, irrational to modern society, and despite his teaching of solidarity, it can be argued his teaching cannot be used in a multi-faith society of today.

There is a fairly clear thesis statement, but the repetition of the word ‘extreme’ suggests lazy thinking, as this word is emotive and also its meaning is ambiguous. Extreme for whom and in what ways?

Firstly, it can be easily argued that Bonhoeffer’s teachings on ethics are too extreme for today’s society. Bonhoeffer drew much inspiration from Mark 8:34-35, in which it states that “whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up the cross.” Bonhoeffer took this at complete and literal value, stating that you must die for Jesus and Christianity in order to be a true disciple of God; his teaching of sacrifice and suffering instruct one to deny themselves in order to follow Jesus. However to ask one to “deny themselves” is too big a task in society of today. Perhaps during Nazi Germany it was necessary to die for your faith to make a stand against the totalitarian regime, however in the world today, society is relatively peaceful and Bonhoeffer’s ideas of costly Grace, in that we should die to make the grace worthwhile, would be irrational and irrelevant today.

The word ‘extreme’ is beginning to have some context here, which makes it clearer. Some counter argument is needed however: for example, it might be argued that Christianity has become anonymous because of the lack of sacrifice (for example in the amount of money Christians give away, or the apparent lack of action on behalf of the refugee and homeless).

However, any Christian scholar such as Joseph Fletcher would argue this sound point. Fletcher stated Bonhoeffer’s teachings were a “radical version of the situational method”. Fletcher”argues that Jesus showed his true love for us by dying for us on the cross so we could be saved from our sins. Thus one might argue along with Fletcher stating that Jesus died for us, thus we must die for him. However would dying be rational when Christianity is not oppressed or discriminated against in today’s modernised society? The idea is simply not sound. Jesus was the son of God and died as he was also holy God, we as humans are not God, and can’t die for anything we believe in. Therefore Bonhoeffer’s teaching of ethics do not have relevance today.

Strange paragraph which puts words into Joseph fletcher’s mouth which I’m not sure he ever said. The situational point is an interesting one and needs developing clearly and linking to Bonhoeffer’s teachings, rathe than left hanging in the air.

Furthermore, Bonhoeffer’s teachings do not have relevance today as he seems to justify civil disobedience, when he states “for the sake of Christ, the worldly order is subject to the commandment of God”. This means that Bonhoeffer’s law that God’s word was above the state and that it was ones duty to intervene if the states actions were unjust and against Gods Law. However this is highly dangerous in a modern society in which to take the law into your own hands. We have rules and regulations to stop one from rising above the law. To state you have the authority of God gives you the right to dictate your own laws and is not rationally sound. For example if one was to be told they are not allowed to murder, yet one was provoked by someone and decided, as they had been provoked. It was their right to kill. The world would be in chaos if these things were rational. A good example would be the Yorkshire Ripper who believed that he was fulfilling Gods duty by killing prostitutes. We can’t be sure of Gods existence and thus we cannot use him to overrule sound laws in our society.

A strong point in support of the thesis statement and might have been strengthened further with reference to Scripture eg Paul in Romans 13 teaches us to submit to earthly authority. Reference could also have been made to the community at Finkenwalde and the Barmen declaration (eg The church should not be ruled by a leader (“Führer”). There is no hierarchy in the church (Mt 20, 25f). Of course there is a long tradition of Christian passive civil disobedience (Martin Luther King for example). In September 1933, the national church synod at  Wittenberg voluntarily passed a resolution to apply the Aryan paragraph within the church, meaning that pastors and church officials of Jewish descent were to be removed from their posts.

However Stanley Hauerwas argues that Bonhoeffer’s concern for the truth within politics is much needed. Bonhoeffer created the concept of the “Western void” in which he saw a secular world without Christianity filled with dangerous ideas and beliefs. Thus his teachings on ethics as action costly grace sacrifice and suffering and solidarity arrived to make sure that we understood the flaws in society and used God’s truth to make sure society followed the laws of Christianity. However ‘truth’ is something that we have achieved in a democratic society. We do not need suffering as we have created a peaceful government. It is simply not necessary to believe wrong in our government as people are generally living peaceful times.

Again there’s an interesting point that needs developing, based on Hauerwas’ view. The rest of the paragraph is rather glib and overstated.

Finally just like many Christian based ethical teachings, Bonhoeffer’s ethical teachings will not be relevant in a multi-faith society of today. Bonhoeffer worked towards creating freedom for all religions in Germany (before his arrest and helped many Jews to escape the totalitarian regime however he stated many times that Christianity was the religion Jews must convert to, to be saved by Jesus and enter heaven. This view can seem highly discriminatory in a modern society and has little regard for others religions. On top of this Bonhoeffer’s teachings on ethical as action show that we should be like Jesus in the world and act on the bible not just stand by and watch passively. However to many religions Jesus and his like is not a concept they follow.

However having said this after Bonhoeffer’s time in prison he wrote on solidarity, stating that he felt he had brothers in prison despite differences in faith and upbringing, and that it was his responsibility to care for them, and love them. Bonhoeffer’s conviction to love all can be something we learn from in today’s society. In his teachings on solidarity he states we must band together united in order to bring about change and peace within our society. It’s just a matter of doing this without the motivation of Christian faith behind Bonhoeffer that could unite a multi faith society. Therefore Bonhoeffer’s teaching on ethics does not have relevance today, as they are not in fitting with a multi-faith society.

It’s unclear in this paragraph what the link is exactly with a multi-faith society.

To conclude we can see that despite Bonhoeffer’s teachings on solidarity by which he believes in a togetherness of people, his ethical idea on ethics as action, costly grace and sacrifice and suffering one too extreme for a modern day society. Furthermore his justification of civil disobedience could lead to an unorganised and chaotic society despite the views of Hauerwas puts forward, in that Bonhoeffer’s teaching, given truth. In regards to the question no, Bonhoeffer’s teachings, on ethics do not have relevance today, due to being too extreme, could cause chaos and would not fit in a multi faith society.

It’s a strong thesis, but not especially well developed or clearly explained. It would make an interesting exercise to rewrite this essay with the same thesis, but more fully and cogently explained, with some more counter-arguments. PB

AO1 Level 3: 7 marks A satisfactory demonstration of knowledge and understanding with of mostly relevant material. Some accurate knowledge demonstrating understanding through material used but may be lacking in breadth. Sources /  academic approaches are used to demonstrate knowledge and understanding with only partial success

AO2 Level 3: 12 marks A satisfactory demonstration of analysis and/evaluation in response to the question. Some successful argument. Partially successful analysis and evaluation. Views asserted but often not fully justified. Mostly answers the set question. There is a line of reasoning presented which is mostly relevant and which has some structure.

Total 19/40