Science
in Christian PerspectiveScience
in Christian Perspective
Notes on "Science and the Whole Person" A Personal Integration of Scientific and Biblical Perspectives Part 8
Ethical Guidelines
RICHARD H. BUBE
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305
From: JASA 30 (September 1978): 134-141.
[This continuing series of articles is based on courses given at
Stanford University,
Fuller Theological Seminary, Regent College, and Menlo Park
Presbyterian Church.
Previous articles were published as follows. 1. "Science Isn't
Everything,"
March (1976), pp. 33-37. 2. "Science Isn't Nothing," June (1976), pp.
82-87. 3. "The Philosophy and Practice of Science," September (1976),
pp. 127-132. 4. "Pseudo-Science and Pseudo-Theology. (A) Colt
and Occult,"
March (1977), pp. 22-28. 5. "PseudoScience and Pseudo-Theology.
(B) Scientific
Theology," September (1977), pp. 124-129. 6.
"Pseudo-Science and PseudoTheology.
(C) Cosmic Consciousness," December ( 1977), pp. 165-174. 7.
"Man Came
of Age?" June (1978), pp. 81-87.]
In several of the following installments, we consider a number of
different practical
issues in which science and Christian faith both come into focus.
Before considering
these specific issues, however, we take the opportunity in this installment to
survey a few basic ethical guidelines of a more general nature. As in the last
chapter we pointed out some of the insights into "man come of
age" provided
by Dietrieh Bonhoeffer, so in this chapter we continue this investigation of the thought of
Bonhoeffer somewhat
further into the matter of Christian ethics.
Christian theology comes to life in Christian living. In this context abstract
principles must be translated into concrete action. Of the various
possible frameworks
for describing Christian doctrine and ethics: that of
"either-or", "both-and,"
or "neither-nor," all
can he interpreted in both a positive and a negative sense, depending
on the application
made. Bonhoeffer's Ethics1 provides a large number of striking examples of the
power of a positive use of the "neither-nor" formulation.
Although this
hook is part of all uncompleted text more than 30 years old, its
message is prophetic
and relevant for us today.
Frameworks for Describing Ethics
Discussions of Christian doctrine or ethics are frequently cast into the form
of one of three types of comparisons: "either-or,"
"both-and,"
and "neithe-nor." The "either-or" approach is essentially
one of antithesis. A modern writer with whose style such an approach
is commonly
associated is Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer's emphasis on antithesis as opposed
to synthesis, and his argument that the loss of antithesis via Hegel
is the beginning
of the road to modern despair,2 strengthen this association, He is
explicit about
this and identifies a "both-and" approach as part of the structure of
disintegration, "Truth as truth is gone, and synthesis (the
both-and), with
its relativism, reigns."3 Schaeffer seeks to defend the reality of certain
antitheses, e.g., either a man is a Christian or he is not, just as on a purely
human level either a woman is pregnant or she is riot, but in setting
forth this
defense he perhaps argues more broadly than intended. In the Appendix
to The Church
Before the Watching World4, Schaeffer uses a "neither-nor"
formulation
with a concept of "freedom within circles" of doctrine, as
long as one
dues not proceed to extremes in one direction or the other. Here he comes close
to a "both-and approach in such topics as the person of Christ: Christ is
neither only man nor only God; Christ is both man and God.
With these kinds of comparison in mind, it is interesting to read the
words of D.
Elton Trueblood,
Always the great Christian word is and. In a number of situations the Christian insight is that either-or produces a heresy while and can bring us close to reality . . . . It is part of the Christian understanding of reality that all simplistic answers to basic questions are bound to be false. Over and over, the answer is both-and rather than either-or.5
Here the emphasis is on false dichotomies, between arguing for either the love of God or the love of man, rather than on both; between arguing for preaching the Gospel or serving the neighbor, rather than on both; between arguing for the sovereignty of God or the responsibility of man, rather than on both.
Ethics is not a matter for intellectual debate; ethics is a matter for living the life of Christ.
A few pages further on in the same hook as that containing Trueblood's words,
the following remarks by Douglas D. Feaver bring out another facet.
Trueblood vividly reminded us of the "gutters" on either side of the Narrow Way-the one of personal piety, the other of social concern. He rightly emphasized the holy conjunctions both-and, over against the heretical either-or. But I fear the situation today is neither holy nor heretical; instead we have the demonic neither-nor-neither personal piety nor genuine communal relevance.6
Thus we come full circle with a negative use of
"neither-nor" to compare
with Schaeffer's positive use described above. It is evident that
there is nothing
intrinsic so any of these formulations that guarantees one to he more faithful
to truth than another, but rather the objects of each set of conjunction pairs
determine the type of usage and interpretation. We say Yes to
"either a Christian
or not a Christian," but No to "either personally pious or socially
concerned.
We say Yes to "both true God and true Man" for the person of Christ,
but No to "both sin and expression of love." We say Yes to
"neither
one God without diversity nor three Gods," and No to
"neither a sovereign
Cod nor a responsible man."7
Of all these forms, that of "neither-nor" has a particular crispness
in helping the Christian avoid the extremes. As human beings we tend
to oscillate
between extremes, finding it difficult to come to dynamic equilibrium
at a balanced
position. Few examples of the effectiveness of the
"neither-nor" approach
are more illuminating than those presented in Ethics by I)ietrich Bonhoeffer.
One of the advantages of the allows us to define errors clearly even
in situations
where we cannot define truth clearly.
What Christian Ethics Is
In normal discourse, the term ethics means to know good, to do good,
and perhaps
to be good. Bonhoeffer stresses the radically different view of
ethics appropriate
for Christians. To speak of ethics is not to speak of rules of right and wrong,
of knowing or seeking to know right from wrong, or of any kind of
abstract consideration
of principles, laws, or knowledge-but it is to speak only of the way in which
"Jesus Christ takes form in our world.8 Ethics is not a matter
for intellectual
debate; ethics is a matter for living the life of Christ.
The form of Christ does not take form in us by our own efforts but it is a work
of God in our lives (Galatians 4:19) in keeping with the biblical description
of our sanctification as our transformation into Christ's image.
For those whom lie knew lie also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. (Romans 8:29) Do not he conformed to this world but be transformed liv the renewal of your mind. (Romans 12:2 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another. (II Corinthians 3:18) that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death. (Philippians 3:10)
To be conformed to Christ, is first of all to be conformed to the
Incarnate One,
God incarnate in manand hence to he a real man. To be conformed to
Christ is secondly
to be conformed to the Crucified Oneand hence to he a man sentenced by God for
sin. To he conformed to Christ is finally to be conformed to the Risen One-and
hence to he a new man before Cod (Colnssians 3:3).
One starting out to consider ethics from a specifically Christian perspective
must discard both the question, "How can I be good?" and
"How can
I do good?" and must ask instead only, "What is the will of
God? 9 To concentrate on being good or doing good presupposes that one's self and the
world are the ultimate reality, rather than that the ultimate reality
can be only
God, Creator, Reconciler and Redeemer. To inquire about the goodness of self or
the world is possible only after inquiry about the goodness of Cod,
and this "question
of good can find its answer only in Christ."10 Abstract goodness apart from
the reality of life in the world has no meaning; there is no possible
separation
between man and his acts, as Jesus said, "Every sound tree bears
good fruit,
but the bad tree bears evil fruit," (Matthew 7:17)
The knowledge of good and evil seems to he the aim of all ethical reflection. The first task of Christian ethics is to invalidate this knowledge . . . . Mao at his origin knows only one thing: God, . . . The knowledge of good and evil shows that he is no longer at one with his origin.11
God can be truly known, only if only God is known. To know good and evil is to
confirm separation from God (Genesis 2:17); man's knowledge of good
and evil can
only stand against Cod. Ethics, therefore, in its uniquely Christian
perspective
must be directed toward knowing Cod and in the formation of the form of Christ
in us and in the world through us.
Victory in Christian ethics can be won neither by the reasonable man,
nor by the
fanatic, nor by conscience, nor by duty, nor by freedom, nor by concentrating
on private virtue, but only by the man who can combine simplicity with wisdom.
The reasonable man fails because he considers that a little reason is
sufficient
and therefore strives to save through education; he does not
recognize the spiritual
dimension of the human condition. The fanatic fails because he
believes that purity
of the will is sufficient to oppose evil; he fails to take account of reality
and cannot handle the frustration of real circumstances. The man who trusts in
conscience is all too willing to trade a peaceful conscience for a clear one,
and fails to realize that a bad conscience can he healthier than a
deceived one.
The man who trusts in duty fails because he places his responsibility
on an authority
figure, but all too often he find that that authority figure has
played the part
of the Devil himself. The man who values freedom above all else is willing to
act without regard to principle,
He will easily consent to the had, knowing full well that it is had, in order to ward off what is worse, and in doing this he will no longer be able to see that precisely the worse which he is trying to avoid may still be the better,12
The man who prizes his private virtue above all lives scrupulously
within himself,
but fails to be sensitive to the needs around him; what he fads to do
will finally
leave him no peace.
Only the man who can combine simplicity with wisdom can gain the
victory in Christian
living. Unlike the double-minded person of James 1:8, he is not
hampered by abstractions
but is bound by love for God. Since his simplicity looks only to God,
it is able
to look at the reality of the world without failing. In this way
simplicity becomes
wisdom, and the only man who is wise is the man who sees reality in God.
There is a place at which God and the cosmic reality are reconciled, a place at which God and man have become one . . . . This place does not lie somewhere out beyond reality in the realm of ideas. It lies in the midst of history as a divine miracle. It lies in Jesus Christ, the Reconciler of the world ..... Whoever sees Jeans Christ does indeed see God and the world in one. He can henceforward no longer see God without the world or the world without God.13
To the biblical, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of
Wisdom" (Psalm
111:10), Bonhoeffer adds, "To recognize the significant in the factual is
wisdom."14
Man
Man is to be regarded neither with contempt nor with idolization.
Out of love for man, God Himself became man. It is not toward ideals that God's
love is directed, but toward real men in a real world. In the Incarnation, Cod
becomes a real man. The realization of the significance of the
Incarnation leads
one to regard man neither with contempt nor with idolization.
The tyrannical despiser of men exploits the worst aspects of human nature for
his own purposes; the greater his contempt for men, the greater his tendency to
exalt himself for deification or idolization. But the good man is also guilty
of despising men if he sees what is going on and still withdraws to leave his
neighbor to his fate. Even an honest kind of philanthropism is guilty
of despising
man if it leads to indulgence for evil, overlooking of baseness, and
the excusing
of the reprehensible; once again it is the real man who is despised because the
real man is denied.
It is only through God's being made man that it is possible to know the real man and not to despise him. the reason why we can live as real men and can love the real man at our side is to be found solely in the incarnation of God, in the unfathomable love of God for man.15
Contempt for the real man and the idolization of man go hand in hand. Wherever
one is found the other will follow. Neither the one nor the other is possible
for the man who sees Jesus Christ.
Success
Success is neither to be simply identified with good, nor are we to hold that
the good alone is successful, nor that all success is the product of
wickedness.
For life in the world apart from Christ, success is often the only
and sufficient
justification for any action or program. In this framework the
crucified Christ,
sentenced for the sins of men, remains an enigma.
As we see him, however, we recognize that success can never he taken
as the standard
for the Christian.
To claim that success defines what is good is possible only in the
complete absence
of moral sensitivity. To claim that only the good is successful leads
to a false
optimism that must ultimately require the falsification of historical facts. To
claim that all success comes from wickedness leads to unproductive criticism of
the past and a failure to act in the present. "Christ confronts
all thinking
in terms of success or failure with the man who is under God's
sentence, no matter
whether he be successful or unsuccessful."16
Death
Earthly life is to he seen neither as all nor as nothing.
The crucified Christ is also the risen Christ, and Christ's resurrection does
away with all idolization of death. If death is the last thing, then life must
be either all or nothing. To believe fanatically in the finality of
death forces
one either to clutch madly at everything in life, or to reject
everything in life.
The idolization of death is evident in a time when talk is everywhere
about building
for eternity, but in which life itself has no value.
Time
Neither the past nor the future are to command our total devotion.
Those actions that stem from attention to only the past or to only the future
are in fact rejections of both past and future. The real past is
rejected in favor
of a mystical glorification of days that never really were. The real future is
rejected in favor of a transcendent preoccupation which enables one
to evade the
responsibility of tomorrow.
When both the real past and the real future are rejected, it is as if
man hovered
over the "void," attempting to snatch the moment. Under
such conditions
it is impossible to sustain periods of tension or necessary periods of waiting;
all must be resolved at once with the simplest solution conceivable. Slow pain
is more feared than death; there are only two viable alternatives:
health or death.
Great convictions are replaced by the path of least resistance; challenges of
personal responsibility are avoided in favor of compliance with
authority. Instead
of the dissemination of truth, we face the spreading of manufactured
information
and propaganda. Pragmatism rules the day, and whatever is useful is
declared for
that reason to be just. Trust gives way to suspicion. Only one thing remains:
the universal fear of the "void."17
Reality
Reality is to be defined neither in terms of empirical positivism nor in terms
of idealism.
The two hallmarks of Bonhoeffer's theology and ethics are their
Christo-centricity
and their emphasis on the real. His treatment of reality is therefore a central
point in his ethics, and his attempts to circumscribe reality give
rise to a number
of "neither-nor" formulations.
This participation must be such that I never experience the reality of God without the reality of the world, or the reality of the world without the reality of God.16
"Whoever sees Jesus Christ does indeed see God and the world in one. He can hence forward no longer see God without the world or the world without God."
The empirical positivist errs by identifying the good with nothing
more than the
expedient, the useful and the advantageous. But even this is superior
to the idealist
who is concerned with the attainment of impossible goals unrelated to the real,
with abstractions and ethical ideals. The weakness of the positivist
is that his
reality is circumscribed by what is empirically verifiable, "which implies
denial of the origin of this reality in the ultimate reality, in
God."19
Traditional Christian ethical thought blocks the road to perceiving ethics in
terms of reality because of the common emphasis on "two spheres, the one
divine, holy, supernatural and Christian, and the other worldly,
profane, natural
and un-Christian."25 No progress can he made until it is realized that we
are called to choose neither the one nor the other of these two
spheres, but rather
to see the unity of the one reality which exists embracing both
divine and worldly,
holy and profane, supernatural and natural, Christian and
non-Christian. History
provides examples of the extremes that must be avoided. On the one hand there
is the devout monk, who withdraws to the monastery to concentrate wholly on the
first sphere; on the other hand there is the secular Protestant, who becomes so
caught up in the second sphere that he can no longer perceive the first.
To think in terms of these two spheres is to make secular and Christian oppose
each other, to pit the natural against the supernatural, the profane
against the
sacred, and the rational against the revelational. These two aspects of reality
are certainly not identical; yet they have a unity which is derived
from the reality
of Christ.
It is possible neither for Christianity to thrive apart from the world, nor for
the world to thrive apart from Christ.
A world in isolation from Christ falls
victim to license and self-will. Christianity withdrawn from the
world falls victim
to the unnatural and the irrational, to presumption and self-will.
The Christian's
worldliness does not separate him from Christ; his Christianity does
not separate
him from the world. The Christian belongs wholly to Christ; at the same time he
stands wholly in the world.
The Ultimate and the Penultimate
Neither the ultimate nor the penultimate must be taken exclusively.
The final, last and ultimate word for the Christian is the justification of the
sinner by the grace of God. The whole of his past is comprised in the word of
forgiveness; the whole of his future is safely held in the faithfulness of God.
His past sin is swallowed up in the love of Cod in Christ; his future in a life proceeding from God is without
sin (1 John 3:9). There is no word of God that goes beyond his mercy; it is his
final word. Yet it comes at the end of a span of time during which the man has
passed through accusation and found himself under the sentence of God. The way
to the ultimate must of necessity pass through the way of the penultimate. But
the penultimate has no value of its own, only the value it receives
in relationship
to the ultimate. Two extreme attempts at solutions have been proposed, both of
which must be rejected since they make the ultimate and the
penultimate mutually
exclusive.
One solution sees only the ultimate; Bonhoeffer calls it the
"radical"
solution. It sees only the complete breaking off of the penultimate,
views Christ
as the destroyer and enemy of all penultimates, and fastens on the
last word only
and the last conduct only to such an extent that the effect on this
world is judged
to he of no consequence.
The other solution sees only the penultimate; Bonhoeffer calls it the
"compromise"
solution. It sets the last word apart from all preceding words and holds that
the penultimate retains its right on its own grounds. It concentrates
on the penultimate,
since the end is not yet here; it deals with men only as they are, not as they
are called to become in Christ.
The "neither-nor" aspects of Bonhoeffer's treatment of the
radical and
compromise solutions can be most graphically shown in the form of the following
table of comparisons. It is evident that elements of the classic
personal evangelism
vs. social gospel conflict are also included here. Only the proper relationship
between the ultimate and the penultimate, a relationship with
precarious dynamic
balance, is adequate for a Christian following Jesus Christ.
Advocates of the radical solution must come to realize that Christ is
not radical
in their sense. Advocates of the compromise solution must come to realize that
Christ does not make compromises. There is value neither in the
concept of a pure
Christianity in itself, nor in the concept of man as he is in himself; there is
value only in the reality of God and the reality of man which becomes
one in Jesus
Christ. It is not some kind of Christianity that has value, but it is
Jesus Christ
himself, It is only in Christ that the solution of the
ultimate-penultimate problem
lies: his Incarnation shows the love of God for his creation; his
Crucifixion
shows the judgment of God upon all flesh; his Resurrection shows God's will for
a new world. These three revelations are revelations of one God; they cannot he
separated.
The Christian life calls for neither the destruction nor the sanctioning of the
penultimate. The reality of God meets the reality of the world in
Christ and allows
us to share in this real encounter; it is an encounter beyond all
radicalism and
beyond all compromise. The ultimate leaves room for the penultimate,
yet a thing
becomes penultimate only through the ultimate. The ultimate is coming and the
penultimate is here to prepare the way.
In relation to justification of the sinner by grace, two things are
penultimate:
being man and being good. It is only by reference to Jesus Christ, who has come
and who is to come, that we can know what it means to be man and to he good. It
is possible for us to be human and good because he has come; we must he human
and good because he is coming.
The Natural
The natural is to be identified wholly with neither the creaturely
nor the sinful.
The concept of "the natural" as an ethical guide has been generally
forsaken by Protestants, and has been retained primarily in Catholic circles.
Although there are undoubtedly ambiguities in its use as a viable
concept, there
is also something lost if it is completely neglected. Subjects such
as abortion,
euthanasia, contraception, suicide and sterilization cannot be treated without
some consideration of "the natural" and some evaluation of "the
natural" as a meaningful guide. We consider these topics in greater detail
in subsequent installments, giving here a brief overview of
Bonhoeffer's perspective
without necessarily indicating our agreement with it on all points.
The natural is distinct from the ereaturely because of the effects of the Fall.
The natural is distinct from the sinful in order to include the
creaturely, i.e.,
the good creation of God. Bunhueffer offers the following definition
of "the
natural,"
The natural is that which, after the Fall, is directed towards the coming of Christ. The unnatural is that which, after the Fall, closes its doors against the coming of Christ . . . . The natural is the form of life preserved by God for the fallen world and directed towards justification, redemption and renewal through Christ.22
Comparison of Radical and Compromise Solutions21
Radical
Compromise
Penultimate destroyed by ultimate.
Ultimate excluded from penultimate.
Ultimate does not admit
penultimate.
Penultimate does not admit ultimate.
Sees God
as judge and Redeemer.
Sees
God as Creator and Preserver.
The end is rendered absolute.
Things as-they-are are rendered absolute.
Hatred of the established,
of creation.
Hatred
of ultimate, of justification by grace.
Hatred of time.
Hatred of eternity.
Hatred of patience.
Hatred of decision.
Hatred of wisdom.
Hatred of simplicity.
Hatred of moderation
and measure.
Hatred of the immeasurable.
Hatred of the real.
Hatred of the word.
Gives rise to ethic based solely on Cross or
Resurrection. Gives rise
to ethic based solely on Incarnation.
Alternatively, the difference between natural and unnatural is the difference
between a proper and a mistaken use of freedom.
The natural is already established and present in the created world;
neither individual,
nor community, nor institution decides what is natural. The purpose
of the natural
is to safeguard life; the unnatural is the enemy of life. The
unnatural requires
organization; the natural is simply there.
Life must be viewed neither in terms of vitalism nor in terms of mechanization.
Life which sets itself up as an absolute destroys itself. Vitalism is
an absolutization
of life as an end in itself; mechanization is an absolutization of
life as a means
to an end. Natural life stands between these extremes. Both vitalism
and mechanization
express despair toward natural life.
Life is neither only an end in itself nor only a means to an end. In relation
to Christ, the status of life as an end in itself is understood as
ereaturehood,
and its status as a means to an end is understood as participation in
the Kingdom
of Cod. Within the framework of natural life, the status of life as an end in
itself is manifest in the rights with which life is endowed, and the status of
life as a means to an end is manifest in the duties which are imposed
upon it.
Bodily life carries within itself the right to its own preservation since it is
the will of God that life on earth should be in the form of bodily life. It is
therefore the "first right of natural life" to safeguard
"the life
of the body against arbitrary killing."23 "All deliberate killing of
innocent life is arbitrary."24 This perspective leads Bonhoeffer
to be extremely
cautious with the practices of abortion and euthanasia. In the ease
of euthanasia,
he recognizes the difference between "allowing to die" and
"killing"
to be valid, but finds that many arguments stem from the utility of life as the
deciding criterion. The destruction of human life can in general he justified
neither on the grounds of consideration far the patient nor on the grounds of
consideration for the healthy. The argument that human life should he destroyed
when it has lost its social usefulness, or that innocent sick life
can he properly
destroyed in the interest of healthy life, spring from a utilitarian
view toward
life and from an improper struggle against the character of the
fallen world itself.
"In the sight of Cod there is no life that is not worth living; for life
itself is valued by God."25
The human body must never become a thing, an object, completely in the power of
another man to do with as he pleases. Rape, exploitation, torture and arbitrary
confinement of the human body are all violations of natural life.
A Good Life
Life most be made neither a purely private concern nor the occasion
for participation
in "enthusiasm."
Because the concept of the good most he bound to the concept of the real, the
ethical abstraction of an isolated individual with a knowledge of
good and evil,
facing incessant decisions between clearly recognizable good and clearly evil,
must be forsaken. When life is a purely private concern, then a man's loyalty
to his own principles is represented as the good, without consideration for the
effects on other men. When we become "enthusiasts," we join the ranks
of political fanatics, ideologists, and importunate reformers whose failure is guaranteed, since
they do not come to grips with life, with man, as they are in reality.
Our life is lived in the tension between the "yes" of Creation, Atonement and Redemption, and the "no" of Condemnation and Death. A man who knows Christ must always hear the "no" with the "yes," and the "yes" with the "no."
When Jesus says, "I am the life," (John 11:25, 14:6), he hinds every
thought of life to his person. Life can never be separated from the person of
Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:21, Colossians 3:4).
If we leave him out of our reckoning, as the origin, the essence, and the goal
of life, of our life, if we fail to consider that we are creatures, reconciled
and redeemed, then we shall achieve no more than more biological and
ideological abstractions.26
Our life is lived in the tension between the "yes" of
Creation, Atonement
and Redemption, and the "no" of Condemnation and Death. A
man who knows
Christ can hear neither the "yes" only, nor the "no" only,
but he must always hear the "no" with the "yes,"
and the "yes"
with the "no."
Responsible Living
The possibility of responsible living arises from the realization that man is
neither wholly free nor wholly hound. Life is bound to mail and to God, and a
man's own life is free. Without this bond and this freedom there can
he no responsibility.
Responsible living evokes the concept of "deputyship," of
representing
other men (e.g., as father, statesman or teacher) selflessly. Deputyship must
avoid two abuses: one must neither set up one's own ego as an
absolute, nor must
one set up the other man as an absolute. Both abuses set up false
absolutes, not
recognizing the ultimate authority for responsible living in Jesus Christ. The
first leads to tyranny and exploitation; the second makes an idol of
responsibility
per se.
The responsible maim does not live in an ideal or abstract world, but
in the world
of reality. His conduct is therefore dependent on his neighbor and the context
in which they live. But this is not an advocacy of "situational
ethics"
in which every powerful pressure is yielded to; such a response would
be irresponsibility,
not responsibility. Two extremes must be avoided: neither servility
to the factual,
nor opposition to the factual in the name of a higher reality.
Action in correspondence with reality, i.e., in correspondence with
Jesus Christ,
neither sets up a "secular principle" and a "Christian
principle"
as conflicting perspectives, nor does it consider the secular and the Christian
to be identical. The former leads to the setting up of eternally
conflicting laws
of reality which are the substance of Greek tragedy, but such a tragic reading
of life has been overcome by Jesus Christ. The latter neglects the
fact that the
reconciliation between God and the world achieved by Christ consists
not in abstractions
of conflicting principles but "in him as the one who acts in the responsibility of deputyship, as the Cod who for
love of man
has become man."27
Responsible living requires that man commit his life and ways into the hands of
God, and live day by day by God's grace; the man who acts on the
basis of abstract
ideology sees himself as justified by the idea itself.
In the outworking of responsible living, both obedience and freedom
must he united.
We must have neither obedience without freedom-which is slavery, nor
freedom without
obediencewhich is arbitrary selfwill. For the responsible man is called upon to
choose, not simply between right and wrong, but also between right and right,
and between wrong and wrong.
Summary
In this installment we have explored a form of ethical
formulation-the "neither-nor"
approach, and an approach to ethical guidelines-the system developed
in embryonic
state by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, While being committed to neither in any kind of
absolute sense, we have explored their utility and relevance for
modern man.
The "either-or" formulation of doctrine and ethics, often vigorously
expounded as the means of retaining antithesis in Christian thought,
must frequently
be supplemented by a "both-and" formulation. In many cases,
furthermore,
a "neither-nor" formulation provides the best method for
avoiding extremes
without restrictive or unrealistic attempts to define or delimit the
desired middle
ground. To see things in a "neither-nor" framework indicates why the
"either-or" formulation is frequently inadequate for the
full expression
of the biblical perspective on doctrine or ethics. This follows from
the realization
that we may often be able to say what something is not, even when what it fully
is lies beyond our grasp and understanding. Most of the creeds of the
Church came
into being with this kind of goal.
To sharing some of the striking examples of "neithernor" formulations
which characterize the incomplete Ethics of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, we have sought
to emphasize Bonhoefler's biblical insistence on both the Christocentricity and
the importance of reality for any adequate Christian approach to
ethics. The Christian
approach to living grows out of a personal relationship with God in
Jesus Christ,
a relationship through which the Christian is continuously transformed more and
more into the image of his Lord (the process of sanctification). This personal
relationship and daily walk must be at the basis of any Christian discussion of
ethics, rather than abstractions, idealizations, or search for knowledge.
©1978
NOTES
1D. Bonhoeffer, Ethics, E. Bethge, Ed., Macmillan Co., New
York (1961).
2F. A. Schaetfer, The God Who Is There, Intervarsity Press
(1968), p. 20.
3F. A. Schaefter, Escape from Reason, Intervarsity Press
(1968), pp. 41, 42.
4F. A. Schaeffer, The Church Before the Watching World, Intervarsity Press (1971), pp. 83-105.
5D. Elton Trueblood, "The Self and the Community," in Quest
for Reality: Christianity and the Counter Culture, C. F. H.
Henry, Ed., Intervarsity Press (1973), pp. 35, 40.
6D. D. Feaver, "The Failure of a Religious Subculture," in
Quest for Reality: Christianity and the Counter Culture, C. F. H. Henry, Ed.,
Intervarsity Press (1973), p. 45.
140
70r changing the field of discourse to physics, we note the interesting result
that we say No to "an electron is either a particle or a wave," and
No to "an electron is both a particle and a wave," but Yes
to "an
electron is neither a particle nor a wave." We thus leave unanswered what
an electron is, but we avoid the pitfalls that such a definition might involve
us in. See also P. T. Arveson, "Dialogic: A Systems Approach to
Understanding," Journal ASA 30, 49, June 1978.
8Ethics, p. 25.
9Ethics, p. 55.
10Ethics, p. 56.
11Ethies, p. 142.
12Ethics, pp.
5, 6.
13Ethics, p. 8.
14Ethfrs p. 7.
15Ethics, pp. 12, 13.
16Ethics, p. 15.
17Is it not remarkable how these conditions, fashioned in Bonhneffer's thought
by the immediate events of the Hitler regime in Nazi Germany more than 30 years
ago, are so applicable to us today?
18Ethics, p. 62.
19Ethics, p. 60.
20Ethics, p. 62.
21Ethics, pp.
86-89.
22Ethics,
pp. 102, 103.
23Ethics, p. 115.
24Ethics, p. 116.
25Ethics, p. 119.
26Ethics,
p. 189.
27Ethics, pp. 201, 202.
Topics for Discussion
1. In describing the relationship between science and Christian faith, which of
the formulations: "either-or," "both-and," or
"neither-nor,"
is most effective? Construct positive examples of each approach.
2. Show how the major interpretations of the Lord's Supper can be categorized
in terms 0f which formulation: "eitheror," both-and,"
or "neither-nor,"
is chosen for expressing a particular interpretation.
3. What is the major difference between standard concepts of ethics
as the choice
of right or wrong in a particular situation and Bonhoeffer's concept
of a uniquely
Christian ethics?
Do you find this difference substantive?
4. What is the basis for ethical choice outside of the Christian context? Can
ethical relativism be avoided?
5. Does an acceptance of Christian ethics as "the form of Christ
taking form
in us" rule out the use of scientific understanding to guide us in ethical
matters?
6. Theodosius Dobzhansky writes, "The Book of Genesis gives an unexcelled
poetical account of the decisive evolutionary step from animal to man
(Gen. 3:22).
The capacity to know and to forsee the consequences of one's own and of other
people's actions is, indeed, the fundamental biological precondition
for becoming
an ethicizing being." (Zygon 8, 261 (1973)) Does the acquiring
of the knowledge
of good and evil mark the beginning of the human condition, or does it mark a
departure from what it means to be truly human?
7. What is the Christian basis for the intrinsic value of a human
being? Can there
be an intrinsic value of a human being if this is not derived from
religious sources?
8. Consider the common conflict between loving one's neighbor and
loving mankind
in terms of the difference between the real and the ideal.
9. Discuss how acceptance of the "two spheres" concept has affected
our ideas of education, worship, welfare, sex and vocation. How does
a realization
of the unity in Christ affect these ideas?
10. In terms of Bonhoeffer's categories of "radical" and
"compromise"
solutions, consider the political revolutionary and the practical
politician.
11. Indicate how the concept of "the natural" as an
important consideration
in ethical thought has been revitalized by our environmental concerns.
12. What are some of the major weaknesses of taking "the natural" as
an ethical guide? Consider shaving, being immunized against polio,
using contraceptives,
and flying in airplanes. Is it "natural" for married couples to have
children?
Which is more unnatural: to practice birth control by use of contraceptives or
by abstinence?
13. Does Bonhueffer's assertion that 'life itself is valued by God" have
a biblical foundation? Which is better: not to be at all, or to exist
with physical
and mental suffering?
14. Which is easier for the human being: relational living or
ideological living,
i.e., action growing out of reality or out of abstractions? Why?
15. When called upon to choose between wrong and wrong, is no choice the best
choice of all? Is no choice possible most of the time?
OTHER READINGS
Ian Barbour, Christianity and the Scientist, Association Press, N.Y.
(1960).
A. Dumas, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Theologian of Reality, MacMillan (1968).
M. 0. Hatfield, Conflict and Conscience, Word (1971). Between a Rock and A Hard
Place, Word (1976).
C. F. H. Henry, Ed. Quest for Reality: Christianity and the
Counter Culture, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois (1973).
H. F. Boellig, The God Who Cares, Branch Press, N.Y. (1971).
Zygon 8 (1973), "Papers from the Symposium on Science and Human Purpose of
the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science."