Philosophy

Gordy:

Many thanks for this. Bonhoeffer, of course, looms large in any religious debate but (shamefully) I confess that I have read nothing of his and only know of his immense reputation through a few sketchy bios.

Will think and get back.

One point, though, the quote in Mark from the dying Jesus is thought by many scholars to be genuine because it is not something that the early church would naturally boast about.

Concerning Mk15:34. Quite so. That this is the earliest account of Jesus’ death and that it is consistent with the account of the Garden of Gethsemane before it and the ending of the Mark’s gospel – before any resurrection appearances (the oldest manuscripts all end at 16:8) all tend towards this verse’s authenticity. The meaning is less clear however – whether it was a cry of despair or Jesus conventionally quoting the opening verse of Psalm 22 (which starts off with a man feeling abandonned but ultimately vindicated by God) is an area of some debate.

Gordy – thoroughly enjoyed reading this! I don’t know a huge amount about Bonhoeffer, but I am with you in finding something impressive about him. This is partly, perhaps, because of the circumstances surrounding his death.

Re: Mk15:34 – is the answer, possibly, ‘both’?

And on etsi deus non daretur: this is something which fascinates me. Take McCabe’s book, The Good Life. He does end up, actually, speaking about God. But a lot of it – and he makes this explicit – is written etsi deus non daretur. Or c.f. Elizabeth Anscombe’s (yeah! another reference, in deference to yours) essay, ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’: one of her points is that moral discourse is still couched in terms of law-giving long after the lawgiver has stopped commanding assent. Or c.f. bioethics debates: there are religious bioethicists who strive after arguments which appeal to what they would call natural reason.

My wondering is along these lines: though I don’t know precisely how Grotius invokes this, I would be surprised if this approach or phrase doesn’t pertain to certain contexts. Indeed, perhaps not unrelated is a point Aquinas makes: you have to make arguments according to the lowest common denominator in one’s audience. It might be reasonable for two theists (this is different from the reasonability of theism) to speak about x while leaving God unquestioned. Likewise, arguments from authority are not going to work where one’s interlocutors do not share the same authorities.

(A brief digression: I actually think that the medievals are right on arguments from authority. Be very clear here: Aquinas (and others) would say that they are a) (sometimes) admissible arguments, b) almost always the weakest form of argument. One issue, of course, will be securing an authority. But this is not as vexed an issue as is often made out (esp keeping b) in mind): so much of what I know or assume I take on authority. And I am not unreasonable in doing so. To be frank, I assume things like electricity – I mean, I can sensibly perceive it, in a way, but can’t really explain what it is – or even the roundness of the earth or dates and names of so many figures I have to study etc. The list is huge. Indeed, when we turn to the very modes of knowing – to becoming someone capable of investigating, deliberating etc – which I cannot but learn from authority figures (parents, teachers etc) things are even starker. And I don’t feel an especial insecurity because of this. We share knowledge and do not learn as private(d) individuals each having to build the foundations for himself).

I imagine Grotius’ take on this idea is, again, almost ‘methodological’. But Bonhoeffer, interestingly, magnifies it, makes it ‘ethical’, a way of living in the world. This is one fascinating thing about him.

(A not wholly irrelevant book review – or rather review of the thirty pages I’ve read. John Milbank’s ‘Theology and Social Theory’ is almost opposite in approach. It attempts to understand a great deal of development in early modern and modern social sciences / humanities in relation to a particular ‘atheology’. I have no idea precisely where this will go – though the stuff on Hobbes so far is suasive. It doesn’t help that it’s a nightmare to read: he doesn’t make life easy for his readers. But interesting stuff. Know it? If not, will give you an update in a decade or so, by which time I hope to make it all the way to chapter three).

ChooChoo (By the way, is the name a reference to Top Cat?) Re Mk15:34 – your creative synthesis sounds good to me.

I’m pleased you enjoyed this – I had hoped that you would. Your hunch in relation to Grotius and his context was spot on. He was writing about international law and in the original quotation is keen to emphasise that to imagine that there is no God is an impious thought. Bonhoeffer cites Grotius as but one example of a thinker who has contributed to the autonomy of human affairs (I’ve added a new link in my article should you wish to read the letter from which I quoted in full) but he latches on to Grotius’ ‘etsi deus…’ formulation.

I’m looking forward to your piece on Kolbe – he should make an interesting comparison with Bonhoeffer.

I know next to nothing about Milbank please let me know about it when you’re done. (I’m confident that my nursing home will have broadband.)

Interesting that Grayling’s piece this week should have been anticipated more than sixty years ago by a mere astrologer.

Gordy – I keep coming back to your thoughts on Bonhoeffer. What certainly is v interesting – historically – are the various ways in which Christ (and the Incarnation) is taken. He can be the ‘panbasileos’, the ruler of all, the greatest king. (Some) late antique Christians using the ideas of kingship as an analogy (and, of course, Aquinas was quite right to point to the particularities of analogies) for understanding Christ in the midst of a vast cosmic system. (I haven’t read it all yet – and need to hang onto it for a bit – but will gladly send out Jaroslav Pelikan’s Jesus Through the Centuries to you if this booksharing scheme gets the green light). I think it would be mistaken to suppose that this understanding was purely a means to legitimising earthly rule. It really wasn’t. (Any more than the more intimate Christ who emerged following the intensifying focus upon the Passion from the 10th century or the kind of Christ spoken about in modern times are ‘really just’ ways of securing a particular view on the ‘individual’).

Bonhoeffer’s ethical approach is certainly intriguing. I wonder, however, whether one tension lies in notions of worship and transcendence. Is there room for either with Bonhoeffer? (And, indeed, do Christians need room for either?).

I find myself feeling very pleased that you keep coming back to my thoughts on Bonhoeffer. My old theology tutor , Dr Willmer would be pleased and puzzled in equal measure.

I’m a very long way from being an authority on Bonhoeffer but I think the answer is almost certainly, ‘yes’. Certain caveats about the developments of Bonhoeffer’s thought and the context in which he was writing apply but yes.

From ‘Thoughts on the Day of Baptism of Dietrich Bethge’ [an infant]

“Our church, which has been fighting in these years only for its self-preservation, as though that were an end in itself, is incapable of taking the word of reconciliation and redemption to mankind and the world. Our earlier words are therefore bound to lose their force and cease, and our being Christians today will be limited to two things: prayer and righteous action among men.”

If I could I would emphasise the last half of the last sentence. But look at this – how apt is this in the light of your recent article? [Again I would wish to emphasise the last sentence but it needs to be seen in context - this is from his 'Outline for a book August 1944']

“The church is the church only when it exists for others. To make a start, it should give away all its property to those in need. The clergy must live solely on the free-will offerings of their congregations, or possibly engage in some secular calling. The church must share in the secular problems of ordinary human life, not dominating, but helping and serving. It must tell men [and women] of every calling what it means to live in Christ, to exist for others…. It must not under-estimate the importance of human example (which has its origin in the humanity of Jesus and is so important in Paul’s teachings); it is not abstract argument, but example, that gives its word emphasis and power.”

Boltonian
Dr Willmer was a lay baptist preacher in North Yorkshire – a part of the world with which you are familiar, I believe. As is not unheard of in that tradition he was once heckled during a sermon by a vociferous lady who had objected to his non-literal approach to scripture. “We in this congreagation stand on the Bible cover to cover, Dr Willmer!”, she exclaimed to which he replied, “Might I suggest you read it instead?”

Gordy:

Yes, I live in North Yorkshire – the most beautiful of counties, although I speak (with gritted teeth) as a Lancastrian.

Do you happen to know of which particular church Dr Wilmer was the lay preacher?

Boltonian

Sadly I can’t remember – it dates back to my time at Leeds University (1986-89). Dr – he later became Professor – Willmer lived in Leeds but often travelled out to the country to different congregations.

Great article. Thanks for the great resource.