The only "social responsibility" of a Christian is to live, wherever and with whomever he may be, the life of faith, for his own salvation and as an example to others. If, in so doing, we help to ameliorate or abolish a social evil, that is a good thing - but that is not our goal. If we become desperate when our life and our words fail to convert others to the true Kingdom, that comes from lack of faith. If we would live our faith more deeply, we would need to speak of it less. - Blessed Seraphim Rose
The above quote came to me from a friend who is a recent Orthodox convert. At first glance, the quote and what Bonhoeffer suggests in Ethics have a great ring of truth about them. We can cause more trouble than we solve when we try to lead "ethical" lives, if we constantly look for our "social responsibility." Bonhoeffer's brief exposition about slavery, prohibition and the League of Nations (p.351 Ethics) is accurate in that there were more troubles birthed from what was deemed an ethical response to a social ill.
Human ethics are attempts to change things. We think that they change things for the better, but they often do not. Human ethics are often relative. This, for Bonhoeffer, is a negative. What Bonhoeffer suggests is that by being human, fully living in to the mandates of God (labor, marriage, government and church) and the authority structures implied, then our lives will be inherently ethical. Ethics are not necessarily a series of codes or goals. We are back to Act and Being again. He has not entirely forgotten his own dialectic. He is aware that governments will fail, the church will fall, marriages will sour and become abusive and labor can be oppression.
What he seems to have forgotten is the human responsibility to act ethically, to do specific things to witness to the reality of the Kingdom of God that is not yet fully visible but which is fully present. We, as creatures created in God's image, are responsible for bringing it forth. What I read Bonhoeffer suggesting is that by being pure, by being Christian, then perhaps these "ethical dilemmas" would be of no concern to us. He is right and wrong all at the same time. Or at the very least he is unclear in these theological sketches.
To be Christian is to respond justly. It is to stand in the stead of the oppressed. It is to feed the hungry. The Gospel of Matthew is clear about this. "When did we feed you, Lord?" Neither party in that story recognized Christ. Neither party responded to Christ knowingly. Yet, Christ was looking for a specific response to a social ill. He was identifying himself with the "least of these." Those who do not respond are punished.
Now, we can argue the nature of punishment. We can debate whether there is Hell or not, but that is immaterial to the point. The point is that God demands action. God has mandated service and a specific service at that.
This is not far from Bonhoeffer's understanding. Servant-hood is part and parcel of the role of Church and of Government, of marriage and of labor. What I kept waiting for was for him to clearly state that this means that these institutions must lower themselves, must sacrifice themselves for the revelation of the Kingdom. This incomplete treatise does not include this vital part of Bonhoeffer's earlier works. In no way do any of the mandated institutions lose themselves for the sake of the other. They can fail to be the said mandate. But he does not follow his own logic through to the end. He has forgotten the place of sin and the responsibility for the corporate self to lose itself.
Yes, we feed the hungry, as one might read Matthew, because we simply do. It is not because we recognize Christ, though Bonhoeffer may wish we did. It is because Jesus has asked us to respond to the hungry and the homeless in a specific way. For the gospeller, there is literal Hell to pay for not doing so. Jesus has a preference. It would seem that in this incomplete work, Bonhoeffer expresses very little of Jesus' preferences.
This, I also realize, is a shading of difference from what Bonhoeffer and Seraphim Rosemay be getting at. Yes, we are to be faithful. There may even be a way that the Christian is distinguishable from the rest of humanity (though I am still unclear how Bonhoeffer accomplishes this) by living out this faithfulness. Nevertheless, we are always, until the end of the age, sinners given the task of being the hands and feet of Christ. New evils will spring up out of our desire to do good. It is unavoidable. We are sinful. Yet, we are to try to do good. Christ has asked us to. And it would appear that he had some specific practices and notions in mind.
