Between Babel and Beast
(America and Empires in Biblical Perspective)

The Glory of Kings: A Festschrift for James B. Jordan

Fyodor Dostoevsky
(Christian Encounters Series)

Athanasius
(Foundations of Theological Exegesis and Christian Spirituality)

The Four: A Survey of the Gospels

Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom

From Behind the Veil: The Epistles of John

Deep Exegesis:The Mystery of Reading Scripture

Jane Austen
(A Biography)

Solomon Among the Postmoderns

The Baptized Body

1 & 2 Kings
Brazos Theological Commentary

The Promise Of His Appearing: An Exposition Of Second Peter

A Great Mystery: Fourteen Wedding Sermons

Deep Comedy: Trinity, Tragedy, And Hope In Western Literature

Miniatures & Morals: The Christian Novels of Jane Austen

The Priesthood of the Plebs: A Theology of Baptism

A Son To Me: An Exposition of 1 & 2 Samuel

Against Christianity

From Silence to Song: The Davidic Liturgical Revolution

Ascent to Love: A Guide to Dante's Divine Comedy

Blessed Are the Hungry: Meditations on the Lord's Supper

A House For My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament

Heroes of the City of Man: A Christian Guide to Select Ancient Literature

Brightest Heaven of Invention: A Christian Guide To Six Shakespeare Plays

Wise Words: Family Stories That Bring the Proverbs to Life

The Kingdom and the Power: Rediscovering the Centrality of the Church

« Previous Post | Next Post »
« Previous post in category | Next post in category »

Theology - Christology Theology - Creation: Radicalism and Compromise

Bonhoeffer (Ethics) condemns both radicalism and compromise.  Radicalism sees only the ultimate and dismisses and judges the penultimate; “everything penultimate is enmity towards Christ” (p. 127).  Compromise ensures that the penultimate retains its rights and is not threatened by the ultimate, but in so doing limits the claims of the ultimate.

Bonhoeffer summarizes: “Radicalism hates time, and compromise hates eternity.  Radicalism hates patience, and compromise hates decision.  Radicalism hates wisdom, and compromise hates simplicity.   Radicalism hates moderation and measure, and compromise   hates the immeasurable. Radicalism hates the real, and  compromise hates the word” (130).

Bonhoeffer of course rejects this, but what’s crucial is the way he rejects it.

He doesn’t reject these extremes in favor of some Aristotelian mean.  Rather, he rejects them for Christological reasons and proposes a Christological alternative.  Both radicalism and compromise, he says, are “opposed to Christ” because “in Jesus Christ those things which are here ranged in mutual hostility are one.”

Then he simply tells the gospel story: “In Jesus Christ we have faith in the incarnate, crucified  and risen God. In the incarnation we learn of the love of God  for His creation; in the crucifixion we learn of the judgement  of God upon all flesh; and in the resurrection we learn of  God’s will for a new world. . . . A Christian ethic constructed solely on  the basis of the incarnation would lead directly to the compromise   solution. An ethic which was based solely on the  cross or the resurrection of Jesus would fall victim to radicalism   and enthusiasm. Only in the unity is the conflict resolved” (130).

This is evangelical ethics, an ethics whose most basic frame of reference is the particular story of Jesus.