Welcome back to the Fourth Way podcast. Today we are going to continue with our second part of our Bonhoeffer series. Just as a little reminder, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was executed on April 9, 1945, which makes April 9, 2020 the 75th anniversary of his execution. Bonhoeffer was a an admitted pacifist, but he is largely known today by most Christians as an individual who threw off his idealistic pacifism to embrace, violence in the face of of, the Nazi regime and Hitler, and attempted to plot an assassination against Hitler. In the last episode, we we took a look at the evidence for why it seems Bonhoeffer did not actually participate, in an assassination attempt against Hitler, at least to the degree where he condoned violence or or attempted to do violence himself.

So he he did have affiliation with individuals who did partake in certain plots, but there really is no evidence either historically or, in terms of what the Nazis charged him with or in terms of, Bonhoeffer's own internal writings and and dialogue with others that would make us think, or that would conclusively help us to decide that, yeah, Bonhoeffer threw off this this aspect of his life that was such a big part of his his teaching and his ethic. We discussed a little bit why it seems people are so quick to, make a such a sure decision about Bonhoeffer. You know, even if you're gonna say, well, I think Bonhoeffer did do this, you know, maybe your certainty's 60%, or 51%. But, individuals today just assume that Bonhoeffer was a part of this plot without really even taking a look at, at either the historical evidence or the evidence that Bonhoeffer gives within his works. And it seems a lot of people are are so quick to co opt, to incorporate Bonhoeffer into, you know, their their Christian cloud of witnesses because he kinda fits what most people think.

You know? Pacifism is idealistic. And when you're faced with, a real threat, you kind of throw off the ideal for something that works in reality. We discussed, you know, how even if that was the case and Bonhoeffer did throw off his his pacifism, we can point to a lot of individuals who didn't, like Martin Luther King Junior, or Gandhi, or, the the people at La Chambon, or Belgium, or I'm sorry, not not not Belgium, Bulgaria and Denmark. We can take a look at a lot of these places that that maintained pacifism, but a lot of people like like this one, unique example of of Bonhoeffer.

But even if Bonhoeffer did, kind of throw off his his pacifism, you know, we we discussed how it does not mean that the ethic is wrong. It just shows that the ethic is difficult to sustain, especially in the the face of great evil. And, humans are weak and can be hypocritical or, sinful or or just weak. You know? Things are difficult.

And an adulterous pastor or Christian leader does not prove that monogamy is not the ethic, just because their flesh is weak, and neither would Bonhoeffer's failure to maintain a pacifist ethic, which he seemed to uphold throughout his whole life. That would not disprove pacifism either. And, I don't think Bonhoeffer would justify the action. Even if he felt it necessary to do at the time, he would say he was sinning or in the wrong for doing it. But, anyway, we're not really going to take a look at any more evidence for why or why not, or why Bonhoeffer was an assassin or why he was not.

In this episode, I want to look more at some of Bonhoeffer's teachings and and what the book, entitled Bonhoeffer the Assassin, what what we can pull out of there that can kind of be a capstone for our discussion of consequentialism. And in the last episode, we did talk about how people who are consequentialists so easily accept the common narrative of Bonhoeffer the assassin. In this episode, we're gonna look at specific teachings and things that Bonhoeffer had that I think go, fly in the face of the consequentialism that we we've discussed over the past 20 or so episodes. The first quote I wanna pull out is is pretty lengthy, so you might wanna pause it and think about it at moments while I while I read it. But, largely, it relates to this this theme that we've talked about a lot, which is that obedience is better than sacrifice.

Faithfulness is better than effectiveness. And, according to Bonhoeffer, Christ is to be obeyed and and not questioned. And a lot of what we dealt with in our consequentialism series is embracing the means of god, even if it seems like the ends we perceive God would want can't succeed through those things. And we addressed people like Gideon who, you know, embraced the means of of whittling down his army and using clay jars and and lanterns to defeat a far superior Midianite force. And we gave example after example of how the means of God are what we are called to, not the ends of God.

God is in charge of accomplishing the ends, and our job is to obey. So, So listen to to this extended quote here and, and pause it as you need to. Nationalism and internationalism have to do with political necessities and possibilities. The ecumenical church, however, does not concern itself with these things, but with the commandments of God. And regardless of consequences, it transmits these commandments to the world.

Our task as theologians, accordingly, consists only in accepting this commandment as a binding one, not as a question open to discussion. Peace on earth is not a problem, but a commandment given at Christ's coming. There are two ways of reaching to this command from God, the unconditional blind obedience of action Or the hypocritical question of the serpent, hath God really said? This question is the mortal enemy of obedience and therefore the mortal enemy of all real peace. Must God not have meant that we should talk about peace to be sure, but that is not to be literally translated into action?

Must God not really have said that we should work for peace? Of course. But also make ready tanks and poison gas for security? And then perhaps the most serious question, did God say you should not protect your own people? Did God say you should leave your own a prey to the enemy?

No. God did not say all that. What he has said is that there shall be peace among men, that we shall obey him without further question. That is what he means. He who questions the commandment of God before obeying has already denied him.

For the members of the ecumenical church, insofar as they hold to Christ, his word, his commandment of peace is more holy, more inviolable than the most revered words and works of the natural world. For they know that whoso is not able to hate father and mother for his sake is not worthy of him and lies if he calls himself after Christ's name. These brothers in Christ obey his word. They do not doubt or question, but keep his commandment of peace. They're not ashamed in defiance of the world even to speak of eternal peace.

They cannot take up arms against Christ himself, yet this is what they do if they take up arms against one another. Even in anguish and distress of conscience, there is for them no escape from the commandment of Christ that there shall be peace. How does peace come about? Through a system of political treaties? Through the investment of international capital in different countries?

Through the big banks? Through money? Or through universal peaceful rearmament in order to guarantee peace? Through none of these. For the single reason that in all of them, peace is confused with safety.

There's no way to peace along the way of safety, for peace must be dared. It is the great venture. It can never be made safe. Peace is the opposite of security. To demand guarantees is to mistrust, and this mistrust in turn brings forth war.

To look for guarantees is to want to protect oneself. Peace means to give oneself altogether to the law of God, wanting no security, but in faith and obedience, laying the destiny of the nations in the hand of almighty God, not trying to direct it for selfish purposes. Battles are won not with weapons, but with God. They are won where the way leads to the cross. Which of us can say he knows what it might mean for the world if one nation should meet the aggressor, not with weapons in hand, but praying defenseless, for that very reason protected by a bulwark never failing.

I'll put that quote, in the the show notes down below so you can chew on that quite a bit more. It's a beautiful quote and and something that, I mean, we could pull out quite a number of things from that. But, obviously, in this this short podcast and with, with our topic at hand, we are going to kind of narrow that focus down a bit. Essentially, as a big summary, we are to have faith in God and His means. When we attempt to embrace alternative means in the name of God, in the name of God's ends, we actually show a lack of faith in both God and in the efficacy of prayer.

I think one of the one of the most pointed things that that Bonhoeffer observes here is is our equivocation on the term peace, you know, as an example of our faithlessness. And, what do I mean by that? So Bonhoeffer would say that that peace is clearly shown and taught in the Sermon on the Mount, in Christ's teachings, in Christ's example, and in in the early church. But what we do is we equivocate on this term peace, and so we say, Oh, well peace really means, arming ourselves, preparing for war. All of the production of of bombs and noxious gases.

Like, that's what peace means. And so, what we call this thing that would that just does not look at all like the peace that Christ means or intends or teaches or shows, and we call that peace. Because, you know, for us, security is equivalent to peace. And Bonhoeffer says, no. No.

No. Security is not what Christ calls us to. He calls us calls us to cross, and He calls us to self sacrifice. That is not secure at all. But it is the way to peace.

So, for for Christians today, especially Western Christians, especially, American Christians, who are so big into war and violence, not for the sake of violence, we say, but, you know, because we view it as a means to peace, this is something that's foreign to to Jesus Christ and foreign to His teachings, foreign to His example. And we we've talked, you know, about the practical nature of this as well, where, you know, with the movie The Kingdom, or, you know, pick any example of of continued warfare throughout the world, of just how going and doing violence, actually creates a cycle of violence. And and also preparing for war and being a threat oftentimes is what incites violence. And you can see this throughout nations and wars. You can also see it, I recommended some books, Victories Without Violence was one, where you see a lot of times the reason one of the main reasons that violence was averted through pacifistic means is because a pacifist, an individual who is unarmed and nonthreatening, oftentimes diffuses the situation, not because of anything they do, but because of their posture and because of of, their lack of threat.

So, we equivocate on this term peace. Right? We we call what we do peace when it's not at all. What Christ, shows us is peace. And that's why I end my shows the way that I do.

And, admittedly, it's probably a bit snarky and, not a bit. It is. It is snarky and probably a little bit passive aggressive. But I I really hold back on on that throughout my shows. I've had to do a lot of edits early on to try to make sure that I'm not too snarky.

But, you know, I end my show's peace, and because I'm a pacifist, when I say it, I mean it. And and this is exactly what Bonhoeffer is essentially saying here. He's saying, you say peace, but that's not peace. And when I when I, end my shows the way that I do, it's because, as a pacifist, when I say peace, I really do mean it. If you are an enemy, I mean peace.

I am not going to attack you. If you are wicked and evil, I am going to love you, and I am not going to attack you. Peace is not me attacking or killing or maiming or anything else or or even preparing to do such things. When I say peace, I really do mean it. And Bonhoeffer thinks, as as Christians, that's how we should all be if we are going to be followers of Christ.

When we say peace, we should mean peace as Christ meant it, not peace as as we like it to maintain and uphold our security. Because peace is a vacuous and insincere term when violence is embraced as a means to peace's end. It just doesn't work. And that concept reminds me a little bit of, you know, James, where he says, you know, faith without works is dead. Or or maybe even a better example, when he says, hey.

Look. If somebody needs something, and you say, hey. You know what? Thank you for letting me know your need. I'll pray for you.

You go ahead and be on your way, and, and I'll pray. And you don't give them anything. And James is like, what kind of what kind of religion is that? Like, what kind of what kind of faith do you have that you send poor people away, without actually eating some cost yourself and doing something tangibly about it. And, I think that's the that's what we're talking about with with peace here.

You know, you say peace, but you're kind of doing the opposite, or you're you're undermining peace, and you're you're not doing, eating any cost or or doing anything for peace. You're actually supporting and encouraging violence. And, why do we equivocate on peace? Why do you why do we have this kind of double standard? Yeah.

I think a big part of it is that it to have peace, like Bonhoeffer says, means we lose security. That means that we have to self sacrifice. We have to eat the cost. That's why we pray for people who are poor and send them on their way without doing anything for them. Same same, same root cause.

But, Bonhoeffer points out that peace doesn't mean safety. A life of peace is not a safe life because it directly confronts the powers. It directly confronts, materialism and corporations. It directly confronts governments when we refuse to participate in their means and support them. It it, you know, I think we're seeing in, in Christendom here, you know, if you are vocal against conservative Christians, and and their political stance, and you try to call out foul on some things that are immoral, you're seen as a traitor.

And, we talked about that a little bit in the Christianity Today episode, in the article that they wrote. You know, people want their security, and they, they want it even, at the cost of throwing off true peace by embracing violence, and, means that God would not approve of. So, like I said, you're probably gonna get crucified by your own people, by your own group, when you're not willing to embrace security at all costs in the name of peace, and the false name of peace. You know, that's one of the beautiful things too about, how how nonviolence works when you confront the powers. You know, people people think that security is the same as peace, and they think that power produces peace.

But what Jesus shows us in the cross is that it's actually, the contrast of of, the powers and the authority that brings, that that shows the true picture and that brings peace. So, you know, one of the best ways to see this, I I vividly remember seeing photos of the civil rights movement and or, yeah, videos. And you could see just these unarmed people who are just standing there, and then you see just these vicious canines. And you see these these police who go up and just mercilessly raise their batons and just whack. And, and you see the unarmed people just cower and go into the fetal position.

And you can say, Yeah, well, what good do those protesters do? And if if you haven't seen it, you need to see it because there's this visceral feeling that goes on when you see that, when you see somebody not fight back. When you see you can tell who's evil when you watch those things. You can you know instinctively, deep down inside, logically, in every way that you can know, you you can see the evil. It's tang it becomes tangible when it's contrasted with peacefulness.

And that's that's part of why peacemakers and the nonviolent activists and liberation theologians, That's why they're they're seen as a threat by powers. And you think that they don't do anything, but what they do is they expose the darkness. And they they shine light on the way that the powers truly rule and the way that they, maintain what they call peace. And it's not peace, and it's not structured government. It's it's authoritative power.

It's like Jesus said, you know, the the gentiles rule, and domineer their authority, and that's not the way that we are to be. And when we show nonviolence, we show what true peace really is. I understand that that is a a difficult thing, but it reminds me a little bit of of, that, I forget which Chronicles of Narnia book it is, but the one where somebody asks about Aslan, and, you know, they're talking about him and somebody says, oh oh, he's he's, like, kind or something. And they and they say, oh, is is he is he safe? They say, safe?

No. He's not safe at all, but he's good. And that's how I think we should view God, but it's also how I think we should view the the Christian life. And it reminds me of a of a quote of, Martin Luther King Junior's quote where he talks about when he gave up his gun, he said, that was the first time I felt true peace, when I embraced that I was basically a dead man walking, that my life was nothing to me. My life was all in God's hands.

At that point, even though I was less safe in terms of, my chances of being killed or physically assaulted, I felt more free. I wasn't safe, but I was at peace. And, I think that's that's, a great way to look at the Christian life too. So, anyway, moral of, Bonhoeffer's first quote, we can't throw off the means of God, and we can't equivocate on the way that Jesus defines and shows us peace. And that peace is powerful because it shines light on the darkness.

Why would we expect our lives to be any different than Christ's in terms of we're called to sacrifice? But at the same time, if we truly do follow Christ, even if we sacrifice everything, why would we expect our lives not to also have the peace of God that Christ had, when he knew that he was walking in God's means, foolish means, costly means, but the means of God. It's not safe, but it's good. And after after reading that book about Bonhoeffer's life, you know, I I think it's fairly clear that Bonhoeffer lived out this Christian peace ethic, and it it ended up costing him his life. Avoiding military service and helping an oppressed people escape cost him his life.

I know that, the common narrative of Bonhoeffer's life is is romanticized. You know, we imagine Bonhoeffer and these conspiratorial meetings and this tension and suspicion and and this violent confrontation with Hitler that's foiled, and and we see this just culminating confrontation with evil as as just romantic and and brave and courageous. Yet we ignore that that Bonhoeffer. It it was likely more a 10 or so year consistent day in and day out struggle to do right, to teach right, to call out evil, and to live a principled life of peace and love for all. That's not as romantic, but but it's encouraging.

And, especially since most of us are are, living our daily lives in monotony and in the mundane, God doesn't call us to these huge, great confrontations with evil. He calls us to daily faithfulness, and God uses that to change people's lives. And I'd argue that, you know, this this helps to explain why, as American conservative Christians, I think we, practically speaking, love our commander in chiefs more than we love Jesus. You know, as as Falwell, Jerry Falwell junior, so nicely showed us in in the tweet that I've referenced a number of times throughout the show. We don't we don't want a nice guy.

We don't want somebody, you know, if if I can paraphrase him bluntly, we don't want somebody with the fruits of the spirit at this point. We want somebody who's gonna be a fighter and get things done. That's what that's what we want because violent, severe confrontations with what we believe is evil in order to accomplish God's ends, that's what we want. And it's a lot easier too than, feeling like we're giving up control and and actually having to put the work in to live day in and day out, in the footsteps of Christ. But, you know, that's why.

Okay. My snarkiness is coming on, so turn this off if you're in a bad mood. But, you know, I think that's why, Bonhoeffer's book is called Discipleship and Not Alter Call, because I think a lot of a lot of Western Christians, right, we live in the altar call. I was saved. Right?

I came forward. I did I did that thing. I gave my life to Jesus now, on that day, and now the rest of it's mine until till He takes me up to heaven. Where but Bonhoeffer, right, he talked about discipleship, that daily living, in Christ's footsteps. But we don't want that.

We don't want the we don't wanna have to follow the footsteps. We wanna blaze our own trail. We're independent Americans who who love our violence and our control. Alright. 25 minutes and 26 minutes and only on our second quote here.

So, if I was gonna paraphrase this second portion from Bonhoeffer, I would I would paraphrase it really simply. Hating enemies is legalistic. And this, this quote isn't all Bonhoeffer's. It's, it's actually, from the authors. So here's what they say.

In Bonhoeffer's interpretation of the love commandment, it becomes clear precisely why this model of moral engagement between Jesus and his disciples is so necessary. By nature, the would be follower of Jesus is unable to love his or her enemy. Only after being encountered with God's free commanding power in Christ can one be enabled to sow love. As Bonhoeffer says, loving one's enemies is not only an unbearable offense to the natural person. It demands more than the strength a natural person can muster, and it offends the natural concepts of good and evil.

But even more important, loving one's enemies appears to people living according to the law, to be a sin against God's law itself. Let me say that last part again because I think it's it's the important part. Even more important, loving one's enemies appears to people living according to the law to be a sin against God's law itself. That last part's where where our legalism comes in here. So as Bonhoeffer saying, hating is natural, and we consider repaying evil for evil as true and necessary justice.

And one of our consequentialist episodes where I talked about, how we handled the situation with the the Roma lady, Alexa, when she stole from us, A lot of people are telling us to go to the cops, and and we were viewed as even kind of irresponsible for not taking that case to the cops, because she needed to pay. And it wasn't gonna do anybody any good if she didn't pay for what she did. It seems to our minds that to not repay evil for evil is is so wrong because it perpetuates injustice. It allows injustice to go unjudged. But, you know, of course, we we in our our hypocritical race, we only really apply this ethic to the big big, quote, big sins, which aren't the sins that we struggle with.

You know, when the tyrant gets assassinated, or a homosexual gets AIDS, or a promiscuous heterosexual individual becomes pregnant or has to pay child support, you know, those, you know, they deserve that. And justice, you know, we're happy that that happened. Admittedly, you know, I I loved and probably would still love it. It it would be a struggle for me because I I have this view of justice too. But I love the movies movies like, The Punisher or Count of Monte Cristo.

And that it's just for when somebody gets what they deserve, oh, it feels so good, because they deserve to be repaid that evil. If they know my own sins, I don't I don't think I really deserve consequences for for the things that I do, for my greed, for my lust, for my gluttony, my materialism, whatever. No. I don't really deserve consequences because those things aren't that bad. And when somebody has, a heart attack because they're gluttonous, I know not all heart attacks because somebody's gluttonous, but when somebody has a heart attack and it's pretty attributable to their gluttony, I have I have sympathy for them, as as I think I should.

But, you know, I don't I don't, my community doesn't have sympathy for the tyrant who's assassinated, for the homosexual who gets AIDS, or for, the girl who gets pregnant out of wedlock. You know? We we cater to our own sins, and we, yeah, we're just devious and hypocritical. So Bonhoeffer here, I mean, he's showing us that that this idea that we need to repay evil for evil, and that's what true justice is. Bonhoeffer shows us that, really, we're that that's a legalistic mindset.

That is just focusing on the law. But Jesus showed us a different way, and it's only those who truly come in contact with Jesus and are empowered by him who can truly love their enemies. Jesus loved sinners. Jesus loved his executioners. Jesus loved us while we were enemies.

Jesus loves you right now if even if you are still his enemy right now. And this goes back to several of the the episodes that we did, I think, you know, on Grace and Forgiveness, where it's this idea that, for most of my life, I would have said the cross was a big deal, and I needed the cross. But I really didn't think I needed the cross as much as most other people did. You know, he who has been forgiven little loves little, and that's that's been me most of my life. I don't think my sins are that big of a deal.

And, in a sense, I didn't really encounter Christ to the full extent, or to as deep of an extent as I've encountered Him now because because of my low view of my sins, my low experiential view. I had an intellectual view of my sins, and I could have given you the right answer, but I didn't really believe it. So Bonhoeffer would say that, you know, legalism and moralism, they don't require exposure to Christ. Administering justice and advocating justice in the way that most of us do most of the time shows us more that we are on the moralistic or legalistic path where, we have this repaying evil for evil mindset. And, it really shows that that we haven't encountered Christ in the way that we need to, or we've forgotten our encounter with Christ.

You know, when when our actions and our, beliefs and our and the things that we advocate could be, replicated very easily by simply feeding the natural human impulse in somebody who's not a believer, that a lot of times can show you that, there's a problem and that the thing that you're advocating probably is a human impulse rather than a Christian impulse or an impulse that should come from being a disciple of Christ. And this is, this is consequentialism at its finest, as consequentialism tends to embrace this idea of human reason and what seems good to us. Consequentialism is human nature to the core. It's control. It's, it's human reason.

It's what seems good. It's what, what seems pragmatically beneficial. But Christ calls us out of that. Right? He he calls us out of that natural man mentality.

I think Franz Franz, however you say it, Hildebrand, who is supposedly, an individual who is the closest to Bonhoeffer's heart. So Bonhoeffer had had close family and friends, but, Franz here, he, he was the one who who seems to have been, the individual who who was just on par on on the same wavelength with Bonhoeffer in his teachings and ideas. And so and the quote that I'm gonna read from him here, accentuates what we've been talking about in this this idea that, legalism leads us to violence and insisting on immediate justice, and it doesn't require an exposure to Christ, whereas nonviolence and forgiveness and and, and peace does. It it does require that. And this quote here is gonna accentuate that, but I also like it because I think it adds to, you know, if Franz here is the the individual who who is most on the wavelength with Bonhoeffer and was very close to him and knew his mind, then, this quote comes from after Bonhoeffer's death quite a while later.

And when you read it, you're like, man, if he's the same as Bonhoeffer, then I think Bonhoeffer did hold out. I think Bonhoeffer really was peaceful till the end. And I think it's just another another, piece of the case. But, anyway, let let me go ahead and, and read this quote from Franz. What is commonly said from the pulpits about peace, if it is mentioned at all, would be it would be just as possible if Christ had never become incarnate, died, ascended to heaven, and sent His Spirit.

We are ineffective precisely because we are disobedient. In a theological and ecclesiastical climate, where any literal application of the gospel is suspect of, some German word, and where only the ex pacifist is respectable, it would take some time and not a little humility to admit, especially for those trained in the school of the great reformers, that at this point in question, the Mennonite minority has been and still is right, not because of non not because non resistance works, but because it anticipates the triumph of the Lamb that was slain. So you see a couple things in there. Hildebrandt takes a a jab by saying that only the ex pacifist is respectable and kind of, pushing back against the the narrative for Bonhoeffer. But, he talks about how, look.

You know? This this piece that you guys talk about, it would be just as possible if Christ had never come to this Earth and never revealed himself, never revealed who God was, never sent his spirit. This peace that you're all you're all about has nothing to do with Christ, even though you you act like it does. You act like you're doing this for him. You're doing it maybe in your minds for him, but you're doing it without him and apart from him and in in, contrast to him, in contrast to what he teaches.

And, if you notice at the end of the quote, which again I I will post, in the show notes, but he says that the, the nonviolent way is right, not because it works, but, quote, it anticipates the triumph of the lamb that was slain. Franz grounds non violence not in, not in anything other than who Christ is and what He has accomplished. That's what it's grounded in. Alright. So recap here.

Point number 1 that we got from Bonhoeffer is obedience is better than sacrifice, which you've heard a lot from me. Point number 2, it's actually violence and the practical hating of enemies, which is legalistic, not pacifism, not non violence. You know, you usually hear that the, the non violent are legalistic. But, you know, you ask any nonviolent person, and I know I know we, talked about Pablo Yoder before, and and he talks about his struggle with nonviolence even though he's been he's encountered gangs, you know, tens of times. He talks about one of those times, after he's been successful a lot, he he sees a baseball bat, and he thinks about using it as a weapon.

And he struggles with it. When you talk to any pacifist, and they are going to tell any and especially any Christian pacifist, they're going to tell you that you you just can't do it on your own power like you can hate your enemy and call for justice and call for somebody's head. It really requires a grounding in love to be able to accomplish non violence. And, that isn't legalism. Saying saying that, that loving your enemy is legalistic is just, it's a cop out.

The third quote we're gonna get to here is, if I were gonna sum it up, I would say that the quote is essentially saying that upholding god is what upholds society's value, not the inverse. And perhaps out of all of our quotes that we're gonna go through, this one is maybe most applicable, or maybe not most applicable, but the way that I I see so many conservative Christians going wrong in our politically charged climate today. So, listen to the quote, and then I'll unpack that. The penultimate must be preserved for the ultimate, even as the ultimate upholds the value of the penultimate. Thus, in part, is where, this, in part, is where Bonhoeffer's thinking in Christ, Reality, and Good is headed.

As we further track the structure of his logic in the formative manuscript, we see that since God is the ultimate reality, the purpose of Christian ethics is not moral growth or making the world a better place, as some ethical systems would have it, but witness to God's ultimate goodness, even if such a witness comes at the expense of improvement. This does not mean, of course, that the pursuit of theocentric goals would inevitably lead to demoralization, guilt, or neglect of the world's needs, but it does at least radically transform the rationale for pursuing these penultimate ends even as it may call them into question more broadly. So what does that summary of of Bonhoeffer's ideas say here? Essentially, the ultimate, which is God, must be above the penultimate, which is society, you know, safety, health, whatever whatever, you wanna say. Anything other than God would be penultimate.

Any good from for humankind. It is God who created the universe, God who created humankind, and it is God who, therefore, instills value and being into all things which have value in being, including humanity and society and the world. For society and actions to have true value, God must be the ultimate. What consequentialists end up doing is they invert this idea, and they make the penultimate the ultimate. So the values are inversed by placing societal effectiveness in the name of God above God Himself.

So I would argue, in the last election, you know, you've got conservative Christians who say abortion is such a big deal, that instead of being a faithful adherent to God, on on everything that He desires, I'm gonna compromise on some things by by wetting myself to a an immoral individual. Immoral means, an immoral platform, whatever. You know, we could have that that discussion. We could we could hammer out all of the the immoralities and injustices and methodology and and and immoral people, all of that stuff. We could get into that.

But, you know, people were essentially saying that doesn't ultimately matter because, abortion is the thing that we need to elevate as the ultimate value to fight against. And so my Supreme Court justice to fight abortion is more important than all of these other values that I can throw to the side. But that's a problem, because, that's a subversion of, or an inversion of, of values there. And it it's subversive of what God calls us to. And when we get rid of the the ultimate or when we invert it with the penultimate, then it ends up actually diminishing the value, since the source and giver of value is removed completely or moved to a lower position.

So, play that out practically here. You know, we elevate abortion, but we compromise and, diminish the name of God because of the means that we have to embrace to uphold our social value. When we do that, now maybe we get what we want for abortion, though we probably won't, but let's say we did. We we accomplished this thing, this value that that is now ultimate, but since God isn't at the top and since we've lost our witness with the world, you know, what what value do we really have? Upholding this one value isn't going to infuse value into our lives.

Now it just makes us hypocrites, and it it messes up God's testimony, and it removes value from the system. You know, as a as a good conservative Christian myself, I've heard other good conservative Christians recognize this this very thing in in one of their favorite examples. When we talk about marriage, all the time all the time I hear, and I see Facebook memes from from my friends list, you know, where it says, when you are married, do not put your kids first. Do not put your wife first. Put God first.

If God isn't first, then everything else is gonna fall apart because you're gonna put the penultimate above the ultimate. And you need the ultimate at the top to make sure that the value and and, goodness flows, correctly, because that's gonna be your source of goodness and power. And it's actually by keeping God first, even if that means that you have to sacrifice kids and wife to spend time with God and to put God first, that's the only way that you're going to have a successful family, and the only way that your family's going to have value. But, for whatever reason, when it comes to politics, we flip flop our ethic, and we think that sometimes, like, again, Jerry Falwell Junior says so well, we need to flip flop our ethic when it comes to our favorite idol. Right?

We love politics, we love control, and so we invert that ethic. And we say, no. No. No. Actually, we need to maintain control, and we need to put the penultimate above the ultimate.

And we sacrifice God on the altar of politics. Alright. Onto our 4th, and I believe final point that remains to be seen. Okay. If I was gonna sum up what Bonhoeffer says in in this quote here, or what the authors are saying, essentially saying there should not be a sacred, secular distinction for Christians.

That's just illegitimate. So here's the quote. When reality as a whole is divided into a churchly realm and a worldly realm, the tendency is to envision each realm as mutually exclusive and self contained. This is problematic because it contributes to the autonomy of both realms. Thus, there develops a notion that the world behaves according to laws of its own, while the church is supposed to live according to another wholly different set of laws.

The more definite and absolute the lines are drawn between church and world, the greater the alienation of the church from the world and the world from the church. Bonhoeffer suggests as much when he says, quote, realm thinking as static thinking is, theologically speaking, legalistic thinking, Where the worldly establishes itself as an autonomous sector, this denies the fact of the world being accepted in Christ, the grounding of the reality of the world in revel revolutional, revelational reality, and, thereby, the validity of the gospel for the whole world. Similarly, when the Christian realm is understood as autonomous, the world is cut off from the community of God formed in Christ. Bonhoeffer concludes, quote, a Christianity that withdraws from the world falls prey to unnaturalness, irrationality, triumphalism, and arbitrariness. Bonhoeffer's language is quite insistent on this particular point, because the more absolutely one distinguishes between church and world, the more damage one does to the church, the world, and ultimately to the perceived efficacy of Christ.

The church becomes alienated from the world, preoccupied with its own internal order, or, alternatively, it becomes increasingly hostile to the world of unbelief. The world, on the other hand, is left entirely to its own devices and to its own self understanding. In this way, the universal scope of the incarnation is undermined, and reality is no longer reality from, in, and towards Christ. Rather, a totalizing definition of the world is articulated in which Christ is simply one parochial element among others. In dogmatic terms, justification is aborted.

If there's anything Reformed listeners should be able to get on board with, it is it is certainly this point. Christ represented all humanity, in in His incarnation. Right? If He was merely an individual and was not a representative, a federal head of of humanity, then, it wouldn't do any good for anybody else. All things will be reconciled and redeemed to him, and all things are held together through him and created by him.

So what I saw a lot of people doing, a lot of conservative Christians in the the last election, is for whatever reason, and and we've talked a lot about relativism and everything, for whatever reason, we we became moral relativists when it came to elections. And you just listen to conservative Christian language when it comes to to voting. And if they know that they're talking to somebody who's who's not a Republican, they'll, they'll be a little bit kinder, and they'll they'll say, well, you know, I'm not gonna judge you for who you're voting for, or, you know, we don't we're not gonna get into politics here. And they they just have this language where it's like, well, you know, politics are really off limits for moral judgments. Even though what we really mean is there are certain moral judgments that we can have when it comes to politics, like abortion and homosexuality and whatever else is is our pet issues, at the moment.

But my candidate, my party, those aren't able to be judged. Like, you let those alone. We're not gonna we're not gonna talk about that. You hear this all the time with, I'm electing a commander in chief, not a pastor in chief. We just make this sacred, secular distinction.

We basically take Christ out of the equation. We like to take Christ out of the equation where, we don't like the implications that having Him in would would, would create. So, in this quote, the authors are are summarizing some of Bonhoeffer's ideas and just saying that to to Bonhoeffer, Christ touched on every aspect of life. And that's that's what I love about, our denomination, and and I I think it's probably, especially in in reformed circles, more. And when I was growing up, there was we were more dispensationalist and and such, and so we were we were more of of the belief that the world's going to hell in a handbasket, and we can't wait for the rapture for Christ to get us out of here.

So, yeah. There were things that are distinctly sacred and secular, and we couldn't wait for the day that Christ was gonna get us out of here, to heaven, where we're gonna live forever. But we were wrong, we're not gonna live in heaven forever. Christ is making new heavens and earth, we're gonna live here. Or at least a place like here.

Right? It it was sort of dispensationalism, a lot of times, kind of, devolved into a gnostic sort of idea, where the world or the flesh, they're they're bad. And and what reformed theology, or at least in in our denomination in particular, they they embrace art, and they embrace, I mean, any just about any occupation, you you can embrace those things because Christ cannot be separated from His creation. Everything has their being its being in Him. If anything has being, it has its being in Him.

If anything has substance and value, it has their substance and value in him, just like when we talked about the the ultimate and penultimate. Now, of course, some some people might say, well, you know, what about, like, let's I hate to always pick on on this one. It's just one that people, largely Christian conservative Christians, recognize, as as obviously wrong. So I go with it. Please don't take offense that I always use this, but take the prostitute.

You know, people say, well, Christ isn't you know, how how is Christ gonna redeem that, profession or whatever? And, you know, he will redeem the prostitute, right, because she is more than her prostitution, or he is more than his prostitution. He'll redeem the prostitute. Now, redemption is a a bringing back to its original state as God created good. It's it's bringing it back or or it's bringing it to its fullness.

So sin is is really the absence or negation of substance or or of value or, you know, however you wanna look at it. I think, in his book Doors of the Sea, which is is largely about the problem of of evil, natural evil in particular, David Hart Bentley, I think, kind of summarizes, sin pretty well. Bentley says, quote, evil, rather than being a discrete substance, is instead a kind of ontological wasting disease, Born of nothingness, seated in the rational will that unites material and spiritual creation, it breeds a contagion of nothingness throughout the created order. Death works its ruin in all things. All minds are darkened.

All desires are invaded by selfishness, weakness, rapacity, and the libido dominandi, the lust to dominate, and thus tend away from the beauty of God in dwelling His creatures and towards the deformity of non being. To say otherwise would involve either denying God's transcendence by suggesting that He is not the source of all being, or denying his goodness by suggesting that good and evil alike participate in the being that flows from him, and that his nature must therefore be beyond the distinction between them. So Bentley is is essentially arguing that, that evil is the negation or the absence of of god. Sin is the absence of of god. So, you know, you talk about the prostitute, and, surely, god will redeem the prostitute because he or she has their substance in in God and their value in God, the the, image of God.

But the thing that they do that's apart from God and that is done in the absence or the pushing away of God, you know, that's not God doesn't redeem sin, because sin isn't something to be redeemed. Sin is something that will be whittled away, and that prostitute, instead of marring herself and and being a part of God, will be united with God and will receive the fullness of her, image that she's intended to bear, or He's intended to bear. So why why talk about, you know, the prostitutes and and sin as the absence of God and all that? Well, to say something that is secular and apart from God is to deny that there is substance or value in it which can be reconciled or redeemed. If you take, Bentley's idea there, which which isn't really his idea.

I mean, that's, from my understanding, pretty orthodox thinking that, because, like you said, you've got you've got problems. If evil has substance, that's an issue for Christianity. Because then that means, if all substance comes from God, then evil is is part of who God is. That's a problem. So if you're gonna say that something is secular, and you distinguish that from the sacred, basically what you're doing is you're calling it the absence of God, and the absence of God is sin.

The absence of God is evil. So go ahead, call government secular and it not sacred, and then you're gonna have a hard time explaining how you participate in it, because the absence of God is evil. If you want to marry God to it, then that brings in a whole host of of other issues that we've talked about all throughout our our, 1st season and second season here in terms of being consistent in application of of the sacredness. You know, whether that applies to being consistent in upholding your candidates' moral values, whether that, you know, deals with, okay, if you're gonna participate in the political sphere, then how do you argue that we don't live in a theocracy, so I'm not gonna push my religion? But you'll push some things, like abortion, and, I mean, you really get into a lot of issues if you're, if you're gonna say that government is sacred, but you get into way more issues if you're gonna say that government is secular.

But it seems anyway that nobody really means this when they say it. They just like to use it as okay. I'm sorry. That's not very gracious. Let me rewind.

It feels to me like when people use the sacred secular distinction, they don't really think through the implications of it, and instead what they're what they're really doing is, subconsciously, probably, let's give them the benefit of the doubt, using this as an excuse to just continue doing what they're doing, because they know if they don't say government is secular and not sacred, that they're gonna be held to the sacred values, the the sacred standards. And if we hold our actions in the political sphere to sacred standards, that's gonna mean that Christians have to act differently in the political sphere, and we don't want to. Because we know that acting differently in accordance with the sacred would probably mean we'd be giving up control. So just to to complete the analogy here, you know, I would say there's a sacred, secular distinction between prostitution and Christianity. The profession of prostitution will not be redeemed.

It is it is sacred. And by sacred, we, of course, mean evil, fallen, absent of God, even though the prostitute is not absent of God, but can be redeemed. So, you know, applying applying that same same idea to government, if you wanna call government sacred, then it's gonna fall into the same realm as as, prostitution there. And I don't, I don't really know how that's avoidable, and how Christians would justify participating in something that Christ does not have domain over. It's not Christ's domain.

If Christ doesn't have lordship over something, I don't wanna be a part of it. So despite, I think, the problem with the sacredsecular distinction here, I want to kind of use this as a springboard to move into what I think is is a good way to understand how we are to live in the world. And and I think you can apply this to to a lot of things, but it's gonna be very general and very broad. You know, how do we how do we deal with a world where there is sin? There are professions that are are problems.

There are morally ambiguous, jobs or actions or whatever you wanna call them. How do we how do we live as Christians? And the way I think this this would look for Bonhoeffer and I don't remember if this is exactly how the the book puts it or, if this is a modified version or what whatever. But, you know, the way that we need to to look at things is is through concentric circles. So imagine that Christ, the individual, the person, is at the center in this small individual sized concentric circle.

And then, there's the church. Right? So the church is a concentric circle, like a like a bull's eye target, you know, for for shooting arrows, for archery. You know, Christ is the center, and then you've got this bigger circle around him, which is the church. And then around the church, you have society.

And Christ is is the the moral center. He's the perfect human, the the, the thing that we aspire to be. You know? He's like, the black hole at the center of this, concentric circle galaxy that just is drawing things into it. It's it's, pulling things into it with its gravity.

You know, the the church's role is is twofold. So we as the church, our job our first job is to be pulled into Christ. We want, you know, we start on the outside of the concentric circle when we first convert to Christianity. And as we go through the discipleship, we are drawn closer and closer and closer into that center circle. And when we're as we're pulled into that center circle, that circle grows.

You know, the circle of Christ, His visibility, His making the nations His footstool, His advancement in the world grows because we are becoming more and more like him. And at the same time, you know, the concentric circle of the church starts to shrink as it it begins to become indistinguishable from Christ. But at the same time, the church isn't simply being drawn into Christ. It is also subsuming culture. And I I use that word, particularly, with particularity.

I don't mean consumes culture. I don't mean devours it. I don't mean, works beside it. I do mean subsume. It it subsumes the culture.

So as as the church is getting sucked into Christ, the church is also its secondary job is to be pulling others into the concentric circle, of the church, pulling other people into the church, into the body of Christ. And so, as as the circle of Christ grows, and the church shrinks, at the same time, the church should should be pulling people in from the outer circle, into the church. And so, the church should be growing, while culture and society, that that outer concentric circle is shrinking. I think you see clear examples of this in, you know, in early Christendom. You you certainly see people becoming much, much more like Christ, but then simultaneously, you see them subsuming culture.

So, we just, I'm recording this. Let's see. What is it? January 12th. We just had Christmas.

And every year around Christmas, you'll see atheists in particular who say, well, did you know that, that Christianity just basically took over Saturnalia, and it's really a a an irreligious festival or a pagan festival? And, it's like, so what? I mean, Christianity subsumes culture if Christ is substance and value in being, and gives all things substance and value in being. And all things that have substance in being and value can be redeemed, then who cares? If Saturn is worshiped at a festival, that's a problem, because that's the absence of God.

But, you know, Saturnalia involves, the the rich being kind to the poor, and it's a day of remembrance that, hey, we're brothers, and why wouldn't we subsume that aspect of culture? Because that's good. That's redeemable. And so that that's what the church does, and that's one reason why doing missions, when they used to basically go and try to import Western culture to the to the groups that they were, discipling, that was a problem. Because Christianity isn't Western culture, but wherever there is culture, it subsumes that culture.

And and it redeems what's redeemable, and it's, it brings to fullness the the things of beauty, and it casts out the things that are negations or absences of God. So, yeah, Christianity is is exclusive in the sense that, you know, it's God and and, and His Son alone, through the Holy Spirit. Yeah. There there's exclusivity, but there's also great, great diversity and incorporation of of all cultures. Christianity should be extremely diverse, and anywhere you you have people who are are trying to, push a particular culture, that's an issue, because Christianity subsumes all cultures and redeems all things that are redeemable.

I think that concentric circle model really explains the Christian Great Commission well, which the commission is not to evangelize people. The, the the Great Commission is to make disciples of all nations. Right? To subsume all cultures. Not to make every culture western, but to redeem every culture.

Our goal in the church is to be made like Christ and to draw other people into the church to be made like Christ as well. It's called the discipleship, and Bonhoeffer got that right. He even wrote a book called Discipleship. Importantly, discipleship doesn't consume an individual, but it subsumes them, it transforms them, it redeems them. Individuals have unique gifts, but we are all one body.

We're subsumed into the body, but we we maintain our identity and our uniqueness and our gifts. So, through discipleship, the world shrinks as it's subsumed into the church. And as the church grows, hopefully, people are being discipled and being subsumed into Christ. And, eventually, one day, God will make that inner concentric circle of Jesus Christ the only circle, as we are all conformed to the image and likeness of Christ. And I think this this concentric circle model is also beautiful because it it, I think it helps to validate that, that saying that I heard long, long time ago when I was struggling with my my, salvation, like many many in my circles did, which it says, if you're truly a disciple of Christ, then the evidence for that is that you will continue to accept Christ as He reveals Himself to you.

You know, God in His graciousness, is patient with us, and He reveals Himself to us progressively. And we work on what he reveals to to conform that to Christ, and then we think we're there, and then he shows us something else. And we're like, wow. I didn't even realize the depths of my depravity. Now I've got something else to work on.

And then we work on that, and we think we've arrived, and God shows us something else. That is a sign that you are a true disciple as you continue to submit to to, God's wisdom and what He shows you, and and what He convicts you of. If you've listened since the beginning, I think one of the episodes that I I feel like I've failed to explain, or or is maybe kind of the most controversial. It's probably part 2 of the Romans 13 episode, way back in season 1. But I think in in retrospect, after coming up, coming upon this concentric circles idea, I think it really helps if if you listen to this and then go to that episode.

I think it helps you to see, to understand maybe how that works a little bit more, you know. And and as Stanley Hower was is very big on affirming that the church is the the ethic, the church is the ethic for the world. And that kind of explains how that works. And this idea, is is really at odds with consequentialism because consequentialism makes sharp, sacred, and secular distinctions or distinctions between, you know, Christian morality and what they view as reality or or prag pragmatic distinctions. We we think that there are just some domains where Christ likeness doesn't work and is therefore irrelevant.

Coincidentally, the domains where where we don't wanna give up control, which, tends to be things like politics and finances. You know, we we might say that, yeah. Sure. Jesus may be making the nations his footstool, but we know that there are some domains which which always remain outside of of his authority and his control. You know, in the end, I think Bonhoeffer shows us what it looks like to live a meaningful life in Christ.

And whether or not he was involved with any plots to assassinate Hitler or whether he, approved of violence or whatever whatever his role may or may not have been, it seems to me that he maintained this idea that a compromise with evil was inexcusable, and guilt would be incurred. Yeah. Maybe maybe he did take part in, in some approval of violence against Hitler. But I I think that if he did, you can see from his writings that he would have said that he deserved judgment for it. Similar probably to the the penance that we, we know that ancient Christians, like, in medieval times or a little bit before, like, 1200 and before, where they would have to do penance even if they were fighting in a just war and killed people, because they recognized that that was that was a problem.

It wasn't it wasn't good that they killed people in war. So even if even if Bonhoeffer did partake in some violence, it seems like he he would've done it admitting that it it, incurred some guilt. You know, we may not know to what extent, Bonhoeffer condoned the violence, but we do know that Bonhoeffer did put his money where his mouth was. He was vocal against the Nazis and the compromised church in Germany. He encouraged subversion of of, the government through, conscientious objection.

He avoided his own conscription for which he was executed, and he helped Jews escape. And he tried to line up peace with, with various allies should Hitler fall. Bonhoeffer, it seems to me, was not a consequentialist. It seems that he pretty clearly pushed back against the consequentialist ethic and moralism all around him. But, you know, there was one thing that Bonhoeffer really highlighted for me in regard to my own case against consequentialism that, you know, I I don't like that it's kind of a an addendum onto the episodes.

I I wish I would've seen this before and been able to incorporate it into my episodes. But, you know, Bonhoeffer helped me to realize that I failed to point enough to Christ explicitly in my consequentialism series. I did have an episode on pharisaicalism, and I I think I did well at tearing consequentialism down. But, I didn't make a strong enough positive assertion. I fear that some people may have heard me tearing down one moral system to uphold another.

Bonhoeffer wouldn't have liked that. See, Bonhoeffer was very clear that he was not a pacifist for the sake of a pacifistic ideal. He was a pacifist because of who Jesus is. Jesus demonstrated and taught unwavering enemy love, and he calls his followers, His disciples, to do the same. So, the appropriate counter to consequentialism, the appropriate positive ethic, isn't inconsequentialism as I called it.

Because inconsequentialism, when you put that label on it, it can just end up being another ideal divorced from relationship. Sure, it's a it's a useful label, and I think I'll keep using it as a label. And it it's helpful when we try to categorize things and make things intelligible. And and I I do wanna be clear that I do advocate inconsequentialism, but not because it's a better set of rules, but because I think it clearly describes Christ, his life, and the relationship with him that he calls me into. There's a quote from, from the book that I think sums this up pretty well.

So I'll go ahead and read read that, and how it kind of points to Christ as our ethic. Instead of being a program that we can run, formation occurs only by being drawn into the form of Jesus Christ by being conformed to the unique form of the one who became human, was crucified, and is risen. This does not happen as we strive to become like Jesus, as we customarily say, but as the form of Jesus Christ Himself so works on us that it molds us, conforming our form to Christ's own. Christ remains the only one who forms. Bonhoeffer's point is that Christians do not remake the world with ideas distilled from Scripture or even Christ's teachings.

After all, Jesus did not come to teach a revised form of piety, but to form human creatures anew. The reason Bonhoeffer rejects a view of Christ as essentially a teacher is rooted in this central concern. If Christ is primarily a teacher, then it is what He teaches rather than who He is that is of central importance. Bonhoeffer suggests that when this occurs, inevitably, a moral ideal or a system of morale of moral principles stands as a substitute for Jesus Christ. You know, that's what e even though I I wasn't as explicit as I wish I would have been, I really hope that you do see that that the reason I am against consequentialism is because I don't think it lines up with who God is, with who Jesus Christ is.

And and I refer to Philippians 2 quite a lot, and, that's what I think where where my big problem is, because Jesus shows us how to live, and I wanna be like Jesus. So hopefully that that came through, and if it doesn't, hopefully you listened to this episode, and you can go back and be gracious to me as as I failed to point to Christ as much as I should have, and as explicitly as I should have. So as you think about Bonhoeffer's life, his work, and his death, I want to challenge you to look at his uncompromising sacrifice, his willingness to call evil evil, and his struggle with one of the greatest powers in modern history. As you look, reflect on your own life and society. Ask whether you're being consumed by the culture or whether you're being subsumed by Christ.

If you are being subsumed by Christ, if you're becoming a a true disciple, and more and more of a disciple each day, then is your life really reflecting Christ's ethic in the world? Because that's the metric whereby you measure whether you are truly becoming a disciple. Right? It's the bearing of our fruit. It's the the faith with works.

It's the working out our fear with our salvation with fear and trembling. And I don't think we do enough of that. You know, there's an there's an interesting passage in John 2 23 and 24 that I came across over a decade ago. Here's what it says. Many people saw the signs Jesus was performing and believed in His name, but Jesus would not entrust Himself to them, for He knew all people.

A lot of people are gonna gonna view the issues that I talk about and the issues that that Bonhoeffer talks about as peripheral issues or esoteric issues. You know, why do moral specifics matter if I just believe? You know, a lot of us are believers in, this idea that empty belief saves us. You know, I I prayed a prayer back when I was 7, and I think I meant it. And so I'm I must be saved.

Been there, done that. This passage in John 2, I think, should really be convicting to particularly the, American evangelicals who base salvation in in a faith that is divorced from works. And I want you to hear me very carefully here where where I am not saying that you can do anything to merit God's favor. But the Bible is very clear that a faith not accompanied by works and growth isn't true faith. I think John 2 shows us kind of a a a version of this.

I mean, some of the other books, you can see false teachers, and Hebrews you can see, backsliders, or or people who are never saved. But here, Jesus I mean, it explicitly says that, people believed in the name of Jesus, but Jesus himself would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people. There are people who will say to Him, Lord, Lord, on the day of judgment, and He will say, I never knew you, even though they they claim His name. Jesus does not want your empty faith. He wants your whole heart.

And if your faith does not come from a heart that is given over to Christ as your Lord, then your faith is empty. But the beauty of of a true faith that is is, enacted in the giving of of your heart to Christ, the the make the bowing the knee to make Him Lord, is that, as Ephesians shows us, yes. It's by grace you've been saved through faith, not of yourselves. It's the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are Christ's workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works.

It's it is it is God who empowers us to do those good works. It's not the works that, that save us. It's the works that are a fruit of the being saved. You know, even even the demons believe in God, but the demons bear different fruits than disciples of Christ should bear. So what's the point of all of this?

The point is that these are not esoteric ideas that you shouldn't care about. These are are very simple ideas said maybe in complex ways. But, you know, the the the things that we've talked about that that Bonhoeffer illuminates here, you know, that Christ wants obedience, not sacrifice, That hating our enemies is legalism, and showing unconditional nonviolent love is not. That putting god above society or politics, that that keeping God ultimate and keeping all other things penultimate, that that is vital to the Christian life, or that Jesus Christ is lord and creator and sustainer of all things that have value in being. Therefore, there is no sacred, secular distinction, for Christ is Lord of all.

These these are not esoteric things. These are basic aspects of lordship theology. Do you believe that Christ is Lord? And if you do, is he Lord of all? And then the important personal question, if he's Lord of all, is he your Lord?

We know that he's our Lord if we are continuing to be subsumed by Christ. A life of protecting our comforts and our idols by excusing our compromise has little resemblance to the life of Christ, little resemblance to Philippians 2, where we give up control and we trust the means of God. Christianity is not about Christ. Christianity is Christ. Discipleship is being conformed to Christ.

And Bonhoeffer not only helps us to see that through his teachings, but through the example of his life. It is a a strong and pertinent call to us from one who lived the life of discipleship, and who died for it. So as you go through today, April 9, 2020, think about what happened 75 years ago, and reflect on a fellow traveler and one of those in the great cloud of witnesses who we should listen to. That's all for now, so peace. And because I'm a pacifist, when I say it, I really do need unequivocally.