Discernment: doing what is right

I've been reading Bonhoeffer's Ethics for my course on ThM seminar on 'Theology of Bonhoeffer'. We're reading a collection of his work and I realize that Cost of Discipleship (now simply Discipleship in the critical edition, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works series), is the more popular of his writings. His life and writings offer much food for thought. For now, I'm chewing on some of these ideas ...

In discerning what Jesus is saying to us, we would usually confirm what we hear with some of the following guidelines: does it contradict with the Word? is it legal? is it in line with common sense? is it loving? With that in mind, has it ever bothered you that Jesus often chose to heal on the Sabbath? He could have healed on Monday or any other day, but he chose to do it on Sabbath. We know that Jesus' miracles did not usually stopped at the miracle (or healing) itself, but was a sign and an occasion which he used to teach. Usually he did not set out to heal in order to prove he was God. Otherwise he could have healed all those whom he met who were ill. But obviously that did not happen (and perhaps that's troubled you and you've often asked why). That is probably a good topic for discussion at another time, but for now, I want to focus on the 'legality' of what he did. Yes, we know there are no laws against healing or doing good. In those days, the Pharisees were troubled not because Jesus healed but because he refused to 'observe' the Sabbath. But Jesus himself said he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. So perhaps in this case we may argue that he was fulfilling the spirit of the law, and the so-called Sabbath laws were not really God's commands but man-made additions and therefore can be ignored (??) for the sake of doing a higher good? ... food for thought. So perhaps you're thinking that to heal a person and set him/her free from a long term oppression is doing something loving towards another, and therefore should trump these 'laws'. We should not be legalistic about it. Pause for a moment to think about our use of the word legalistic. What about flouting the Sabbath laws to meet our needs - disciples picking corn on the field? Would meeting a 'selfish' bodily need also justify 'breaking the law'? No doubt in this case, one may say that the Sabbath law is a religious law and thus only have moral obligations, and it's not technically illegal. Well, in light of the Old Testament, it is more than a moral obligation, but is in fact a civil obligation, at least for a Jew. Jesus and his disciples were Jews. Was Jesus putting away an old order and instituting a new one ... and if so, would he still be fulfilling the law? Or was it justified because it was more moral and loving to 'break the Sabbath' than to observe it in these cases?

Take it one step further now with Bonhoeffer. Would God ask us to do something that is illegal which is also against His commandments? Bonhoeffer felt God had led him to be part of the plot to assassinate Hitler. And no matter how evil Hitler is, it doesn't change the fact that it would tantamount to murder, which is clearly forbidden both in the 10 Commandments as well as Sermon on the Mount. You may not agree with Bonhoeffer on whether such acts can ever be justified but the fact that the church considers Bonhoeffer a martyr (he was executed by Hitler when his plans failed), is a testimony that we believe he acted in good faith. Bonhoeffer does not deny that it is wrong in the sense that it is against the commandment of God, but he saw that this evil was necessary to bring an end to much greater evil.

Bonhoeffer views a Christian as one who is called to live responsibly, i.e. in response to the call of Christ (continued obedience to him), and to live responsibly towards others. In the latter, it means standing in solidarity with and on behalf of those who are poor, powerless and persecuted. In doing so, we're standing with Christ because Christ identifies himself with those who are least among us ... Failure to act and intervene as well as intercede on their behalf is to fail in our Christian duty. More food for thought.

Back to the question of discernment. Bonhoeffer points out that we must be careful not to be too confident in our own knowledge of good and evil. Often when we try to discern God's will we are too preoccupied with getting it RIGHT. While we do our best to discern, we can only be certain to some degree, because there is always an element of faith as we obey what we sense God is saying to us. This element of faith is an important one, and perhaps can put many of us at ease, rather than trying to attain absolute certainty when we are discerning God's guidance in our given situation.

Some basic questions we use in 'confirming' our decisions are as follows:
1) Is it legal? The concern here would be legally permissible, which is the lowest common denominator. We will probably agree that this consideration is irrelevant if it breaks God's moral code. Thus we do not obey an order of the State if we are told to worship an idol. Although some may say this is a given, but it probably should not be surprising how many of us fall back on this in ethically gray areas, especially when it is to our advantage.
2) Is it according to God's laws? The concern here is for what is right and morally permissible. A good guideline in principle.
3) Is it loving? If doing what is morally permissible will hurt our neighbour, aggravate or extend their suffering, then it is more loving (and not immoral) to break the moral code. I expect this might ruffle some feathers. This is a good time to re-consider the word we used earlier: Legalistic.
Other questions include: is it in line with common sense? Does it lead to desolation or consolation? (Ignatian discernment; i.e. does it lead me to withdraw from God or draw closer to God?)

However ultimately the one question we seek to answer is: Is this what God is calling me to do?
It may be legal, right and loving thing to do but if it is not what God has asked me to do, then it may be wrong for me to do it. Or should I assume God has called me to do that? (More question mark!) Can the reverse be true? Even if it is illegal, wrong, and unloving, my duty is still to obey. (At this point alone, you are probably all ready to conclude I'm a heretic!) Bonhoeffer was speaking against German Christians who went along with Nazi's program (doing what is legal) and consoled by the fact that they were doing what was "right" (morally permissible but even though it was unloving towards their Jewish neighbour). However in being part of the assassination plot, he did what was illegal (against Nazi regime), immoral (moral ideal would be to forgive your enemy ... hmm always? further food for thought), and unloving (at least to Hitler), and yet ...

Nb. I am aware of examples like Corrie Ten Boom's sister who refused to lie when asked by the authorities if they were hiding Jews in their home. She believed God would protect them without her having to lie about it - although some would argue that in this case, it was necessary and probably justified, to prevent a greater evil and protect lives. She openly pointed out their hiding place when the authorities came to search the house but they refused to believe she was telling them the truth and did not search that spot, thus God honoured her faith!

Jesus said, "my meat is to do the will of the one who sent me" (John 4:34) and "The Son is not able to do anything himself; he is able to do only what he sees the Father doing" (John 5:19).
Is this idea dangerous? Yes, you bet. Is this what it means to walk by the Spirit? (Gal 5) Probably.
The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit. (John 3:8)


Response? Bring them on! Love to hear your input.