re ‘with the world face to face’
I am from time to time invited to guide discussions about the resolve to be ‘with the world face to face’, both with attention to the phrase’s significance for understanding Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s life/thought (my source for the phrase) and with suggestions re the phrase’s implications for ethics and spirituality today. In such opportunities, I usually organize the discussions around four emphases.
I am from time to time invited to guide discussions about the resolve to be ‘with the world face to face’, both with attention to the phrase’s significance for understanding Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s life/thought (my source for the phrase) and with suggestions re the phrase’s implications for ethics and spirituality today. In such opportunities, I usually organize the discussions around four emphases.
The first discussion orients the participants to ‘the world’ for Dietrich during the Hitler years (e.g., reasons for Hitler’s rise/success, the Bonhoeffer family’s resistance, the German Pastors’ Emergency League, the 1936 Berlin Olympics, facing the oath of allegiance to Hitler, the Confessing Church failure, Dietrich’s arrest/imprisonment/death). To bring some vividness to the subject, I share with the participants photographs from my three days in 2003 with Renate Bethge in Berlin and other photographs I have been privileged to take of historical resources/artifacts in the Bethge home during annual visits since 1993.
The second discussion probes the participants’ perceptions of ‘culture’ and of being ‘cultured’. I associate their predictable criteria (e.g., well educated, widely traveled, at ease in the arts, well dressed, refined manners, appreciation for fine cuisine, philanthropy, . . .) with Dietrich’s experience (e.g., his family’s prominence, his socio-economic privileges from birth, his thirst for nature’s beauty, his love for music and art, his gift for the piano, his awareness of injustices in India, his experiences in Spain with being a foreigner, his attachment to Harlem while at Union Theological Seminary, his investment in a confirmation class of rough boys in a blue-collar section of Berlin). Then I introduce them to Dietrich’s 23 January 1944 revised view that “ . . . a culture that breaks down in the face of danger is no culture. A ‘culture’ must be able to face danger and death . . . .” I guide them to distinguish postures toward ‘the world’ other than being ‘face to face’ -- e.g., tangentially, selectively, minimally, close-mindedly, suspiciously, . . . postured toward ‘the world’ -- all of which result in some variation on the ‘inner line’ approach to spirituality and ethics against which Dietrich objected/warned.
The third discussion focuses on Dietrich’s July 1939 decision to return to Germany from New York City and his subsequent experience in the Abwehr covert resistance circle. I contrast his involvement in covert resistance with the choices of pastors Martin Niemoller (imprisoned through the war years as a churchman) and Paul Schneider (executed for openly/persistently defying the Nazis). We reflect on the risk of losing sight/awareness of the beautiful and the inspiring when faced with danger and death. I close with Dietrich’s letter to Eberhard Bethge the day after the 20 July 1944 attempt on Hitler’s life failed.
The fourth discussion opens the questions about being gathered in/as ‘community’ that follow from saying “yes” to the stated resolve to be ‘with the world face to face’ (e.g., will the community radically rethink its approach to spirituality and ethics? to science? to the use/value of silence? to the art of sharing experiences ‘with the world face to face’? to hymns? to prayer/s? to confirmation? to communion? to the use of Jewish/Christian scripture? to parenting? to . . . ?). I share with them my observation that I have yet to experience/discover a ‘religious’ community that gathers around the resolve to be ‘with the world face to face’ and that has seriously examined these implications for saying “yes” to this resolve.
A most striking reaction – still vivid to me -- occurred as I led one such discussion group into the questions, “What experiences, events, circumstances count re ‘the world’? On what grounds can I disregard/ignore/avoid any experience, event, circumstance – however disgusting -- and still claim to be ‘with the world face to face’?” I noticed a teenage boy with a horrified expression when, to press the point, I recalled hearing a recent local news report about a little girl who had been taken from her parents by social services when cockroaches were found embedded in both her ears.
Participants always seem very attentive. Many respond thoughtfully during the discussions’ interactive opportunities. Comments after the sessions are often encouraging. The key is whether they will continue into the radical (i.e., down into the root) questions. I end the discussions uncertain/doubtful.
Quoist’s ‘The Subway’ meditation (Prayers, p. 26) serves well as a metaphor for these discussions (which I have adapted into a ‘non-religious’ wording) --
A most striking reaction – still vivid to me -- occurred as I led one such discussion group into the questions, “What experiences, events, circumstances count re ‘the world’? On what grounds can I disregard/ignore/avoid any experience, event, circumstance – however disgusting -- and still claim to be ‘with the world face to face’?” I noticed a teenage boy with a horrified expression when, to press the point, I recalled hearing a recent local news report about a little girl who had been taken from her parents by social services when cockroaches were found embedded in both her ears.
Participants always seem very attentive. Many respond thoughtfully during the discussions’ interactive opportunities. Comments after the sessions are often encouraging. The key is whether they will continue into the radical (i.e., down into the root) questions. I end the discussions uncertain/doubtful.
Quoist’s ‘The Subway’ meditation (Prayers, p. 26) serves well as a metaphor for these discussions (which I have adapted into a ‘non-religious’ wording) --
The last ones squeeze in. The door rolls shut. The subway rumbles off. I can’t move. I am no longer an individual but a crowd, a crowd that moves in one piece like jellied soup in its can. A nameless and indifferent crowd. I am one with the crowd, and I see why it is sometimes hard for me to rise higher. This crowd is heavy – laden soles on my feet, my slow feet – a crowd too large for my overburdened skiff. Yet I have no right to overlook these people. . . . I shall head for home “in the subways”.
