What do you think?
Rate this book
"After Ten Years": Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Our Times
How does one read the signs of the times? What does it mean to resist? How do we engage faithfully in struggle? Dietrich Bonhoeffer has achieved iconic status as one who epitomizes what it means to struggle and resist tyranny and fascism and how one acts in faithful witness as a religious and political commitment. Bonhoeffer‘s witness and example is more relevant than ever. A testimony to that is a crucial essay penned by Bonhoeffer in 1942; "After Ten Years" is a succinct and sober reflection, and remains one of the best descriptions ever written about what happened to the German people under National Socialism. This volume presents this timely and unique essay in a fresh translation and a penetrating introduction and analysis of the importance of this essay-in Bonhoeffer‘s time and now in our own.
46 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2017
36 people are currently reading
144 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
May 14, 2023
Really important work in the Bonhoeffer corpus, with an excellent introduction by a preeminent scholar.
September 1, 2022
"After Ten Years" was originally a essay/letter, composed of various reflections, and sent by Bonhoeffer to close friends in the resistance at the end of 1942. The essay demonstrates a remarkable clairvoyance about both human nature but also how one must maintain his moral compass when all seems dark.
Among the most insightful portions of the essay is "On Success", where Bonhoeffer decries the idea that "success" against the Nazis is neutral. While he does not believe that ends justify means, he also thinks that a life resigned to martyrdom is actually immoral because it shirks one's duty to future generations. Instead, he argues that people must view themselves as "co-responsible" for the preservation of civilization, and he emphasizes the need to cultivate prudence, courage, and reasoned optimism.
A second insightful portion is the portion "On Stupidity". He argues that stupidity is a greater threat than malice because, unlike malice, it cannot be persuaded by reason or prevented by use of force. In short, stupid people commit great acts of evil but are not self-aware enough to know that is what they are doing. This stupidity is a collective, sociological phenomenon that suddenly sweeps through a population, in which people act not so much as independent agents but rather as the "slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him." (Bonhoeffer seems to describe something like mass formation psychosis here.) Thus, the Christian must seek and pray for an inner liberation for these people.
As always, Bonhoeffer is relevant to our times, and not because he somehow stood fully above his own. He had his oversights and pitfalls--some quite large--as we all do. Rather, Bonhoeffer is relevant both as an intellectual who saw beyond the superficial facts and also as an exemplar of conviction in the face of evil.
Among the most insightful portions of the essay is "On Success", where Bonhoeffer decries the idea that "success" against the Nazis is neutral. While he does not believe that ends justify means, he also thinks that a life resigned to martyrdom is actually immoral because it shirks one's duty to future generations. Instead, he argues that people must view themselves as "co-responsible" for the preservation of civilization, and he emphasizes the need to cultivate prudence, courage, and reasoned optimism.
A second insightful portion is the portion "On Stupidity". He argues that stupidity is a greater threat than malice because, unlike malice, it cannot be persuaded by reason or prevented by use of force. In short, stupid people commit great acts of evil but are not self-aware enough to know that is what they are doing. This stupidity is a collective, sociological phenomenon that suddenly sweeps through a population, in which people act not so much as independent agents but rather as the "slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him." (Bonhoeffer seems to describe something like mass formation psychosis here.) Thus, the Christian must seek and pray for an inner liberation for these people.
As always, Bonhoeffer is relevant to our times, and not because he somehow stood fully above his own. He had his oversights and pitfalls--some quite large--as we all do. Rather, Bonhoeffer is relevant both as an intellectual who saw beyond the superficial facts and also as an exemplar of conviction in the face of evil.
February 10, 2020
Bonhoefferova existenciální, etická a teologická reflexe prvních deseti let Hitlerovy vlády.
"Hloupost je nebezpečnější nepřítel dobra než zlo. Proti zlu se dá protestovat, dá se zostudit, v krajním případě mu lze zabránit násilím. Pokaždé již v sobě nese zárodek vlastního rozkladu, už proto, že zanechává v člověku přinejmenším nevolnost. Proti hlouposti jsme bezbranní. Ani protesty, ani násilím tu nelze nic pořídit; argumenty nepůsobí, fakta, jež odporují vlastním předsudkům, se prostě neuznávají... Při bližším přihlédnutí se ukáže, že každé silnější uplatnění vnější moci, ať politické či náboženské, velkou část lidí raní hloupostí. Dokonce se zdá, jako by to byl přímo nějaký sociologicko-psychologický zákon. Moc jedněch využívá hlouposti druhých. Celý proces nespočívá v tom, že by určité - tedy třeba intelektuální - lidské vlohy náhle zakrněly nebo vymizely, nýbrž v tom, že ohromující dojem vyvolaný vnější mocí připravuje člověka o jeho vnitřní samostatnost, takže se pak - více či méně nevědomě - vzdává hledání vlastního postoje k daným životním situacím... Právě když s ním mluvíme, máme pocit, že před námi není on sám osobně, nýbrž předsudky a fráze, které nad ním nabyly moci. Je jakoby v zakletí, zaslepen, zneužit ve své podstatě, znásilněn. Když se stal nástrojem bez vlastní vůle, bude hlupák schopen i jakékoli špatnosti a současně neschopen rozpoznávat ji jako zlo... Biblický výrok, že bázeň Boží je počátek moudrosti (Ž 111,10) potvrzuje, že vnitřní osvobození člověka k odpovědnému životu před Bohem je jediným skutečným přemožením hlouposti."
----
"Věřím, že Bůh ze všeho, i z toho nejhoršího může a chce dát vzniknout dobru. K tomu potřebuje lidi, kteří připustí, aby jim všechny věci sloužily k dobrému. Věřím, že nám Bůh v každé tísni chce dát tolik síly k odporu, kolik jí potřebujeme. Nedává ji však dopředu, abychom se nespoléhali na sebe, ale jen na něho. V takové víře by měl být překonán všechen strach před budoucností. Věřím, že ani naše chyby a omyly nejsou marné a že pro Boha není o nic těžší vypořádat se s nimi než s našimi domněle dobrými činy. Věřím, že Bůh není nadčasový osud, ale že na upřímné modlitby a odpovědné činy čeká a odpovídá."
----
"Zajisté nejsme jako Kristus a nejsme povoláni spasit svět vlastními činy a vlastním utrpením, nemáme si naložit na svá ramena něco nemožného a trápit se, že to neuneseme; nejsme totiž vládci, nýbrž nástroji v rukou Pána dějin, a utrpení druhých dokážeme opravdu prožít jen v docela omezené míře. Nikdo z nás není Kristus, ale chceme-li být křesťany, znamená to, že se máme podílet na Kristově velkodušnosti odpovědným činem, který se svobodně chopí pravého okamžiku a postaví se nebezpečí, jakož i opravdovou účastí, která nepramení ze strachu, nýbrž z osvobozující a spásné Kristovy lásky ke všem trpícím. Nečinné vyčkávání a tupé přihlížení, to není křesťanský postoj."
----
"Je nekonečně snazší trpět poslušně na lidský rozkaz než následkem vlastního svobodného činu. Je nekonečně snazší trpět ve společenství než o samotě. Je nekonečně snazší trpět veřejně a s poctami než v ústranní a v hanbě. Je nekonečně snazší trpět nasazením tělesného života než trpět duchovně. Kristus trpěl svobodně, o samotě, v ústraní a v hanbě, tělesně i duchovně, a od té doby mnozí křesťané s ním."
"Hloupost je nebezpečnější nepřítel dobra než zlo. Proti zlu se dá protestovat, dá se zostudit, v krajním případě mu lze zabránit násilím. Pokaždé již v sobě nese zárodek vlastního rozkladu, už proto, že zanechává v člověku přinejmenším nevolnost. Proti hlouposti jsme bezbranní. Ani protesty, ani násilím tu nelze nic pořídit; argumenty nepůsobí, fakta, jež odporují vlastním předsudkům, se prostě neuznávají... Při bližším přihlédnutí se ukáže, že každé silnější uplatnění vnější moci, ať politické či náboženské, velkou část lidí raní hloupostí. Dokonce se zdá, jako by to byl přímo nějaký sociologicko-psychologický zákon. Moc jedněch využívá hlouposti druhých. Celý proces nespočívá v tom, že by určité - tedy třeba intelektuální - lidské vlohy náhle zakrněly nebo vymizely, nýbrž v tom, že ohromující dojem vyvolaný vnější mocí připravuje člověka o jeho vnitřní samostatnost, takže se pak - více či méně nevědomě - vzdává hledání vlastního postoje k daným životním situacím... Právě když s ním mluvíme, máme pocit, že před námi není on sám osobně, nýbrž předsudky a fráze, které nad ním nabyly moci. Je jakoby v zakletí, zaslepen, zneužit ve své podstatě, znásilněn. Když se stal nástrojem bez vlastní vůle, bude hlupák schopen i jakékoli špatnosti a současně neschopen rozpoznávat ji jako zlo... Biblický výrok, že bázeň Boží je počátek moudrosti (Ž 111,10) potvrzuje, že vnitřní osvobození člověka k odpovědnému životu před Bohem je jediným skutečným přemožením hlouposti."
----
"Věřím, že Bůh ze všeho, i z toho nejhoršího může a chce dát vzniknout dobru. K tomu potřebuje lidi, kteří připustí, aby jim všechny věci sloužily k dobrému. Věřím, že nám Bůh v každé tísni chce dát tolik síly k odporu, kolik jí potřebujeme. Nedává ji však dopředu, abychom se nespoléhali na sebe, ale jen na něho. V takové víře by měl být překonán všechen strach před budoucností. Věřím, že ani naše chyby a omyly nejsou marné a že pro Boha není o nic těžší vypořádat se s nimi než s našimi domněle dobrými činy. Věřím, že Bůh není nadčasový osud, ale že na upřímné modlitby a odpovědné činy čeká a odpovídá."
----
"Zajisté nejsme jako Kristus a nejsme povoláni spasit svět vlastními činy a vlastním utrpením, nemáme si naložit na svá ramena něco nemožného a trápit se, že to neuneseme; nejsme totiž vládci, nýbrž nástroji v rukou Pána dějin, a utrpení druhých dokážeme opravdu prožít jen v docela omezené míře. Nikdo z nás není Kristus, ale chceme-li být křesťany, znamená to, že se máme podílet na Kristově velkodušnosti odpovědným činem, který se svobodně chopí pravého okamžiku a postaví se nebezpečí, jakož i opravdovou účastí, která nepramení ze strachu, nýbrž z osvobozující a spásné Kristovy lásky ke všem trpícím. Nečinné vyčkávání a tupé přihlížení, to není křesťanský postoj."
----
"Je nekonečně snazší trpět poslušně na lidský rozkaz než následkem vlastního svobodného činu. Je nekonečně snazší trpět ve společenství než o samotě. Je nekonečně snazší trpět veřejně a s poctami než v ústranní a v hanbě. Je nekonečně snazší trpět nasazením tělesného života než trpět duchovně. Kristus trpěl svobodně, o samotě, v ústraní a v hanbě, tělesně i duchovně, a od té doby mnozí křesťané s ním."
February 2, 2026
Because time is the most precious gift at our disposal, being of all gifts the most irretrievable, the thought of time possibly lost disturbs us whenever we look back. Time is lost when we have not lived, experienced things, learned, worked, enjoyed, and suffered as human beings. Lost time is unfulfilled, empty time.
Who stands firm? Only the one whose ultimate standard is not his reason, his principles, conscience, freedom, or virtue; only the one who is prepared to sacrifice all of these when, in faith and in relationship to God alone, he is called to obedient and responsible action. Such a person is the responsible one, whose life is to be nothing but a response to God's question and call.
On Stupidity
Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind at least a sense of unease in human beings. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one's prejudgment simply need not be believed—in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical—and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.
If we want to know how to get the better of stupidity, we must seek to understand its nature. This much is certain, that in essence it is not an intellectual defect but a human one. There are human beings who are of remarkably agile intellect yet stupid, and others who are intellectually quite dull yet anything but stupid. We discover this to our surprise in particular situations. The impression one gains is not so much that stupidity is a congenital defect but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or that they allow this to happen to them. We note further that people who have isolated themselves from others or who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals or groups of people inclined or condemned to sociability. And so it would seem that stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem. It is a particular form of the impact of historical circumstances on human beings, a psychological concomitant of certain external conditions. Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity. It would even seem that this is virtually a sociological-psychological law. The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other. The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, for instance, the intellect, suddenly atrophy or fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances. The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.
Yet at this very point it becomes quite clear that only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity. Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it. Until then we must abandon all attempts to convince the stupid person. This state of affairs explains why in such circumstances our attempts to know what "the people" really think are in vain and why, under these circumstances, this question is so irrelevant for the person who is thinking and acting responsibly. The biblical passage, that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, states that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity.
But these thoughts about stupidity also offer consolation in that they utterly forbid us to consider the majority of people to be stupid in every circumstance. It really will depend on whether those in power expect more from people's stupidity than from their inner independence and wisdom.
Contempt for Humanity?
The danger of allowing ourselves to be driven to contempt for humanity is very real. We know very well that we have no right to let this happen and that it would lead us into the most unfruitful relation to human beings. The following thoughts may protect us against this temptation: through contempt for humanity we fall victim precisely to our opponents' chief errors. Whoever despises another human being will never be able to make anything of him. Nothing of what we despise in another is itself foreign to us. How often do we expect more of the other than what we ourselves are willing to accomplish? Why is it that we have hitherto thought with so little sobriety about the temptability and frailty of human beings? We must learn to regard human beings less in terms of what they do and neglect to do, and more in terms of what they suffer. The only fruitful relation to human beings—particularly to the weak among them—is love, that is, the will to enter into and to keep community with them. God did not hold human beings in contempt but became human for their sake.
Who stands firm? Only the one whose ultimate standard is not his reason, his principles, conscience, freedom, or virtue; only the one who is prepared to sacrifice all of these when, in faith and in relationship to God alone, he is called to obedient and responsible action. Such a person is the responsible one, whose life is to be nothing but a response to God's question and call.
On Stupidity
Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind at least a sense of unease in human beings. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one's prejudgment simply need not be believed—in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical—and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.
If we want to know how to get the better of stupidity, we must seek to understand its nature. This much is certain, that in essence it is not an intellectual defect but a human one. There are human beings who are of remarkably agile intellect yet stupid, and others who are intellectually quite dull yet anything but stupid. We discover this to our surprise in particular situations. The impression one gains is not so much that stupidity is a congenital defect but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or that they allow this to happen to them. We note further that people who have isolated themselves from others or who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals or groups of people inclined or condemned to sociability. And so it would seem that stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem. It is a particular form of the impact of historical circumstances on human beings, a psychological concomitant of certain external conditions. Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity. It would even seem that this is virtually a sociological-psychological law. The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other. The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, for instance, the intellect, suddenly atrophy or fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances. The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.
Yet at this very point it becomes quite clear that only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity. Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it. Until then we must abandon all attempts to convince the stupid person. This state of affairs explains why in such circumstances our attempts to know what "the people" really think are in vain and why, under these circumstances, this question is so irrelevant for the person who is thinking and acting responsibly. The biblical passage, that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, states that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity.
But these thoughts about stupidity also offer consolation in that they utterly forbid us to consider the majority of people to be stupid in every circumstance. It really will depend on whether those in power expect more from people's stupidity than from their inner independence and wisdom.
Contempt for Humanity?
The danger of allowing ourselves to be driven to contempt for humanity is very real. We know very well that we have no right to let this happen and that it would lead us into the most unfruitful relation to human beings. The following thoughts may protect us against this temptation: through contempt for humanity we fall victim precisely to our opponents' chief errors. Whoever despises another human being will never be able to make anything of him. Nothing of what we despise in another is itself foreign to us. How often do we expect more of the other than what we ourselves are willing to accomplish? Why is it that we have hitherto thought with so little sobriety about the temptability and frailty of human beings? We must learn to regard human beings less in terms of what they do and neglect to do, and more in terms of what they suffer. The only fruitful relation to human beings—particularly to the weak among them—is love, that is, the will to enter into and to keep community with them. God did not hold human beings in contempt but became human for their sake.
April 22, 2023
If Frankl's classic Man's Search For Meaning was about finding meaning in any suffering to move forward then After Ten Years is the parallel in why we owe it to the world to resist while suffering. Since he was a pastor, there is obviously a lot of emphasis on Christian theology. Nonetheless, most of it will appeal to any good person from any religion or even atheists.
A truly brave man who could've gone on to make a huge difference to other people just as Frankl did had he survived WW2.
A truly brave man who could've gone on to make a huge difference to other people just as Frankl did had he survived WW2.
March 26, 2021
An excellent summation of Bonhoeffer's thoughts.
I love the writings and thoughts of Bonhoeffer, Barnett not so much. Too much of a scholarly disclaimer for my taste.
I love the writings and thoughts of Bonhoeffer, Barnett not so much. Too much of a scholarly disclaimer for my taste.
November 24, 2021
This book gave me a lot to think about. The idea of “stupid” bring a moral, not an intellectual issue is really intriguing.
October 9, 2024
So many parallels, so much history repeating itself.
So few men today like Deitrich Bonhoeffer!
So few men today like Deitrich Bonhoeffer!
December 2, 2024
In our own troubled times
This short essay could serve as a framework for dealing with the challenges for saving our democracy from white Christian Nationalists.
This short essay could serve as a framework for dealing with the challenges for saving our democracy from white Christian Nationalists.
March 30, 2023
i understood maybe half of this book?? (being generous rn)
December 9, 2024
Reread after seeing the movie.
Challenging meditation.
Challenging meditation.
Read
October 19, 2018Short but very good.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews