朋霍费尔：命运如何变为天意？

我认为schicksal (命运）这个词用中性是很有意思的。我们必须出击，满怀坚定的决心去否定命运，而当时候到了，又以同样的决心听天由命。 We must confront fate – to me the neuter gender of the word ‘fate’ (Schicksal) is significant – as resolutely as we submit to it at the right time. ——《狱中书简》朋霍费尔 1944年2月21日 It was an indescribable joy to hear from you! And also from Maria today, that you wrote to her on my birthday. That really was a good token of friendship. Many thanks for both. Recently I’ve had to think, in connection with Job ch. 1, that Satan had received permission from the Lord to separate me from my friends at this time – and that he was not going to succeed! I heard very briefly today about the audience in the Vatican and am now immeasurably curious to hear more of it. I’m very glad that you’ve had this impression, though I don’t expect that it corresponds completely to the old ceremonial which I experienced in 1924. Nevertheless, in contrast to the rest of your experience at present, it will have been particularly stimulating and important. I assume that some pig-headed Lutherans will put it down as a blot in your biography, and for that very reason I’m glad that you’ve done it…Otherwise there are only fragments, that I must put together into a mosaic. About myself, I’m sorry to have to tell you that I’m not likely to be out of here before Easter. As long as Hans is ill, no changes can be taken in hand. I can’t completely rid myself of the feeling that something has been too contrived and imagined and that the simplest things haven’t happened yet. I’m fully convinced of the best will of all concerned, but one all too easily takes a conversation, a fancy, a hope for an action. I keep noting with amazement that in fact nothing has happened for six months, although a great deal of time and even sleep has been spent in considerations and discussions; the only thing that would have happened of itself, namely the clarification before Christmas, has been prevented. I wonder whether my excessive scrupulousness, about which you often used to shake your head in amusement (I’m thinking of our travels), is not a negative side of bourgeois existence – simply part of our lack of faith, a part that remains hidden in times of security, but comes out in times of insecurity in the form of ‘dread’ (I don’t mean ‘cowardice’, which is something different: ‘dread’ can show itself in recklessness as well as in cowardice), dread of straightforward, simple actions, dread of having to make necessary decisions. I’ve often wondered here where we are to draw the line between necessary resistance to ‘fate’, and equally necessary submission. Don Quixote is the symbol of resistance carried to the point of absurdity, even lunacy; and similarly Michael Kohlhaas, insisting on his rights, puts himself in the wrong…in both cases resistance at last defeats its own object, and evaporates in theoretical fantasy. Sancho Panza is the type of complacent and artful accommodation to things as they are. I think we must rise to the great demands that are made on us personally, and yet at the same time fulfil the commonplace and necessary tasks of daily life. We must confront fate – to me the neuter gender of the word ‘fate’ (Schicksal) is significant – as resolutely as we submit to it at the right time. One can speak of ‘guidance’ only on the other side of that twofold process, with God meeting us no longer as ‘Thou’, but also ‘disguised’ in the ‘It’; so in the last resort my question is how we are to find the ‘Thou’ in this ‘It’ (i.e. fate), or, in other words, how does ‘fate’ really become ‘guidance’? It’s therefore impossible to define the boundary between resistance and submission on abstract principles; but both of them must exist, and both must be practised. Faith demands this elasticity of behaviour. Only so can we stand our ground in each situation as it arises, and turn it to gain. Would differences between theological and juristic existence emerge here? I’m thinking, for instance, of the extreme contrast between Klaus and Rüdiger within a ‘legalistic’, juristic approach…on the other hand our more flexible, livelier ‘theological’ approach, which has this character because in the end it is more in accord with reality. 这段话是一封信的一部分，是由德国神学家、反纳粹抵抗运动领导人之一的迪特里希·朋霍费尔（Dietrich Bonhoeffer）于1943年12月19日从柏林的军事监狱写给他的朋友埃伯哈德·贝特格（Eberhard Bethge）的。 这段话主要表达了邦霍费尔对自己和他的朋友们在战争和迫害中的处境的思考，以及他对基督教信仰和道德行为的看法。他在信中提到了以下几个方面： 他感谢贝特格和玛利亚（Maria）在他生日时给他写信，表示了他对友谊的珍视和感激。他用《约伯记》第一章中撒旦试探约伯的故事来比喻自己被囚禁和与朋友们隔绝的困境，但他相信上帝不会让他失去朋友。

他对贝特格在梵蒂冈觐见教皇的经历感到好奇和高兴，虽然他认为现在的仪式可能不如1924年他亲身经历过的那样庄严。他认为这样的经历对贝特格来说是一种刺激和重要的体验，即使有些路德教徒可能会因此批评贝特格。

他对自己不能在复活节前获释感到遗憾，因为他的同伙汉斯（Hans）还没有康复，所以不能进行任何改变。 他觉得自己和其他人都有些过于刻意和想象，而没有做出最简单的事情。他怀疑自己是否过于谨慎，以至于在不安全的时候感到恐惧，不敢做出直接、简单、必要的行动。

他思考了人们应该如何在必要的抵抗和必要的顺从之间找到平衡。 他用堂吉诃德（Don Quixote）和迈克尔·科尔豪斯（Michael Kohlhaas）作为两个极端的例子，说明了过度抵抗命运会导致荒谬甚至疯狂，而桑乔·潘萨（Sancho Panza）则是一种顺应现实的类型。 他认为人们应该既要面对个人生活中的重大挑战，又要完成日常生活中的普通和必要的任务。

他探讨了命运（fate）和天意（guidance）之间的关系，以及如何在命运中寻找上帝（Thou）。 他认为命运是一个中性词，既包含了上帝作为“你”与我们相遇的方式，也包含了上帝作为“它”隐藏在事物背后的方式。 他认为不能用抽象的原则来划分抵抗和顺从的界限，而是要根据具体情况灵活地处理。 他认为信仰要求这种行为上的弹性，只有这样才能在每一种情况下坚持立场，并将其转化为益处。

他最后提出了一个问题，即神学和法学的存在之间是否有差异。 他举了克劳斯（Klaus）和鲁迪格（Rüdiger）之间的极端对比，前者是一种“法律主义”的、法学的方法，后者是一种更灵活、更生动的、神学的方法，他认为后者更符合现实。