Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

What Would Dietrich Bonhoeffer Say to Anthony Weiner?

"It is essential for the image of the Leader that the group does not see the face of the one who goes before, but sees him only from behind as the figure stepping out ahead. His humanity is veiled in his Leader’s form."

by
Paula Bolyard

Bio

July 28, 2013 - 3:00 pm
Page 1 of 3  Next ->   View as Single Page

AnthonyWeiner

Our modern generation often displays a profound misunderstanding of the real nature of leadership. Our culture sometimes prefers to elevate entertainment idols or rhetorical phenoms to positions of leadership, regardless of their qualifications. We tolerate deeply flawed, immoral men as our leaders because they manage to accomplish some good or they can “bring people together.” We fail to count the cost of the ensuing long-term cultural rot when we tolerate immoral, unethical leaders who answer to no higher power than themselves.

This is not a modern problem. In January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany, ushering in the Third Reich. Just two days later, a 26-year-old theology professor named Dietrich Bonhoeffer gave a radio address titled “The Younger Generation’s Altered Concept of Leadership.”  Eric Metaxas describes in his book Bonhoeffer that the radio broadcast was disrupted before Bonhoeffer could finish — it is unclear whether Hitler’s henchmen were responsible — but it addressed, almost prophetically, the yearning of the younger Germans for the wrong qualities in a leader. Having been raised under the boot of the Weimar Republic, a society in which “religion” had replaced true Christianity, the youth sought an idealized version of a leader:

The group which produced him now sees him already bathed completely in the light of its ideals. It sees him, not in his reality but in his vocation. It is essential for the image of the Leader that the group does not see the face of the one who goes before, but sees him only from behind as the figure stepping out ahead. His humanity is veiled in his Leader’s form.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
The PJM word filter makes correct descriptions of Democrat political exuality impossible.

See: Winston Smith; 1984 and the 'thinning' of the dictionary.

This site ought not be consigned to blue noses.

Such a limit would make most commentary about Weiner, Clinton, Huma, Spitzer, et. al. so elliptic that all content is lost.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Here's a man who says he's "Carlos Danger"
Each time that he appears he's even stranger
For every move he makes
The greater chance we take
That he will bother us again tomorrow

Carlos Danger, man
Carlos Danger, man
Please cancel him from Twitter
And take away his phone
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Well, one can do worse than to cite Bonhoeffer. This problem with allowing Clintons and Weiners to assume leadership is that we falsely assume that there is a separation of some kind between public and private behavior. This, of course, is ultimately based on the fundamental Progressive assumption that feelings and intentions overrule actual results, that what we want to happen is necessarily what will happen. In reality, of course, if a person cheats on his or her spouse, he will also likely cheat on his friends, employers, and constituents.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (10)
All Comments   (10)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
I am not a big fan of Bonhoeffer. He tried to turn Jesus into a political leader, and his failure to distinguish the roles of the state and the church turned Christianity into a form of Islam. You don't kill political leaders, no matter how vile they are, in the name of Jesus. It is one thing for the church to practice civil disobedience, but the church has not authority to assassinate people. Bonhoeffer turned the Gospel into political activism of the worst kind.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
In today's society, true leaders are very rare, and thus very precious. That's why we seldom see men like Reagan in public life. The dross, such as Obama and Weiner are a dime-a-dozen, and a plague on our country.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
We tolerate deeply flawed, immoral men as our leaders because they manage to accomplish some good or they can “bring people together"


That comment and others in this post show the naivete of the writer - people like Weiner and Obama only accomplish any good by accident; everything they do is purely for their ego or political calculations.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The PJM word filter makes correct descriptions of Democrat political exuality impossible.

See: Winston Smith; 1984 and the 'thinning' of the dictionary.

This site ought not be consigned to blue noses.

Such a limit would make most commentary about Weiner, Clinton, Huma, Spitzer, et. al. so elliptic that all content is lost.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Weiner has a purely sham marriage, -- his 'wife' is ... -- as is her lover Rodham-Clinton.

It's not for nothing that he was Xxxting to a female aid employed by Rodham-Clinton's BROTHER.

Their soap opera is ... -- and hails from the ethics of Imperial Rome.

In which case, Weiner = Nero -- a complete attention ... .

Famously, Nero couldn't get along with any of the normal politicians of his era. He was too busy primping for the stage.

(His idea of a command performance was that the audience was commanded to sit through his drivel -- by the Praetorians!)

As for Huma, double secret agent of the Muslim Brotherhood, ALL is permitted while on jihad.

The larger public ought to know that she is not normally living with her 'husband' -- spending essentially all of her waking -- and bedding -- hours with Rodham-Clinton.

Hence, his sexual frustration. ( Shades of the Bill.)



1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Here's a man who says he's "Carlos Danger"
Each time that he appears he's even stranger
For every move he makes
The greater chance we take
That he will bother us again tomorrow

Carlos Danger, man
Carlos Danger, man
Please cancel him from Twitter
And take away his phone
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Well, one can do worse than to cite Bonhoeffer. This problem with allowing Clintons and Weiners to assume leadership is that we falsely assume that there is a separation of some kind between public and private behavior. This, of course, is ultimately based on the fundamental Progressive assumption that feelings and intentions overrule actual results, that what we want to happen is necessarily what will happen. In reality, of course, if a person cheats on his or her spouse, he will also likely cheat on his friends, employers, and constituents.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All