我認(rèn)為schicksal (命運(yùn)）這個(gè)詞用中性是很有意思的。我們必須出擊，滿懷堅(jiān)定的決心去否定命運(yùn)，而當(dāng)時(shí)候到了，又以同樣的決心聽天由命。 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. ——《獄中書簡(jiǎn)》朋霍費(fèi)爾 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. 這段話是一封信的一部分，是由德國(guó)神學(xué)家、反納粹抵抗運(yùn)動(dòng)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人之一的迪特里?！づ蠡糍M(fèi)爾（Dietrich Bonhoeffer）于1943年12月19日從柏林的軍事監(jiān)獄寫給他的朋友埃伯哈德·貝特格（Eberhard Bethge）的。 這段話主要表達(dá)了邦霍費(fèi)爾對(duì)自己和他的朋友們?cè)趹?zhàn)爭(zhēng)和迫害中的處境的思考，以及他對(duì)基督教信仰和道德行為的看法。他在信中提到了以下幾個(gè)方面： 他感謝貝特格和瑪利亞（Maria）在他生日時(shí)給他寫信，表示了他對(duì)友誼的珍視和感激。他用《約伯記》第一章中撒旦試探約伯的故事來(lái)比喻自己被囚禁和與朋友們隔絕的困境，但他相信上帝不會(huì)讓他失去朋友。

他對(duì)貝特格在梵蒂岡覲見教皇的經(jīng)歷感到好奇和高興，雖然他認(rèn)為現(xiàn)在的儀式可能不如1924年他親身經(jīng)歷過(guò)的那樣莊嚴(yán)。他認(rèn)為這樣的經(jīng)歷對(duì)貝特格來(lái)說(shuō)是一種刺激和重要的體驗(yàn)，即使有些路德教徒可能會(huì)因此批評(píng)貝特格。

他對(duì)自己不能在復(fù)活節(jié)前獲釋感到遺憾，因?yàn)樗耐餄h斯（Hans）還沒有康復(fù)，所以不能進(jìn)行任何改變。?他覺得自己和其他人都有些過(guò)于刻意和想象，而沒有做出最簡(jiǎn)單的事情。他懷疑自己是否過(guò)于謹(jǐn)慎，以至于在不安全的時(shí)候感到恐懼，不敢做出直接、簡(jiǎn)單、必要的行動(dòng)。

他思考了人們應(yīng)該如何在必要的抵抗和必要的順從之間找到平衡。 他用堂吉訶德（Don Quixote）和邁克爾·科爾豪斯（Michael Kohlhaas）作為兩個(gè)極端的例子，說(shuō)明了過(guò)度抵抗命運(yùn)會(huì)導(dǎo)致荒謬甚至瘋狂，而桑喬·潘薩（Sancho Panza）則是一種順應(yīng)現(xiàn)實(shí)的類型。 他認(rèn)為人們應(yīng)該既要面對(duì)個(gè)人生活中的重大挑戰(zhàn)，又要完成日常生活中的普通和必要的任務(wù)。

他探討了命運(yùn)（fate）和天意（guidance）之間的關(guān)系，以及如何在命運(yùn)中尋找上帝（Thou）。 他認(rèn)為命運(yùn)是一個(gè)中性詞，既包含了上帝作為“你”與我們相遇的方式，也包含了上帝作為“它”隱藏在事物背后的方式。 他認(rèn)為不能用抽象的原則來(lái)劃分抵抗和順從的界限，而是要根據(jù)具體情況靈活地處理。 他認(rèn)為信仰要求這種行為上的彈性，只有這樣才能在每一種情況下堅(jiān)持立場(chǎng)，并將其轉(zhuǎn)化為益處。

他最后提出了一個(gè)問(wèn)題，即神學(xué)和法學(xué)的存在之間是否有差異。 他舉了克勞斯（Klaus）和魯?shù)细瘢≧üdiger）之間的極端對(duì)比，前者是一種“法律主義”的、法學(xué)的方法，后者是一種更靈活、更生動(dòng)的、神學(xué)的方法，他認(rèn)為后者更符合現(xiàn)實(shí)。