The ambiguous witness of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (2014)
newcriterion.com
newcriterion.com
[0] https://www.baylorpress.com/9781481321679/dietrich-bonhoeffe...
I don't think there's a western equivalent but in the eastern churches this is a passion bearer. He's widely admired and informally commemorated. Like the article said he is influential across very different strands of christianity.
> In a situation of profound moral dislocation, there was no escaping complicity in evil. Violent resistance or tacit acceptance of monstrous cruelty: There was guilt either way. In the end Bonhoeffer chose to sin for the sake of righteousness.
His essay exploring that specific contradiction, written in prison, is one of the most useful and interesting works of christian writing I've ever come across. The article glosses over it probably because of writing for a secular audience, but what he was specifically hung up on was the use of children as messengers in the resistance movement he was involved in.
Some of the children would inevitably be caught, tortured, and killed. Possibly many of them if the plot were severely compromised. That's what he was weighing against his need to oppose the nazis. In the end he decided to participate and trust in forgiveness if it was necessary, a decision so self-assuredly childlike I marvel at its strength.
Basically they prefer nonviolence, but leave the door open to other options when confronting abusive governments in extreme situations where nonviolence has failed to produce change. They say the choice to use violence should not be easy. It should be done only for the public good not for one group of people and its use should be scaled to the nature of the evil being resisted.
Granted I haven’t read the book you mentioned, but I’m always surprised at the tacit acceptance of this false dichotomy which is presented over and over in Christian writings, in order to justify choosing violent resistance. A third option, which is actually compatible with Jesus’ command to not resist evil, is to love your enemy, and their victims simultaneously, by redirecting the evil upon yourself, as Christ did and taught himself, while teaching them the truth. You will definitely die, but you might have a chance at following Christ.
Many christians do accept that as the only choice. Others finds that they are compelled to action, and consider this a personal failure to remain peaceful in the face of great evil. This is basically what Bonhoeffer was addressing directly. Not all sin is avoidable, a sinless choice is not guaranteed. Even when there is one we may not have the strength or resolve to follow it, or the wisdom to perceive it.
The other [dead] commenter is struggling to understand this too but here's a paraphrase of a joke about it.
Contemporary Theology Understander: We cannot do evil so that good may come of it ... that is evil.
Big Brother D, unable to escape the conclusion that he must kill nazis: Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me, a sinner.
I've heard people say this all my life, but I've never agreed with it. Not all harm is avoidable, not all violence is avoidable, but at every point in time, there is at least one righteous course of action; and doing that action will, in the long run, lead to the best outcome for you and everyone else. (Whether we can see it or whether we're able to choose to do it is another matter.) It's not always possible to follow the letter of every written law, because the real, living law is fractal and can't be written down (and it were, it would be so long that nobody could read it).
The only reason for Bonhoeffer's "contradiction" was that his simplistic understanding of Jesus' admonitions to peace and non-violence. His heart was more in line with God's values than his head, and his character was such that he allowed his more-godly heart to overrule his less-godly head. (And even his theology was that way because he didn't want to be someone who made excuses for himself -- which is in line with God's heart as well.)
Jesus commended Abiathar for letting David eat the consecrated bread "which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests" [1]; I think he would have commended Bonhoeffer for supporting the plot to kill Hitler too.
[1] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012%3A...
That is the normal choice that any person has to make, there's nothing Christian about this, nor about the decision that Bonhoeffer made. Any atheist would agree with him that you've got to minimize harm, etc.
The relevant choice for the Christian is to decide whether we're going to "use evil for good" in a way that only God can facilitate, by loving our enemies and dying for them, as Christ died for his enemies.
> What you present isn't a third option, it's just a particular mindset about the second one.
It's not "just" a mindset because it restricts (and expands) the options you can take. Isn't Bonhoeffer's stance "just" a mindset, because regardless of why you're killing your enemies, they end up dead anyway? An atheist killing Nazis and Bonhoeffer killing Nazis only differ in what they're saying, not really what they're doing. A Christian not resisting evil and loving their enemies is identifiable both by word and deed.
> Many christians do accept that as the only choice. Others finds that they are compelled to action, and consider this a personal failure to remain peaceful in the face of great evil.
You're construing this as a choice between action and inaction, so I don't think we understand each other yet. Was Jesus action-less when he came to the earth to die for his enemies? Or did he take action to not-resist evil, love and die for his enemies, and bear the sins of the world? What I'm suggesting as the Christian approach to this is very active, but not to kill our enemies the same way literally everyone else does. It's to feed our enemies when they're hungry, give them drink when they're thirsty, and stand in the way of the bullets when they're fired at others, all the while proclaiming our love for them, and God's love, so that they would quit trying to earn their righteousness by good works, and believe on Christ for righteousness. This is all and only what Jesus did, and bade us do.
> Not all sin is avoidable, a sinless choice is not guaranteed.
This might be your opinion, but I'm not sure you could find any support for this in scripture.
I'm also not sure that we can take Bonhoeffer's decision as anything other than the proposition that Jesus would have killed Nazis too. Is that the road we want to go down? (I presume he wouldn't be defending a choice to do something that Jesus wouldn't have done.)
Maybe the answer here is that I just need to read his book first.
> Contemporary Theology Understander: We cannot do evil so that good may come of it ... that is evil.
> Big Brother D, unable to escape the conclusion that he must kill nazis: Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me, a sinner.
The problem with this is that Big Brother D is morally equivalent before God to the Nazi, so in deciding the fate of the Nazi, he's deciding his own fate: he's too evil to let live, he should be put down. This is Brother D acting like he's still under the Law, which says, "The man who does these [good] things shall live [and by implication, the man who does bad things shall die]." According to Jesus, God cannot and will not have mercy on a (n undeserving) man who does not have mercy on (undeserving) others. There is no forgiveness for those who do not forgive others. Bringing death on others is asking for death upon ourselves (and for consistency, everyone else).
Bonhoeffer can't have mercy for himself and death for others.
And isn't this the thing that sets Christianity apart? Otherwise Jesus' earth-shattering teachings become just another "treat people nice who are nice to you, punish the bad guys" idea like every other one out there. My personal feeling is that trying to give up this nigh-impossible teaching is trying to give up the heart of Christianity, the core beauty and truth. Christianity has nothing attractive about it if we rip out the core and everything else that depends on it, imo.
Sorry for the long post.
Bonhoeffer's conundrum was that he perceived inaction to be as damning as any action available to him. I think there's room for disagreement about whether that was truly the case. But I find the difficulty in discerning righteous action in crisis relatable, and I appreciate how he engaged with it.
Interesting. Do you consider an action to be incorrect if it doesn't agree with scripture? Or can other things override scripture?
> I don't place limits on god's grace or attempt to guess who will or won't be forgiven for what
Do you place the limits that God himself placed? (Referring to Matthew 6:14-15 and James 2:13, assuming you believe Jesus' and James' words are God's word.)
> Bonhoeffer's conundrum was that he perceived inaction to be as damning as any action available to him. I think there's room for disagreement about whether that was truly the case. But I find the difficulty in discerning righteous action in crisis relatable, and I appreciate how he engaged with it.
I don't think we disagree that he was in a difficult situation. I'm simply arguing that he "gave up" and took the non-Christian way out of the core Christian dilemma, and worse, he's convincing other people that it was the Christian thing to do.
Forgive me if I sound glib over such a serious matter, I just don't have a lot of time to edit my posts right now. (Also I'm not downvoting you.)
Scripture and orthodox tradition both are inconsistent about the compatibility of mercy and action to prevent an ongoing harm. We aren't to weigh the good and evil and pass judgement on someone's soul, but we are to use discernment about what things we allow to happen around us.
1. Jesus didn't kill anyone. It's a long leap from driving people out of a temple, to killing someone and sealing their eternal fate, potentially consigning them to hell. Same can be said for property destruction (even omitting the fact that this is a special case of property within Jesus' own house, as it were).
2. All indications point to the fact that the whip was for the animals, not the people.
3. Even if we allow that Jesus whipped the people in the temple, he whipped people who weren't attacking him. Then later he died when people did attack him. This isn't a case of self-defense.
4. Jesus' stated purpose in this situation wasn't to physically protect anyone or to right a worldly injustice, it was to protect against a harmful spiritual idea, the commercialization of worship.
5. This was taking place in the community of God. The rules are different when you're dealing with God's people; more is permitted because souls are not at stake. Scripture states that God disciplines his children, not those who aren't his children.
So, next time you're in church among believers and there are moneychangers there, feel free to drive them and their animals out with a whip. But it strains credulity to jump from this to murder.
This kind of debatable, no? He didn't directly kill any humans (that we have records of... but will someone please think of the pigs?). But anyone that creates a popular cult or religion and has some level of intelligence must be aware of the likelihood of deaths further down the line. Whether that's a faithful being fed to the lions or bishops executing each other over niche theological disputes.
> Scripture states that God disciplines his children, not those who aren't his children
OT scripture states the first part. But then God also commanded the genocide of the Canaanites, Sodom & Gomorrah etc... . So it's not at all clear that the second bit follows.
I just disagree with this framing of things. First of all, you're implying that punishment necessarily implies lack of forgiveness; and conversely that forgiveness necessarily implies lack of punishment. But that would also imply that nobody can ever punish anyone: we can never fine someone who speeds, or take back from someone who stole something, or imprison someone who murdered someone.
But this is clearly unbiblical; "For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." [1] The Bible clearly expects human beings to enact justice.
(Perhaps you mean it's OK to fine someone and throw them in jail, but not kill them. But what's the difference from the "forgiveness" perspective? If it's "not forgiveness" to kill them, isn't it also "not forgiveness" to throw them in jail, or to fine them? If capital punishment is murder, then isn't jail kidnapping, and fining theft?)
Secondly, I'd hardly even call this punishment. Hitler had already intentionally caused the death of millions of individuals loved and known by God and made in his image. This horror needed to be stopped; the people yet living need to be protected. By intentionally causing the deaths of others by his own hands, he gave up his right to be protected from death at the hands of others.
I agree that if you are filled with hate against Hitler, that you are murdering him in your heart and damaging your own soul, whether or not you kill him physically or not. But it is entirely possible to kill someone like Hitler while earnestly desiring their salvation.
Granted, this is not a decision to come to lightly; nor is killing a path to take if there are other, less-violent alternatives like voting or demonstrating. But I think in the case of Nazi Germany it was certainly warranted.
[1] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013%3A4...
Copied from my other comment so you see it:
Contemporary Theology Understander: We cannot do evil so that good may come of it ... that is evil.
Big Brother D, unable to escape the conclusion that he must kill nazis: Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me, a sinner.
https://onepercentrule.substack.com/p/stupidity-our-biggest-...
Not strictly similar, but this brings to my mind Graham Greene's masterpiece, The Power and the Glory, and his 'whisky priest'. Easily one of the best novels that I've ever read, so highly recommended to give it a look.
Bonhoeffer went against the churches of his day because the Jesus of the bible wasn't being followed. Today it's the "warrior" Jesus that's being touted, one who never existed. When politics and power take over any Christian entity, it always led to disaster.
Even when the U.S. introduced the concept of seperation of church and state, it was for the explicit purpose of promoting religion. The U.S. founders axiomatically assumed religion was necessary for morality and self-governance and believed that a free market of religions (as opposed to state religion) would lead to increased religiosity [0]. And, interestingly, it seems they were right as the countries with state churches have all seen massive religious decline while the U.S. is one of the most religious countries in the world (especially when you filter out the elite class, who as secular as Europeans).
The danger is that politicians co-opt religious institutions to help legitimize their regime and bolster support. Marsh's biography of Bonhoffer describes exactly this process.
[0] George Washington's Final Address: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/farewell-address "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. . . Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
https://www.metafilter.com/80588/Jesus-who#2514085
The story of the temptations of Christ is a familiar one. After forty days and nights of fasting, the devil came to Jesus with three temptations. The first was to turn stones into bread, the second, to throw himself off the peak of the temple and have the angels catch him, the third, to have all the kingdoms of the world. We could summarize these as temptations be comfortable, to be impressive, and to be powerful. I am inclined to believe that those are also the three most common temptations of the church. Until recent years, the American church was offered each of those and gladly accepted them. Christianity was the default religion for the world’s greatest superpower—a position that should have made us tremble with concern that we were in danger of sliding off the path of self-denial that leads to the cross—but it seemed to occur to very few people that having such a position could be spiritually problematic. We built impressive structures, including dining facilities, recreation and entertainment centers. We turned praise and worship into a profit and star-making industry, and we gladly took our place in the halls of power. It seems that Satan offered us the same things he offered Christ, but we responded “Yes! Yes! Yes!” I doubt that the contemporary trends that are stripping away the power and prestige of the church are the work of the evil one—more likely it is the work of the Holy One, who is leading us step by step back to the paths of righteousness.
When Christianity was being introduced to Scandinavia where in from, the church sold Jesus as a warrior God similar to Thor. Jesus remained that way until the late Middle Ages, which is where the first accounts of the self-sacrifice begin to enter our history.
Religion isn’t static, it reflects its followers and the society it exists in. Those three parts of the bible I mentioned earlier are a good example. If you look them up in various bible versions you’ll find very different ways to word them. In some they are extremely “warrior” like, in others the word “sword” is not even mentioned.
In scandinavia you mean? Even still I find that surprising. Gregory of Nyssa, Basil of Caesarea, and John Chrysostom for example wrote on this subject in the fourth century and were all incredibly well known among early christians and through the middle ages.
Some very early detractors of christianity latched onto the weakness and submissiveness of Jesus as being incompatible with their contemporary ideal of manly virtue. Influential early christians like the ones I mentioned accepted that assessment and used it to form the theological foundations of self-sacrifice that have always been present in christianity.
Certainly the warrior-figure conception has always been there as well, it has never been purely one or the other. And it's definitely true that that element has had more emphasis in certain times and places. But, not knowing anything about them, I find it very unlikely that scandinavian christians would have been ignorant of this entire, extremely significant, branch of christian thought.
Bonhoeffer, at the end of the day, belonged to a very weak network in terms of power. It doesn't matter what people get out of his story if they belong to very weak networks too.