Bonhoeffer Was Hanged To Death Today
by Motte Brown on 04/09/2008 at 4:06 PM
It was 63 years ago today that German Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer was led naked to the gallows at Flossenburg concentration camp and hanged as a traitor for helping plot an assassination attempt against Hitler.
Here's an eyewitness account I found from a recent BBC News article:
An SS prison doctor, who witnessed the scene, described the condemned man "kneeling on the floor praying fervently to his God".
"At the place of execution, he again said a short prayer... In almost 50 years that I worked as a doctor, I have hardly ever seen a man die so entirely submissive to the will of God."
Indeed, it was submission to God's will which led this pacifist to pursue an act of civil disobedience that ultimately cost him his life. In Ben Domenich's Boundless article on the life of Bonhoeffer, he writes:
As a double agent, he was familiar with Hitler's works — he knew the true degree of Nazi atrocities long before the rest of the world did. And he believed that the only way of stopping the Reich was by undertaking a mission that would require him to aid in the shedding of another man's blood. He was convinced that doing any less would be to fail in loving his suffering neighbors.
Bonhoeffer's life and death are important for Christians to consider today. Is civil disobedience to the point of shedding blood ever appropriate for Christians? If so, when?
1. Rachael said the following at 4:38 PM on Apr 9:
Interesting. Though I've definitely heard of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I didn't know that he was part of a Hitler assassination plan.
In answer to the question at the bottom of this article: I don't know. Maybe. Difficult questions.
In terms of murder prevention, perhaps God would provide me the strength to prevent a murder even if it resulted in the aggressor's death, if that was part of His will. Don't know that I would, but I suppose it's possible. I'm not sure about self-defense, though. Would I ever kill someone out of self-defense if I had the power? I don't know that I would. I kind-of hope I wouldn't, but I guess the only way I'd find out would be to actually experience such a thing, which hopefully will never happen.
2. B.M. said the following at 4:41 PM on Apr 9:
That's a huge question! In general, I would say no. There are so many passages in the Bible ("Vengeance is mine; thou shalt not kill; etc) that seem to suggest pretty exclusively that Christian are not to partake in acts of civil disobedience, and especially not to engage in murder, even if the recipients seem to deserve it. That said, I cannot come out and condemn Bonhoeffer's actions. I haven't come up with a Biblically based, sound argument as of yet (I'm still working on term papers!) but I think a potential argument might examine the fact that Hitler was killing thousands upon thousands of people - Bonhoeffer's attempted assassination might be seen as an attempt to protect the innocent.
3. Josh said the following at 4:57 PM on Apr 9:
On a pragmatic perspective, Hitler saw the failed assassination attempt as a divine sign of the righteousness of his cause. Bonhoeffer's actions inadvertently bolstered the Nazi regime.
Something to think about.
/Good guy though.
//Great guy.
4. Julia H said the following at 5:01 PM on Apr 9:
Doesn't the Bible talk about defending those who cannot defend themselves? I believe that if we have the capacity to defend someone from another's evil intentions towards them (even if this results in the agressors death or our own) we must act. Christians have an obligation to aid those who are weak, poor and helpless.
At the same time, I believe that we also have the right to use physical force to defend ourselves and our families from harm and that we should not feel guilty about injuring or killing someone in self defense.
The correct understanding of the Ten Commandments is "do not commit murder," not "do not kill." We should not wish for the death of someone else or delight in their killing, but we are justified and in fact required to do what is necessary to protect ourselves, our families, and those who are weak.
5. Katie B said the following at 5:25 PM on Apr 9:
I had a philosophy professor that said that if we admit it to ourselves, there is more gray areas between right and wrong than whe are confortable with, thats a condition of our fallen world, sometimes we have to choose the evil that is more good and repent for it, that a lot of our rhetoric on what is Godly and evil is us trying to justify our choices. It makes some sense, though I dont know that I completely agree with it.
I always thought it was ridiculous that we express our abhorrance of killing people by killing people for it. but in the case of hitler, it could have saved many lives, but does that make it ok to break the 'thou shalt not kill"? is it possible for something to be the right thing to do and still be a sin?
6. David said the following at 5:27 PM on Apr 9:
Living in Germany, I have seen firsthand the power and impact that Bonhoeffer has had. He is a revered figure amongst Christians.
"Is civil disobedience to the point of shedding blood ever appropriate for Christians?"
Well, the first thing I thought about was the quote "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men do nothing" If not for the actions of good men like Bonhoeffer, evil may well have triumphed.
Seeing the concentration camps and speaking with those who were part of the resistance, I cannot help but come to the conclusion that the ends justified the means.
7. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 6:04 PM on Apr 9:
He died today? That's just flat-out weird; earlier today I was talking about him with a chaplain, but I didn't know that this was the aniversary.
"Is civil disobedience to the point of shedding blood ever appropriate for Christians? If so, when?"
I don't know. What I do know is that just a few days ago was the anniversary of the death of another great Christian leader, who preached non-violence.
8. Sarah said the following at 6:25 PM on Apr 9:
Being a fan and student of "die deutsche Sprache und Kultur," as well as being highly interested in theology, I have always admired Dietrich Bonhoeffer after learning about him from the FOTF Radio Theatre production. Reading "The Cost of Discipleship" only increased my admiration for the man.
The fact that he was involved in an assassination attempt on Hitler, however, has always been somewhat of a trouble for me that I haven't been able to reconcile.
But to answer your question of whether civil disobedience to the point of shedding blood is ever appropriate for Christians, I would have to say no at this point. There are arguments that in some cases it can be an effort to "protect the innocent," but, unlike David (comment #6), I still am of the thought system that the ends do not justify the means. To avoid doing nothing in the face of evil does not automatically require the shedding of blood. This is a basic answer; there are still many facets of this argument that need to be considered in order to fully address the issue of pacifism and what it means in individual situations, particularly civil disobedience.
9. Jason said the following at 7:24 PM on Apr 9:
See, this is what a lukewarm culture influenced by a bunch of pansy liberals will do to a person's decision making processes.
Ok, maybe that's a little over the top (by about an inch or so), but you catch my drift. This idea that sane people can reason with insane or hell-bent people is for the birds. These kinds of decisions may not be easy to swallow, but they are incredibly simple in process. Dietrich Bonhoeffer did about the only rational thing he could've done.
10. Sarah22 said the following at 7:29 PM on Apr 9:
Bonhoeffer is a great Christian brother to admire! I read his biography a couple of years ago and it was especially interesting to me because as a young girl I was very interested in WWII and reading Jewish holocaust survivor’s memoirs. Anyway, I see the attempt made at disarming Hitler (even by taking out his life) as a righteous one, not a sinful or wrong one. What about the Noahic covenant and the dispensation of human government?
Genesis 6 was never re-called by God in the scriptures to my memory.
And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
For me that answer the question stated...
11. Matthew Holt said the following at 8:00 PM on Apr 9:
Amen Julia H.
I wanted to write the same thing, but I had a lot going on today.. Thanks for posting.
12. Justin T. said the following at 8:34 PM on Apr 9:
Dietrich Bonhoeffer is one of the two men I would call my hero. The man's life was amazing (as was his death, in its own way.) Bonhoeffer is one of the first people I'm going to start looking for in Heaven.
As for the civil disobedience question... The Bible is full of example of God ordering the deaths of his enemies. Bonhoeffer may or may not have heard directly from God, but there is absolutely no doubt in the mind of any sane member of the human race that Hitler was God's enemy. As Christians, we are called to fight evil and bring the Gospel to the world. I think that in killing Hitler, Bonhoeffer would have done both.
13. Lauren said the following at 10:29 PM on Apr 9:
just to aid the dialogue, i think it is important to note that the commandment is "do not murder" not "do not kill." capital punishment was mandated for the israelites.
now how that applies to us, and how assassination attempts fit into that, i will leave to you. :)
14. Katie B said the following at 10:55 PM on Apr 9:
Jason: "ese kinds of decisions may not be easy to swallow, but they are incredibly simple in process. Dietrich Bonhoeffer did about the only rational thing he could've done."
does the fact that its rational (and would have saved many lives) make it right?
just for the record, I agree that its the only rational thing to have done, but I am not convinced that it's not sin. if that makes sense. In terms of sin does it matter whether we can justify it? or are Gods commandments more objective than that? would doing nothing in the face of hitlers evil also have been sin? what else could have been done?
is murdering a murderer a holy, Godly thing to do, or is it simply the better option when there is no perfect solution?
15. anu said the following at 1:28 AM on Apr 10:
Hmm, bleeding heart liberal that I am, I actually agree with most of you on this one that Bonhoeffer did the right thing.
Now, I wonder what ]the same people would say about all the Black Panthers on death row/life sentence for doing the same thing. Its easier to make grand statements about justice when the people doing evil aren't in your backyard (or in your family tree).
16. Hannah said the following at 3:51 AM on Apr 10:
I agree that on many levels Bonehoffer was an admirable person.
At the same time I do not see that he had the right to actively try to kill someone. No matter the reasoning behind the act.
Yes, Hitler should have been tried convicted and killed for his crimes. As a Christian though, Bonehoffer is supposed to be trying to lead others to the truth of God in Christ. Not send them directly.
No where do we read that early christians should take up arms or via subterfuge plot to kill those in power who are persecuting them rather we are called to pray and do good instead.
(on a side note-has anyone else wondered about this conncept and the connection to people who shoot up abortion clinics. That is saving lots of innocent lives-but I certainly don't believe it is justifiable or what God would have us do to show people a more excellent way).
17. Jeremy said the following at 5:54 AM on Apr 10:
I don't think it's valid to compare Bonhoeffer to MLK (referring to comment #7). King lived in a different country, during a different time period, and was protesting against a different injustice. King's government wasn't going about the systematic murder of millions of people. King wasn't living in a nation engaged in war. So it was valid and right for King to promote peaceful protests and peaceful acts of civil disobediance - but we can't use that to imply that Bonhoeffer should have done the same.
Indeed, there were other anti-Nazi Germans in Germany who did protest against Hitler during the 30s and 40s - and were executed for it, thus not really achieving much. As has already been mentioned here, the only way to stop a madman like Hitler would be to kill him. Diplomacy or protest would achieve nothing.
And I don't see anything unbiblical about doing that (trying to kill Hitler). We're called to love our neighbours, and defend the oppressed, and seek justice against the oppressor. And the OT is full of stories of God sending his chosen people to actually assassinate wicked rulers. I think this is especially valid during wartime. The bible also says those who live by the sword will die by it. Hitler was effectively the leader of his military; therefore to kill him would not be the same as killing an innocent civilian, but rather would be akin to killing any enemy combatant, which is also legitimate for the Christian, within the confines of Just War.
:)
18. Shannon said the following at 6:22 AM on Apr 10:
I'm glad this was posted; I've never understood the hero worship bestowed on this man given the reason he died, nor why so many in the church (even minds as estimable as John Piper's) refuse to answer this question.
People can argue all they want whether Bonhoeffer was wrong to participate in this plot, but what I find more interesting is that he himself experienced terrible anxiety and uncertainty over the rightness of his actions, to the point of feeling very far from God. His own confusion is what gives me the most pause on this point.
19. Becky said the following at 6:56 AM on Apr 10:
The self-defense justification for killing is not relevant in Bonhoeffer's case. When you actually take the time to plot an assassination, the imminence requirement for the self-defense justification isn't there.
However holy Bonhoeffer's life was, his attempt to assassinate Hitler was wrong. However evil Hitler was, he still had dignity as a human being and the right to life. Only the State can take that life away (in self-defense). Bonhoeffer was not the State.
I've read much about his life and admire him, but to try to justify this action of his is an exercise in futility.
20. Paul said the following at 7:38 AM on Apr 10:
I have read a very interesting take on the question of taking a life to save others in 'The Lamb and the Fuhrer' by Ravi Zacharias. In this imaginary conversation among Jesus, Hitler and Bonhoeffer, the point is made that we sometimes have to make hard choices and be willing to accept consequences, praying for forgiveness if we are wrong. I think that the just war theory is closely related to this question too.
21. Andrea said the following at 10:43 AM on Apr 10:
Maybe the best way to look at his actions in this instance would be as the lesser of two evils. It would be hard to come right out and say the assassination plot was a GOOD thing to do, but given what Hitler was doing and the kind of man he was, it must have seemed like the only way to stop him and protect the innocent.
22. BDB said the following at 5:41 PM on Apr 10:
As a general rule, American political tradition expects that civil disobedience stop before crossing the boundary into violence. At that point it becomes "rebellion," not "civil disobedience." This is why Americans are generally tolerant of all sorts of demonstrations until they turn violent. It was the violent crack-downs on Gandhi's nonviolent demonstrations that convinced Britons to tell their own government to get out of India. There's a great scene in the movie, "Gandhi" where everyone lays down so that the horses stop. Well, it's Western Democracies that train police horses to not step on people. I suspect that Gandhi's and MLK's tactics would only work in a Western Democracy where freedom of political speech is cherished so long as it is nonviolent.
(And, if it sounds like I wrote my master's paper on this...well, I did...)
Anyway, another intriging example of civil disobedience was the voyage of the St. Louis.
http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/louis.htm
In that situation, 937 Jews attempted to escape Nazi Germany. They were turned away, first by Cuba (where they had landing permits) and then by the United States. They went back to Europe. Some believe that this act convinced Hitler that he could get away with what became the Holocaust because America refused to step up.
There is an interesting management lesson embedded in the story. On the way back to Europe, the captain of the ship, Gustav Schroeder, convinced Britain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands to accept the refugees. He did so in part by threatening to scuttle the ship on the shores of Britain.
http://www.beth-elsa.org/be_s1112.htm
http://www1.yadvashem.org/righteous/bycountry/germany/schroeder_gustav.html
One deception included telling each country that other countries had agreed to take 75% of the refugees - and asking them to just take the last 250 or so. Various Jewish relief organizations also were negotiating with governments.
The ones in Britain survived the war - many in the other countries ended up in death camps. When the captain was brought up on war crimes charges after WWII, the survivors from Britain rallied to his defense. He took great risk and went well beyond his "job" as ship captain.
So - is it OK to lie to governmental authorities to achieve a greater good? What if you're not sure it will save lives?
If you were the guy in charge, what would you do?
23. Nicole said the following at 8:26 PM on Apr 10:
I want to weigh in and say that I think it was the right decision. We are called to defend the helpless as someone mentioned earlier. The commandment does refer to "not murdering." And now I have a few questions:
1. If this decision was wrong, is all war wrong? This goes to the killing question I think.
2. Is it always right to obey the authority within your country? I ask this because I think our first allegiance shouldn't be to our country but to God and to how people are treated. If my government is doing wrong I am not required to follow them.
If I lived in China, under the one child policy, and was pregnant with my second child I would not abort it. This would be civil disobedience (punishable by imprisonment under chinese law and worst if someone actually tried to make me abort that child, because I would not do it and would hurt anyone who tried to force me too). Do you think under these circumstances civil disobedience is a wrong? I doubt most of you do.
How different was Bonhoeffer's circumstances? He was seeing Christian's and Jew's being killed by the millions and saw a possibility of ending it. I think this justifies civil disobedience -- even to the point of murder.
3. To further my point concerning that murder would be allowable I have another scenario. If you were a man in Nazi Germany and you were of Jewish descent (or eventually you were simply a practicing Christian) and the Nazi's came to your house, what would you do? You know they are probably going to take your family to concentration camps, perhaps kill them, most certainly kill you, possibly indoctrinate your kids, teach your children very strange religious things, most likely rape you wife (all these thing were regular practice). Now say that you had a gun (this is improbable since one of the first things Hitler did was take away most firearms from the population, but go with it). Would you shoot the people who come to take your family? What if you had a way to leave the country the next day but they came the night before? It would be civil disobedience. It would be killing someone.
I would certainly shoot them to get my family to safety, to keep my children from that. I think that it's biblical to protect your family as well.
I'm just wondering what you think about civil disobedience and killing someone under different circumstances.
>Also as a side note to some of the comments, don't lump MLK and the Black Panthers sitting in jail together. They had very different tactics in the civil rights movement.
24. Leah said the following at 1:35 AM on Apr 11:
I would point out to B.M that nowhere does it say "thou shalt not kill"- it says "thou shalt not murder". There is a very big difference. Killing happens on the battlefield every day. Murder is a completely different kettle of fish.
I'd also point out to Andrew R (Canadian Boy) that taking a completely non-violent approach is not always wise, nor right.
But none of that answers the question as to whether civil disobedience, to the point of bloodshed, is ever right. I'm sure most would agree that there are times civil disobedience is ok. Take Harriet Tubman for example, the african-american woman who helped slaves escape to Canada. Or even the many bible translators who translated the bible into English before that was allowed.
We can also agree that sometimes bloodshed is necessary, and even right- self-defense, just war, etc.
But can they go together? Can civil disobedience legitimately reach the point of bloodshed? I don't know. I don't think I've ever seen a situation where it can, but that's not to say it never can.
25. faye said the following at 7:25 AM on Apr 11:
I like the fact that I serve God. He is strong and His people are very strong. I don't ever want to forget God's might. That's why I should remember all of the things He's taught me... and one of those things is that He really hates evil. "The fear of the Lord is to hate evil" Pr. 8:13
Judges is an amazing book... every evil man and woman should read it to find out what God does when people are wicked. True, we are all, every one of us wicked... That's why it should strike us in our hearts to go to God and be delivered from our sin and evil.
When I think about evil people, I think about King Eglon (killed by Ehud who said, "I have a message from God for you" and plunged a sword into the king's belly, Sisera who "cruelly oppressed the Israelites for 20 years"(killed by Jael- a woman with a tent peg),the 20 Philistines (killed by Jonathan and his armor-bearer), Goliath (killed by David who said, "You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the Lord Almighty..")
I mean, I think God is pretty clear. He delivers His people. Sometimes He "gave them a deliverer" Judges 3:15, and other times He strikes fear into His enemies: "Then panic struck the whole army- those in camp and field, and those in the outposts and in the raiding parties- the ground shook. It was a panic sent by God." (1 Samuel 14:15)
Ok... I still don't have it all together though. I still don't understand the complete love of God for His enemies either. I know that I should love my enemies as Jesus commands. But if I don't remember that God is mighty and just, then I have forgotten a truth about my Lord.
26. Sarah22 said the following at 11:35 AM on Apr 11:
Again, no one is effectively making a biblical argument for why it was wrong to try and assassinate Hitler.
And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also. (Genesis 37:7-10)
If God himself takes out evil people from the world and told us earlier in Genesis that:
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. (Genesis 9:6)
How can you then argue that to take out Hitler’s life was wrong because he “had a right to live” (no matter that he was mass murdering people...). Actually, none of us have a right to live, God gives life and He takes life and it’s a gift from Him that we receive. God over and over again in the bible takes out evil people from this world and He’s given us the same serious responsibility to do so in specific cases.
Do I think generally that the government should be the ones in charge of trying and convicting murderers and other criminals? Yes, of course! But this was not a standard case, this was a time of war when entire countries were taken over by Hitler and thousands of people were dying every single day. To wait around for Hitler to be captured and given a formal trial by a government is pure foolishness to me when so many lives were being lost.
I’d also like to ask, if the allied forces had found Hitler before he killed himself what would have happened? First of all if anyone had fought back they probably would have killed him. Second if they’d been able to capture him safely he would have been tried and then undoubtedly given the death sentence. So why does it make you more comfortable to know that a guilty man would have still been killed in the end for the same reasons just by different people after the formalities of a trial as opposed to him being assassinated which you believe is wrong?
It’s a very grievous thing to destroy God’s most important creation, a creation that was made in His image. Yes, murder is wrong. But this is not a case of murder. Bonhoeffer was attempting to take out the life of a man who was running an evil government that was killing millions of people, and not just any people, but God’s chosen race! That is a very serious attack on God’s creation. Those of you who think it was wrong need to get a little more intimate with their bibles and get to know God a little better. I am convinced that my Lord and Savior saw his servant Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s actions as righteous and honoring to Him and the bible confirms my beliefs.
27. BDB said the following at 4:24 PM on Apr 11:
Sarah22 (#26) wrote:
>>I’d also like to ask, if the allied forces had found Hitler before he killed himself what would have happened? First of all if anyone had fought back they probably would have killed him.<<
It's true that during WWII troops were ordered to shoot any of the top Nazi leadership. I saw a clip of a film once that showed video of all of them and closed with, "If you see any of these men, kill them!"
Interestingly, when Saddam Hussein was captured, this didn't happen. He called out, "I am Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq, and I want to negotiate." The soldier that found him responded, "President Bush sends his regards." But we have a professional military, they didn't shoot him on the spot.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/15/sprj.irq.soldiers/index.html
His sons, on the other hand, did not surrender.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/22/sprj.irq.sons/
28. Leah said the following at 8:44 AM on Apr 14:
Wow, wouldn't you know it, our sermon Sunday night was on the church's role when it comes to protesting human rights. It was mainly focused on the Tibet situation, but our minister also raised Bonhoeffer's situation as well. Very annoyed I didn't take notes, even as I was sitting there thinking "This is exactly what they're discussing on boundless!!"
What my minister concluded is that it is not the role of the church to take up political protesting. God has not given the church that right. God gave the government certain authority, not the church. As individual people we are free to protest peacefully, but not as the church. When it comes to individuals, he also pointed out that God's will can be done through wayward dictators, and we can't say it is our place to disobediently remove those people.
I think this is particularly pertinent to the questions Sarah22 was asking.
She said I’d also like to ask, if the allied forces had found Hitler before he killed himself what would have happened? First of all if anyone had fought back they probably would have killed him. Second if they’d been able to capture him safely he would have been tried and then undoubtedly given the death sentence. So why does it make you more comfortable to know that a guilty man would have still been killed in the end for the same reasons just by different people after the formalities of a trial as opposed to him being assassinated which you believe is wrong?
Well Sarah, there is a difference between a normal citizen killing someone and the authorities killing someone, even if he 'deserves' it. God gave the government the authority to do that, he gave the government the power of the sword. Therefore, it is acceptable for the government (and military, seeing as it is carrying out governmental orders) to kill. Yes, they must be careful in who they kill because they will be held accountable, but I think you will agree that when it comes to someone like Hitler or Hussein, they would be justified in killing the person.
However, God did not give you and me this authority, this power of the sword. We are allowed to kill people if carrying out governmental orders- eg. in battle, at war- and in self defense, but jsut because we think someone deserves it? No. We have not been given that right.
You said yourself- Actually, none of us have a right to live, God gives life and He takes life and it’s a gift from Him that we receive. Yes, it is GOD who gives- and who TAKES- life. God gives it, and has not given you and me the right to take it. That right lies with the authorities and with God himself.
29. Sarah22 said the following at 12:32 PM on Apr 14:
I think you're taking out of context that the government is made up of human beings. While government is needed, and I respect it, it's not a machine, it's an organized body of people carrying out laws. I don't believe that means in this case that only a person carrying out an order mandated by the government would have been righteous in taking Hitler's life.
At the time of Hitler's massacre the only government who could easily gain access to Hitler was his government. He was dominating entire countries. It was not as simple as taking him before judge and jury. Your argument does not take that into account. It's fine and dandy to say that the only ones who should have decided to end his life is the government (and its process), however that was not a viable option at the time because of the war and the power that Hitler had. Hitler was constantly ordering that murders be carried out daily (against God's chosen race). I'm sure we both agree that God did not approve of this. I'm not arguing with you that God uses evil men for purposes and to bring Glory to Himself (Pharoh is a good example of this) and obviously God did not allow an assassination to be carried out on Hitler for reasons that we do not know or quite understand, however to go as far as to say that Bonhoeffer was sinning by taking steps that the government was unable to take at that time (and that the allied forces were striving to do), to that end I just cannot agree with you or understand your reasoning.
It seems ignorant to stick to the guns of “only the government has the right” when millions of people were being murdered. If you went to the mall and all of the sudden a terrorist came out and started killing everyone right in front of you and you had the ability to attempt to take the life of this murderer (whether or not you would be successful) and the police were unable to get into to the mall (or were attempting to but it was taking too long), would you just sit there saying, “well, the police (government) cannot get here and I am not the police so I better just let these people die”. Is that any different? Or if you took the life of the terrorist and saved those left from being murdered would you yourself have sinned as you are indicating Bonhoeffer did? Or what about 9/11. What if you had been on one of the flights and had a chance to take out one of the terrorists, would you have sat back and waited on the government that wasn't available? I just honestly cannot see the difference in that situation and Bonhoeffer's.
God is to be glorified before the government, the goverment is supposed to be mandated by what God says and Yahweh can do things however He wants and use people in whatever way He desires. Bonhoeffer obviously felt led by the Holy Spirit to undertake the situation he was in (and not without clearly weighing the situation and his choices heavily) and I can’t find any biblical conviction to tear down the efforts of a man who was seeking to save the lives of those being persecuted, whether he was engaged by the government or not.
30. Leah said the following at 8:42 PM on Apr 14:
Sarah22, God's commands do not change from country to country, war to war, depending on the situation. They stand as they are. You can't say "oh it doesnt apply here because it's hard for other authorities to access Hitler", that's just absurd. You can't just make excuses for going around God's commands. Saying "Your argument does not take that into account" is ridiculous, it's saying that God's command doesn't take it into account. It's God's command. I don't care what it takes into account or not, I'm not going to twist God's word just because I think it's unfair.
Bonhoeffer obviously did NOT feel "led by the Holy Spirit to undertake the situation he was in", because he noted himself just how uneasy and unsure and how far from God he felt!
I also never said Bonhoeffer was sinning, so don't put words into my mouth. My opinion is that what he did was most probably wrong. I have never said, and will not say, unequivocally that what he did was wrong. But that is my suspicion at the moment.
"It seems ignorant to stick to the guns of “only the government has the right” when millions of people were being murdered." Ignorant? Are you calling God's commands ignorant? do you not think God could reach down and blast Hitler into smithereens if he so desired? Why must we take God's right to avenge off him?
The situation you gave with the terrorist in the mall is different. In that situation, you are also at risk of dying, and it would legitimately be a position of self-defense. You would also be guaranteed to be defending people within the mall, however in Bonhoeffer's case, there were no lives in immediate danger in the situation where he attempted to kill Hitler. If Hitler had a gun to someone's head about to kill them, that would be a situation of defense, and Bonhoeffer's actions would have been defensible. But as it stood, Hitler was not immediately about to kill anyone, and the Nazi party would have continued killing people. It may have eventually lead to the demise of the Nazi regime, but since when was "the end justifies the means" a legitimate reason for anything? If God has commanded us to do/not do something, you can't say to God "this is different" and claim that the end justifies the means. God's commands don't work that way.
Your 9/11 example is also faulty. Again, you'd be acting in a position of self-defence and in defence of lives in immediate danger. It's exactly the same as the reasons I outlined above.
Yes, God is to be glorified before the government, and you don't do that by disobeying God's commands.
Also, your claim that we are "tear(ing) down the efforts of a man who was seeking to save the lives of those being persecuted" uses very selective, biased speech- we are not "tearing down" anyone, just saying this particular action of his was probably not right. It also has nothing to do with his efforts to save the lives of persecuted people, but his efforts to kill somebody who only God and governments had the right to kill.
31. Jacob Linn said the following at 9:07 PM on Apr 14:
I think it helps to differentiate between "government", which is an authority established by God with the power to carry out certain functions and "a government" which is a group of people appointed by a larger group of people (an organization, a city, a nation) to carry out the God given functions of government. Indeed, unless one would declare all governments that are or ever have been - other than ancient Israel - illegitimate and pretenders, one must assume that man is given the authority of government and can then delegate it to other men, in order that they may carry it out. Only ancient Israel lived under a government appointed by God himself (first Moses, Joshua, and the Judges, then Saul & David).
From this, one takes that a government is established to fulfill a certain role. If it fails to fulfill its role, it becomes illegitimate, and the power of government reverts to the people as a whole.
It would seem, then - or could at least be argued - that Bonhoeffer was thus a member of the acting government of Germany at that time, with the full authority of government and the sword behind him. As such, killing or attempting to kill Hitler was not only his right but his duty - his, and that of every other German.
32. Sarah22 said the following at 11:42 AM on Apr 16:
Leah:
That's where our disconnect is....I don't think not killing Hitler in Bonhoeffer's case was "God's commandment" as you stated several times. I’m confused about where you find your biblical support of your convictions, I’ve stated mine already but you’ve never argued against those verses just generically stated your feelings of it “not being right”. Also, if you won’t say it’s right than it must have been wrong....and wrong = sin...so I don’t think I really put words in your mouth, but if I did I apologize. If you can't say you think it's definitely wrong (i.e. sin) then I'm not sure how you can be so sure that God was against it, but maybe I just don't understand your point.
Jacob: Thank you! You described more eloquently the point I was trying to make as far as "government" goes.
33. faye said the following at 2:56 PM on Apr 16:
"...there were no lives in immediate danger in the situation where he attempted to kill Hitler."
Leah, could you go into this a little more in detail? I think I hear you saying that if he had killed Hitler, it would have been revenge... In that case, I guess it would have been sin. Do you think it would have been revenge? Or do you think it was something else? Is assasination, really just revenge?
34. John Winterburn said the following at 7:41 PM on Mar 9:
As someone (who is a Christian) studying Bonhoeffer at Cambridge University it pains me that so few Christians would act in such a way. Here we have a man who was a PACIFIST yet understood that even if he sinned (and even was damned) for the death of Adolf Hitler it was the morally right thing to do.
Love oughtweighs everything else (see just about anything spoken by Christ or written by Paul regarding ethics), and thus to kill Hitler cannot be a sin. This leads to an annulment of the initial statment, leading to the simple fact that killing Hitler is morally 'good' and endorced by Yahweh/God.
Bonhoeffer set an example (one of love rather than fear) that all people (Christian or otherwise) should seek to follow.
Seeing people say that killing is de facto wrong is personally paiful as it is against all ethics taught in the New Testament. No other Biblical passage is needed as quotation than Jn 15:13 which is exacly what Bonhoeffer did. A simple scolarly gloss of the New Testament PROVES that ethics is not deontological. Thus, for anyone to say that 'x is right' or 'y is wrong' is not a CHRISTIAN (not necessarily the same as a Biblical - sinse there are many contradictions and changes of view within the Bible - to argue otherwise is ignorance) ethic. Unless 'x' is love, see 1 Jn 4:8 etc.
Thus (even from such a brief exegesis) we must conclude that for Bonhoeffer to seek to kill Hitler is morally correct, and is the Christian - and so Godly - responce to the atrocities of Nazi Germany.