> Strictly speaking, Bonhoeffer did not die a martyr; he was executed not for practicing his faith but for abetting attempted murder.
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.
I would suggest the book Jesus and the Powers[1] by NT Wright and Michael F Bird if you have interest in the topic.
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.
> Violent resistance or tacit acceptance of monstrous cruelty
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.
The choice is between trying stop an ongoing harm or not trying to stop it. What you present isn't a third option, it's just a particular mindset about the second one.
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.
The Catholic Church teaches that we cannot do evil so that good may come out of it. It cannot be the means as in abortion. It could only be tolerated as an undesirable consequence of a good act such as self-defense. But unless one is in immediate danger from the agressor, I do not see how one can use deadly force. Whether the partisan action is legitimate self-defense I cannot say, I didn't actually look into this, but the disposition of treating whst you believe is a sin as a good essentially, and hoping for forgiveness without repentance, that is evil.
Bonhoeffer wasn't roman catholic and neither am I. He wasn't hoping for forgiveness without repentance. He was expecting, knowing that he would need to repent for something but not able to determine the correct course. He chose to trust in god's mercy, and the forgiveness of the people hurt by his actions.
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.
This is a great write up. In a recent post about Stupidity being our biggest threat I wrote about Bonhoeffer and his message. “Against stupidity we are defenseless.” ~ Dietrich Bonhoeffer
That was a lengthy, but nice article/review about someone that I didn't know of before.
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.
My question also, as I thought the evidence was slim and inconclusive. Would really be something if you make a "true" movie about someone's involvement in a plot that didn't happen and half the movie was completely fiction.
So far as I have ever seen he might have acted as a courier between some of the intelligence officers involved in that particular attempt, which might have been as little as transporting a parcel in the course of his existing travels.
Is history repeating itself in the evangelical church today? Instead of doctrines and creeds, has it become politics and power?
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.
Religion and politics have always been mixed. Prior to the founding of the U.S., religious and political identity was one and the same. Which is why heresy was often treated in civil courts as sedition.
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."
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.
Jesus has absolutely existed as a “warrior” figure. Even in the bible you’ll find some rather “warrior” like descriptions in places like Matthew 10:34, Luke 22:36, Luke 12:51 and so on. Mostly though Jesus has been what Jesus needed to be.
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.
> Jesus remained that way until the late Middle Ages, which is where the first accounts of the self-sacrifice begin to enter our history.
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.
Readit News
[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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passion_bearer
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.
[1] https://zondervanacademic.com/jesus-and-the-powers
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.
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.
Dead Comment
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.
Deleted Comment
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.
Deleted Comment
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.