Featured Do you agree with the decisions of Dietrich Bonhoeffer?

I don't think he was wrong - I think he was righteous in a tough place.
I'm impressed with his heroic actions and but probably couldn’t have done it myself.

Three incidents effect my decision:

1. The actions of the midwives in Egypt who lied to their Egyptian masters to save the Israelite babies.

2. Jael in Judges 4, who deceived her captor and killed him with a nail through the temple.

3. In more modern times, I'm reminded of Corrie ten Boom's sister who wouldn’t lie to her captors and ended up revealing her family's secret, sending them to death in a concentration camp.

Rob

 

Agreed.....who am I to judge that man anyway

 

In a heartbeat, regardless of whether I wore the same uniform as Hitler or not, like he did.

God said He creates evil. what are your thoughts on it ?

There you go.
Better to do evil, than to be evil.:smilewinkgrin:

 

I recently finishing watching a (tragic) series with characters and situations that actually reminded me of Bonheiffer...coincidence.

1. I tend to think it would have been greatly justified. At the time, though, I imagine knowing the right thing to do was hard. Assignation isn't something I'd think was the answer in most cases.

2. I think it makes sense. Sometimes extreme measures are needed to stop evil.

As I recall, Bonheifer had been concerned about the church not responding or trying to stop Hitler. Which it should have been doing.

 

Let me pose a more contemporary question.

Reflecting on the evil of such as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot ...


Would or when is assassination "rigteous" in our modern times.

Is it possible, that evil (such as abortionists) should be "assassinated?"

When does the assassination turn from evil (thinking of Oswald, Ray, Sirhan) and become a "righteous act?"

When is it right to stick the knife into the belly of the ungodly? (Judges 3)

Or, are we to follow the Scriptures:

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. 16 Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. 17 Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. 19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord. 20 “BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12)

​

If I take this Scripture as literal, then Bonheiffer seems to have a certain misguidance to his statements and views concerning evil.

 

Another good post!
David lived through it

“The LORD forbid that I should do such a thing to my master, the LORD’s anointed, or lay my hand on him; for he is the anointed of the LORD.” (1 Samuel 24:6)

It's been decades since I read Bonhoffer. I'm sure there is an answer there.

Rob

 

IDK...on one hand, I'd say that the Bible dictates that it's better to kill someone who's killing and harming others than to let them keep on killing and harming them. This is why war (in some cases) and the death penalty are justified. (Although the death penalty as it's handled in America...has problems and I don't support that. However, this isn't the thread for that.)

While you could argue that we have to do this through a lawful process, no such case would have been possible in Hitler's Germany. While the Bible says to follow the laws of the land, you shouldn't follow the law when it asks you to do something immoral and against God.
Sometimes extreme circumstances call for extreme measures. Hitler was guilty of genocide and as dictator he wasn't going to change for anybody.

Since abortion was brought up, I don't think killing and blowing up abortionists is the answer. I think abortion is horrible, but these are not extreme circumstances and I don't think it's all that comparable to Nazi Germany.
This is a battle for people's hearts. Committing acts of terrorism won't change people's hearts. Thus I cannot support murdering abortionists and I will call it immoral and terrible.

Think of it this way, if nothing else: is it possible to get rid of abortion without breaking the law? Yes. Progress may be gradual, but slavery and racism didn't disappear in a day, either. It took nearly a century, and it still exists although to a much smaller extent.

The series I mentioned in my previous post was about two characters who wanted to get rid of a dictatorship that had conquered their country and was oppressing them. One believed the end justified the means and became the master strategist leader of a terrorist group to oppose the dictatorship. The other wanted to try to change the system from within and eventually was promoted to a high position in the dictatorship country's military and government.
I tended to agree with the latter more. I think if at all possible change should be done as peacefully as possible--but sometimes, in some very extreme circumstances, I also think there isn't much choice.
At the end of the series, the latter character ended up assassinating the new emperor.
Arguably the series' moral could be that an"end justifies the means attitude" comes at a terrible price. But it didn't show either main character as entirely wrong, either. In the end the character who wanted change as peacefully as possible had to get his hands dirty, too.

 

Hi TipofTheTongueTheology,

You pose a rather fundamental question. On the one hand God commands, thou shall not kill (or murder). On the other, God directed lots of killing with the killers acting under the color of authority. Note the last 5 or so folks listed in Hebrews 11 were soldiers or defenders of the weak.

Basically, acting on our own, i.e. based on our individual wants and desires, we are not to murder. But acting under authority (and assuming under lawful orders) we can carry the sword, i.e. wield lethal force.

So just as Rahab behaved badly acting as an agent of Israel, it appears God's judgement against her is mitigated because she was acting in the will of God.

Hope that helps, Van

 

When I was in the Army, serving as a helicopter pilot and combat officer from Vietnam to Desert Storm, I was not a Christian. Perhaps that is to the good, though I didn't participate in anything heinous, violate any international laws or treaties, or do anything outside the bounds of the strictures of my mission nor in contravention of my superiors' orders to me.

That said, I have often wondered what I would have done in the case of some assignments had I been a Christian. I have reached the conclusion, prayerfully and with careful consideration of God's word, that I would have changed nothing. I am certain Bonhoeffer felt the same way.

There are times in the life of a Christian serving his country, or attempting to prevent the evil actions of those who govern his country, that he must take on efforts towards those mean that might appear to go against the character he/she seeks in following Christ. Deacon mentioned the midwives and Jael as inspiration for what he would do. I believe those examples are quite apt for us to draw conclusions regarding what we would do.

Deacon also mentioned Corrie ten Boom's sister, Nollie. God honored her decision not to lie, even though many members of the ten Boom family perished in the death camps. Nonetheless, it is evident from Scripture that God often faces us with difficult decisions, and He honors the way we choose because it pleases Him to do so.

 

I was unaware that there was a new biography on Bonhoeffer. Is it new? I will look forward to reading it.

I have not seen the movie you mentioned, but will look for it as well. I studied Bonhoeffer’s life some while in Seminary and read his book “The Cost of Discipleship.” A very moving book I would recommend to anyone, especially fellow pastors. Sadly I have not read any other works by Bonhoeffer.

To answer your questions:

Yes I would. I do not see this as an evil act as quoted, but a necessary act in an attempt to save his country.

To do evil is to be evil, but I do not consider an assassination attempt as an evil act. As I said above it was a necessary act. Perhaps an unpleasant one, but necessary and even if it failed, as it did, it was necessary to try.

The assassination attempt on Hitler took place July 20, 1944. Bonhoeffer had been jailed by the Nazis since April 5, 1943, so he had been in prison for a year before the attempt. Then, the connection between Bonhoeffer and the conspirators was not discovered until April 4, 1945. To characterize Bonhoeffer’s execution as a result of the assassination attempt on Hitler is a gross oversimplification. Bonhoeffer had opposed Hitler for many years. I have read several of his sermons where he condemned the German people for abandoning their God and substituting in his place worship of their Fuhrer. And he preached these things in Germany during World War II. He had been marked as an enemy of the Nazis for a long time. The assassination attempt was simply a reason they could use.

So let me ask you this, knowing the evil of the Nazis, knowing the evil of the camps where Bonhoeffer had been held, which would have been evil, to turn a blind eye and allow evil to continue or to take an active role in resisting that evil, even if that meant taking a life?

It brings to mind the quotation often attributed (with dispute) to Edmund Burke

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Bonhoeffer was good man, and he did all he could. Remember this man was living in the United States in 1939 and chose to return to Germany to face and endure the Nazis with his people rather than to condemn them with words from a distance.

 

The word 'evil'

What about the texts in the Bible saying God hates evil?

This is another example of a misunderstood word; stemming from a word have more than one meaning or at least 'shades of meaning'.

From Strong's Lexicon: Word H7451, transliterated into English as ra' (pronounced 'rah'). The word is used as both an adjective and a noun. The word means - depending on context - any of the following:
(as Adjective)
bad, evil
bad, disagreeable, malignant
bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
evil, displeasing
bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)
bad (of value)
worse than, worst (comparison)
sad, unhappy
evil (hurtful)
bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
bad, evil, wicked (ethically)
in general, of persons, of thoughts
deeds, actions

(as masculine Noun)
evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
evil, distress, adversity
evil, injury, wrong
evil (ethical)

(as feminine Noun)
evil, misery, distress, injury
evil, misery, distress
evil, injury, wrong
evil (ethical)

With me so far?
We use the word in English in the same way - although some uses of the word are archaic, which is why they are found in the King James Translation more than in current translations.

For instance, the phrase '... it is an evil day...' means the day is overcast, rainy, cold and just plain 'bad'. It does not mean that if one goes outside in that weather, one will be predisposed to commit burglary or adultery.

So when God says, "I create evil ..." it means (and look up the verse and check how it reads for yourself) "I send negative consequences ..." like famine after the nation of Israel has disobeyed God for a while.

Look at the highlighted alternative above; 'bad of its kind'. "Evil water" is water than is either nasty tasting or detrimental to the drinker or both. "Evil water" is NOT water which will cause the drinker to kill people or park in a handicapped zone.

Take a look at Psalm 5 if any doubt remains.

"5:4 Certainly you are not a God who approves of evil; evil people cannot dwell with you. 5:5 Arrogant people cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who behave wickedly. 5:6 You destroy liars; the Lord despises violent and deceitful people."

So, that's what I think about 'God creates evil'.

 

I think at the time he did what he thought best. I read and reflect on his story with the attitude of what did happen, not necessarily what should happen.

 

More details...

A reading of Judges 3 reveals some points of attention: One such point is verse 15: "When the Israelites cried out for help to the Lord, he raised up a deliverer for them. His name was Ehud son of Gera the Benjaminite, a left-handed man." So the Bible identifies Ehud ('Lefty' to his friends) as a Lord-appointed 'deliverer'.
The other point to which I direct attention is verse 20, in part, [Ehud speaking] “I have a message from God for you.” (Then Ehud makes use of his hidden sword to dispatch Eglon.) Nothing in the passage or later indicates Ehud was speaking or acting improperly.

I have to conclude Ehud was acting on God's authority.

May I point out some distinctions?
"Persecution" in this context does not seem to imply physical violence. The persecution herein seems to imply verbal abuse, social prejudice and generally dismissive or pejorative behavior on the part of the abuser.

Jesus directs His followers to carry swords when travelling for self-defense. Further, Jesus Himself speaks in Matthew 12, Mark 3 and Luke 11 - the same incident from three witnesses - of a strong man who is armed and defending his house. The passages are not a lecture on self-defense or home defense, but it is clear from the passages Jesus rather expected self-defense as part of a normal man's (woman's as well?) conduct in such instances.

I don't think it very hard to see a distinction between 'revenge' and 'self-defense'. Defending against a brigand attempting to kill or seriously injure one or one's dependents is NOT revenge or 'vigilantism', despite what the liberal press claims.

I would also add that as soon as the brigand is pacified, one should notify suitable authorities and medical staff, as needed.

With all respect, sir, you ignore the historic setting of Brother Bonhoeffer. He was a man who was both seeing his country abused by a hideously evil 'leader' AND seeing the Kingdom of God attacked - physically, not verbally - without quarter. Very similar to the setting of Ehud in Judges, by the way.

And, with all respect, sir, if you take this cited Scripture as pre-eminent, you ignore several other bits of Scripture. May I remind you, all Scripture works together and does NOT contradict other passages.

Returning to 'abortionists'; one finds a difficult position. Lives are at stake.

Is the nature of the abortionist threat immediate and critical? Not in the main; certainly not in all the instances of murder I have seen reported. Like it or not, abortion is 'legal' in most sections of the United States. (For the record, I'm not happy about it, but no one asked me.) So taking of the life of an abortionist for no cause other than the person has performed an abortion in the past or will likely do so in the future falls under the heading of 'murder' in most U. S. jurisdictions.

Nor is the action of abortionists - counter abortionists equivalent to warfare. (If one wishes to disagree, please do so and demonstrate how then killing an abortionist is the equivalent of combat. An abortionist 'kills', but not indiscriminately, impulsively or on the basis of 'station'.)

Should one feel God has commissioned one to kill an abortionist - ? God has not commissioned me to assist in such endeavor and I would recommend against expecting much help from the legal system.

As for Brother Bonhoeffer, I would agree with his decisions. I see a vast difference between unpleasant duties and sin against God.

The purported quote 'it is better to do evil than to be evil' is a near miss. The actual quote http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/29333.Dietrich_Bonhoeffer?page=10 reads so:
“What is worse than doing evil, is being evil” (Ethics, p.67). To lie is wrong, but what is worse than the lie is the liar, for the liar contaminates everything he says, because everything he says is meant to further a cause that is false. The liar as liar has endorsed a world of falsehood and deception, and to focus only on the truth or falsity of his particular statements is to miss the danger of being caught up in his twisted world. This is why, as Bonhoeffer says, that “(i)t is worse for a liar to tell the truth than for a lover of truth to lie” (Ethics, p.67).”
― Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics

Not exactly a justification for joining the cause to assassinate Hitler. Nor was the action to end the reign of Adolf Hitler 'evil'.

 

You assume I do not know all that, and of course I do.

The greek statement suggests one who persues another to do harm. Doesn't matter if it is physical or verbal - harm is the goal.

When did the Apostles carry side arms to "defend themselves?" When Christ was met in the garden before the crucifixion.

Personally, I have no problem with conceal carry, and "stand your ground." However, NONE of that pertains to being persecuted.

Assassination is NOT defensive action to protect yourself from harm. Assassination is to take the life of someone who is unaware or expecting the need of defense, nor given the opportunity to defend themselves. I view such as the lowest form of military action, and rarely of any true military consequence.

There is really no common ground between "defending one self" and political assassination.

The Lord Jesus Christ put it this way:

“But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either."
​

What defense then is offered when one plans and purposes to assassinate?

I am assuming you know that, politically speaking, it is unlawful for the US citizens to engage in assassination.

Again, this is a huge and unwarranted assumption of what I do or do not have information.

However, it matters very little what he saw happening in his country, when under the authority of a "hideously evil leader."

Was not the Lord Jesus operating in a country divided by political and religious power-brokers?

His disciples expected to be leaders of a great political revolution. And a revolution did come, but not from armed combat, but a living testimony.

While the coliseums had to import sand to cover the floors of the martyr's blood, the church thrived. To this day, the church thrives in the face of martyrdom.

Those of the apostle's day were to be Christ's example who according to Hebrews:

12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. 13 So, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach. 14 For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come.
​

This is the another instance in your post in which you seem obliged to instruct assuming I am not already well aware of the issues. The assumption is far from factually based.

It matters so very little that you disagree with me or my view.

There is a time for defense of home and personage.

But, there is no place for plotting the assassination of a leader even an evil one (Ehud excepted) for that leader may be under the direct authority of God.

I do view the leadership of Nebuchadnezzar, Herod, Caesar, Nero ... including Hitler and Obama as appointed by God and directed by God for God's purposes, just as all of the anti-christ are also appointed.

God is not above using the evil to advance His purpose.

 

Again, you tend to overlook - ignore? - some very pertinent realities.

I am not surprised to find you are familiar with the Third Chapter of Judges. However, other may or may not be and so I outlined it to present a background for my remarks. Your comment about '...sticking a knife into the belly ...' sounds rather pejorative; I cannot tell if you intended it so.

Your statement about persecution is misleading and less than correct. Every time Jesus spoke about the subject, He was talking about insults and the like. You may agree or not, but that's the way it is.

I'm not going to continue this, sir. You take the tack that Jesus was a pacifist who would not resort to violence in any case. I could point out Jesus throwing the money-changers and animal sellers from the Temple precincts and His return at the head of an Army to destroy His enemies on the Earth; but you'd just tell me you know all about it.

Which boils down to this: I said in order to believe the things you cited as paramount, you had to ignore many other things. You tell me you know all about those things. Which proves my point. You're not lacking knowledge or facts, you are intentionally ignoring them.

Please feel free to do so. You may choose anything you wish as paramount. Just understand not all are Christians are pacifists or fear violence.

 

I understand, and even respect, the idea that some Christians are pacifists, not through fear of violence but due to their convictions and faith. I think that God has called them to be who they are. Certainly there are many times that it requires more strength and courage to endure without retaliation than it does to strike back. The testimony of multitudes of martyrs remains in unbroken succession from John the Baptist to modern day. Their faith, their willingness die has brought multitudes more to Christ. I put Bonhoeffer in this group, despite his association with resistance groups that, later, after he was incarcerated, attempted assassination.

But while God may call some to suffer for his name without resistance he also calls and makes warriors. We have looked at many biblical examples of this in this thread. Like tnd I am a combat veteran and that warrior mentality carries over to your personality. Not every military veteran even knows what I mean, but some of you do. I try to be sensitive to the Spirit and follow what I believe to be God’s will for me and my life, but it would be against my very nature, the nature God has built in me, to go quietly into that night. I will fight, claw, scratch, and resist as long as I have breath. And when I see injustice, I cannot turn my head and pretend it is not there. I will act against it. Sometimes that action is physical, more often it is political or verbal. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it does not.

I will not stand by and watch evil prosper. I can’t. That does not mean my actions are always violent or I intend to assassinate anyone, but we are talking about Hitler here. If you had the opportunity to stop something like that would it not be worth your freedom, fortune, and very life? I realize everyone is not like me, but I don’t understand anyone who chooses their own safety over doing what they know is right, over doing everything they can to help their fellow men and women.

 

This is almost laughable.

Here a person is attempting to place me as viewing Christ as a "pacifist" knowing nothing about me.

He would actually call those who hold the same Scriptural principle that I expressed - cowards.

Typical of those who resort to name calling in order to validate some meaningless froth.



Let me be real brief, so you and others don't mistake the points.

1) At no time did Christ "assassinate" during his ministry - yet that is what your statements seem to allow.

2) At no time did the Apostles "assassinate" during their ministries - yet that is what your statements seem to allow.

3) There is only ONE time in Scriptures in which "assassination" is used, and it was mentioned - but it in NO WAY pertains to ANY action of a believer in this age. God does not tell the believer to go "assassinate" anyone.

4) There is a difference between "assassination" and defense. The Scriptures are full of defensive actions, but not "assassination." Respectfully, I point to the examples of David and Saul, of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, Jael and Sisera. Each either did not take a life thou could have easily justified the action, or (in the case of Jael) took the life as one who was defending against an enemy combatant that entered her dwelling.

That you do not recognize the difference between "assassination" and defensive action, is a bit alarming.

As far as what I hold of persecution - I am not alone in the matter.

I suppose you have read "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" and seen examples of the defense of the gospel.

What exactly does the Scriptures state believers are to contend about?

Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.
​

Paul states:

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

​

Perhaps you can see some other enemy exists then what Paul states that the believer is to be armed to resist.

The believer is to count their flesh as a lamb to be slaughtered for the cause of Christ - "... a living sacrifice..."

That isn't just intellectual, it is also physical.

The believer is the child of the God of all gods, the very bride of the King of all kings.

Do you really want to contend that the believer does not have the very power of God in which to access?

Again, look carefully at WHO has the right to avenge wrong done to believers:

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.

Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation.

Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.

Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord.

“BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.



​

That a believer is even embracing some "assassination" plot is ungodly.

It is flat unscriptural and unethical for the believer.

You may not like my view, but frankly at least I have put abundant Scriptures that not only address the exact issue, but present the Scripture principle believed and lived out by untold number of Godly believers through the ages. Especially by those who wear the martyr's crown.

 

Tentmaker, thank you.