Bonhoffer

[Blake Reas]

I was wondering if anyone wanted to have some discussions on Dietrich Bonhoffer and his stand against the Nazis? I would like to open it up to people who know more about him than I do. People like to paint him as liberal but he may not have been do to the fact that he never had to lay out his theology becasue of his execution in the Concentration Camps!:(

In Christ,
Blake Reas

[Em7add11]

He is the man who was plotting to assassinate Hitler?

[Epoetker]

Very deeply moving calls to discipleship.

A bit naive in the violence department, but he learned from his own mistakes, which is a very good thing.

[GrayPilgrim]

Em7add11:
He is the man who was plotting to assassinate Hitler?

After his dismissal from the clergy (the pastors were viewed as civil servants) because of his failture to support the Aryan Clause his bro-in-law got him a position under Admrial Canaris in the Abwehr (intelligence). The SS and Abwehr had a serious rivalry, as as ususal Hitler always allowed rivalries among his forces continue, so long as they strenghtened his power. Canaris while an early supporter became disgrunteled and started sending out feelers for peace and leaking info.

Bonhoeffer had already taken a stand against the Nazis because of their desire to eject the Jews from the church. Bonhoeffer, rightly, saw the the Body of Christ was to be a multinatioanl entity and so he rejected this, which caused him trouble.

Members of the Abwehr were involved with smuggling Jews out of the country to escape the Gestapo and SS. It was for suspiscion related to Bonhoeffer's endeavors to smuggle Jews out of the country that got him arrested. He hadn't been umplicated in the assassination effort, yet. He gave explicit instructions for the records to be destroyed that could implicate him in smuggling, counter-espionage and the assassination attempt.

After the July 1944 attempt, the SS went on a rampage, as part of this the uncovered the Flossenbürg Files. This was the secret archive of the Abwehr on the basis of which all of those connected to the Abwehr were hanged. Bonhoeffer's connection was made through these files, though he had been in custody since '43 (if I recall).

So the assassination part was just one thing among many that sent Bonhoeffer to the gallows, only with at least one brother and two brothers-in-law.

GP

[BTW I like Bonhoeffer if you couldn't tell]

[GrayPilgrim]

I checked on my original post, and to ad a few more things. The Abwehr had been secretly attempting to overthrow Hitler since just before the war began, and Bonhoeffer was involved with this, and it was also on suspicion of being party to the German Resistance's hoped for coup.

So the final charges would go:


Assassination plot (though he was in prinson for most of that.)
Treason (under which would fall association in hte coup and attempts for a separate peace)
Violation of the Racial Purity Laws
Assisting hte escape of Jews from occupied Europe and Germany.

[Blake Reas]

GrayPilgrim:
I checked on my original post, and to ad a few more things. The Abwehr had been secretly attempting to overthrow Hitler since just before the war began, and Bonhoeffer was involved with this, and it was also on suspicion of being party to the German Resistance's hoped for coup.

So the final charges would go:


Assassination plot (though he was in prinson for most of that.)
Treason (under which would fall association in hte coup and attempts for a separate peace)
Violation of the Racial Purity Laws
Assisting hte escape of Jews from occupied Europe and Germany.


Hey great posts GP! Wasn't Bonhoffer Neo-Orthodox or at least they try and paint him that way. After reading some of his stuff I think he was. His book Cost of Discipleship is my favorite.
In Christ,
Blake Reas

ME=====>:read:

[Pilgrim]

What I always have admired about Bonhoeffer is the fact that he knew the consequences of his actions.

In regards to the assasinition plot against Hitler he knew that to kill Hitler would be a sin he would have to answer to God for. He also reasoned that the greater sin would be to do nothing. So knowing that he would have to pay consequences for his actions he moved ahead anyway.

It's a pertinant illustration for us as we contimplate war in Iraq I think.

[Ryokan]

so you believe in the kobashi maru scenario Pilgrim?

[Epoetker]

"What I always have admired about Bonhoeffer is the fact that he knew the consequences of his actions."

Hold! hold! That's what irks me about Bonhoeffer-he called doing things sins that would only be called sins by the most pedantic literalists imaginable-is bringing justice to a person when NO OTHER MEANS FOR IT EXISTS a SIN? It might be something that you shouldn't do lightly (especially planning and praying over it very carefully to ensure that as few innocents as possible get caught) but a SIN? I take the fact that Mr. Prince of Peace never said to any of his Roman centurion friends "Go and sin no more" as a rather serious repudiation of Bonhoeffer's extreme position.

"In regards to the assasinition plot against Hitler he knew that to kill Hitler would be a sin he would have to answer to God for. He also reasoned that the greater sin would be to do nothing. So knowing that he would have to pay consequences for his actions he moved ahead anyway."

It was indeed his greatest moment, but I would have phrased it a different way:

The Lord sanctioned and commanded the killing of people who, after all attempts at redemption, continued to torture, enslave, and murder the Israelites. Unless we're going to all of a sudden deny that this Lord is the same as his embodiment on earth, we might want to consider the times, people, and places where nonviolent resistance of the type Bonhoeffer advocated is simply an invitation to those in control of the sheep to kill the soul that might save them. Shall we torture the souls of those willing to take deadly action to save countless millions by saying that their intentions are as murderous as those they fight? That their plans are sins that drive them away from the God of love and holiness?

"It's a pertinant illustration for us as we contimplate war in Iraq I think"

As Christians, we have had plenty of historical opportunities to form plans for moral action when powerless. We have had little for how best to exercise authority-but aren't we supposed to be those who are eventually given authority over some of the very same former angels currently opposing us?

[Blake Reas]

I have been reading some of Bonhoffers stuff and a book about his "Theology of Sociality" it seems to me that he was NOT neo-orthodox. His talk about religionless Christianity etc. actually seem to sway him in the direction of Radicalism. He once said that Bultmann's Demytholization of the NT did not go far enough. I will try to supply some quotes into my next post.

In Christ,
Blake

[GrayPilgrim]

Blake Reas:


Hey great posts GP! Wasn't Bonhoffer Neo-Orthodox or at least they try and paint him that way. After reading some of his stuff I think he was. His book Cost of Discipleship is my favorite.
In Christ,
Blake Reas

ME=====>:read:

Bethge (his biographer and former student) states that while in his early theology Bonhoeffer was in fact Neo-orthodox, he actually departed from this position. Bethge placed Bonhoeffer's "evangelcial moment" in either 1931 or 1932. Bonhoeffer, in other words, did not think that prior to 31/2 that he was in fact justified. So what one needs to do is read this in relation to his thought. The later the work the more "evangelical" it must be considered. I look for more info on this later.

GP

[Pilgrim]

Ryokan:
so you believe in the kobashi maru scenario Pilgrim?

I have to plead ignorance on this one.

[Pilgrim]

Epoetker:
"What I always have admired about Bonhoeffer is the fact that he knew the consequences of his actions."

Hold! hold! That's what irks me about Bonhoeffer-he called doing things sins that would only be called sins by the most pedantic literalists imaginable-is bringing justice to a person when NO OTHER MEANS FOR IT EXISTS a SIN? It might be something that you shouldn't do lightly (especially planning and praying over it very carefully to ensure that as few innocents as possible get caught) but a SIN? I take the fact that Mr. Prince of Peace never said to any of his Roman centurion friends "Go and sin no more" as a rather serious repudiation of Bonhoeffer's extreme position.

If you break one of the commandments is it not still a sin? "Thou shall not murder." More to follow.

[/quote
The Lord sanctioned and commanded the killing of people who, after all attempts at redemption, continued to torture, enslave, and murder the Israelites. Unless we're going to all of a sudden deny that this Lord is the same as his embodiment on earth, we might want to consider the times, people, and places where nonviolent resistance of the type Bonhoeffer advocated is simply an invitation to those in control of the sheep to kill the soul that might save them. Shall we torture the souls of those willing to take deadly action to save countless millions by saying that their intentions are as murderous as those they fight? That their plans are sins that drive them away from the God of love and holiness?[/quote]

Interesting point and well made except that you forget that even after a war or murder sanctioned by God, those who did the killing were required to go through a ritual cleansing. This shows that even though the taking of life was needed and even commanded, it was still something which stained them and needed to be washed away.

Thus in calling something sin we are not saying that an individuals soul will be tortured because we know that the sin is not the end of the story, rather it is the remption that Christ offers us from sin that is the end of the story.



As Christians, we have had plenty of historical opportunities to form plans for moral action when powerless. We have had little for how best to exercise authority-but aren't we supposed to be those who are eventually given authority over some of the very same former angels currently opposing us?

So a war with Iraq will be Christians vs. non? Again I think we need to remember that this war will be in the name of The USA not in the name of YHWH.

And secondly, we will be given authority by God in God's time. Remember what happened to David when he merely took a census for war with out God's express command? If we try to take authority when God has not yet offered it to us we will no doubt be in trouble. And again it must be pointed out that what we do in Iraq is not in the name of God, but in the name of the USA. You must ask yourself, "is it the position of the USA to hand out roles of authority in the name of our God?"

Pilgrim

[Glenn P]

What bothers me about Bonhoeffer is that he is widely regarded to be a martyr.

Now, he may have done and said some great things, but a martyr he was not. Bonhoeffer was outwardly willing to say "hail Hitler," while inwardly relishing the thought of Hitler's downfall.

Compare this with the martyr Polycarp. In particular, consider the events of 156 A.D., when Polycarp’s father pleaded with him to avoid execution, saying, “What harm is there in saying ‘Caesar is Lord,’ and burning the incense and so on, and saving yourself?”

Polycarp's response shows Bonhoeffer up. He went to his death rather than praise Caesar. He was honest, and had integrity. Bonhoeffer had these, doubtless, but lacked them in a very visible way at this point. He was not a martyr. He had every reason to give outward alleigence to Christ over Hitler (which probably would have made him a martyr), but he gave lip service to the Furor instead. He was killed all right, but not as a martyr.

Glenn

[Solly]

Ryokan:
so you believe in the kobashi maru scenario Pilgrim?

He means Kobayashi Maru, Pilgrim. From ST: Wrath of Khan: facing a no-win situation. "How we face death is as important as how we face life" J T Kirk. What alternatives did Bonhoeffer have, to his mind, since evangelical he was not? Barth was part of the process, but as a Swiss national, could only be expelled from Germany. Schlatter, a Swiss also, was too old to cause them too much concern, although he did write against the new theology of the Deutsche Kirche. Vogel ended in prison, but survived.

Bonhoeffer was Neo Orthodox to start with, but both Barth and Bultmann denied that he was completley so.

A few bits I picked up from elsewhere, as I have not read much Bonhoeffer.

[Pilgrim]

Hey thanks Solly.

[GrayPilgrim]

Theonomy:
What bothers me about Bonhoeffer is that he is widely regarded to be a martyr.

Now, he may have done and said some great things, but a martyr he was not. Bonhoeffer was outwardly willing to say "hail Hitler," while inwardly relishing the thought of Hitler's downfall.

Compare this with the martyr Polycarp. In particular, consider the events of 156 A.D., when Polycarp’s father pleaded with him to avoid execution, saying, “What harm is there in saying ‘Caesar is Lord,’ and burning the incense and so on, and saving yourself?”

Polycarp's response shows Bonhoeffer up. He went to his death rather than praise Caesar. He was honest, and had integrity. Bonhoeffer had these, doubtless, but lacked them in a very visible way at this point. He was not a martyr. He had every reason to give outward alleigence to Christ over Hitler (which probably would have made him a martyr), but he gave lip service to the Furor instead. He was killed all right, but not as a martyr.

Glenn

Funny, he was kicked out of the clergy by the Nazi's (don't forget state church), because he was unwilling to serve with those who would divide the Body of Christ into Jew and non-Jew! He was one of the few who early on, 1933, not only saw but opposed the German Christians (movement loyal to the Nazi's).

GP

[Pilgrim]

ANd he was a part of the "Confessing Church"

[Socrates]

It seems from what Epoetker and Pilgrim said about Bonhöffer that he held a fallacious view of ethics that Geisler calls conflicting absolutism, and Pilgrim seems to endorse this fallacy. This would also mean that Corrie Ten Boom sinned when she lied to the Nazi butcher about hiding Jews.

Eptoeker is rightly on side with Geisler that the Biblical view is Graded Absolutism. This recognizes that there is a hierarchy of morals, and duty to the higher one exempts one from duty to the lower one. Therefore one is not sinning by not following the lower duty since there is an exemption. Therefore Tante Corrie's duty to the lives of the Jews exempted her from any obligation to tell the truth to the jackbooted fascists. There was much discussion on this in a thread on Biblical morality.

Pilgrim:


Interesting point and well made except that you forget that even after a war or murder sanctioned by God, those who did the killing were required to go through a ritual cleansing. This shows that even though the taking of life was needed and even commanded, it was still something which stained them and needed to be washed away.Ritual purity is distinct from whether the action was sinful or not. By this reasoning, childbirth must also be sinful since women had to undergo purification afterwards.

[Epoetker]

So a war with Iraq will be Christians vs. non?

Not exactly. But we evangelical Protestants currently have one of our number in the highest office in the land, and it therefore behooves both him and us to conduct the war according to Christian principles. How are we to demonstrate our Christianity without conducting ourselves as such, no matter which office we're elected to?


Again I think we need to remember that this war will be in the name of The USA not in the name of YHWH.

So it will. But the methods and advisories for conducting war, and also the imminent Iraqi reorganization afterward, are highly likely to differ among those of different worldviews. An atheist might simply say to institute a regional strongman friendly to us and avoid any extensive democratic reconstruction. A Christian like myself would be interested in ensuring that Iraq is opened to missionaries, rather than being turned into another Islamist dictatorship/closed society.


And secondly, we will be given authority by God in God's time.

We have authority already, if you haven't noticed. Our primary objective is to learn how to use it in accordance with God's purposes. I'm exceedingly glad our current president is a praying man.


Remember what happened to David when he merely took a census for war with out God's express command? If we try to take authority when God has not yet offered it to us we will no doubt be in trouble. And again it must be pointed out that what we do in Iraq is not in the name of God, but in the name of the USA. You must ask yourself, "is it the position of the USA to hand out roles of authority in the name of our God?"

God has placed the USA as a model of a free society-Christianity thrives not only in spite of not being state-mandated but because of it.

As far as Iraq and the rest of the Middle East is concerned, the USA as a country is not interested in them militarily for any expressly Christian purpose-security is the primary goal. And it has become quite evident that dictatorships and unfree societies are where terrorists are either ignored or encouraged to go commit acts of violence against the US. It is a serendipitous accomodation to our advantage that a free society is also where Christianity is best practiced.

[GrayPilgrim]

According to my Church History prof at TEDS, one of his former students PhD distertation was on Augustine's Just War. Moreover, back in '91 when Bush was considering the liberation of Kuwait this disertation was used by that administration in its decision process. So the father sought a just war as well. So I am hoping that the current adminsitration is taking similar tack as the previous Bush.

[Glenn P]

Socrates:
It seems from what Epoetker and Pilgrim said about Bonhöffer that he held a fallacious view of ethics that Geisler calls conflicting absolutism, and Pilgrim seems to endorse this fallacy. This would also mean that Corrie Ten Boom sinned when she lied to the Nazi butcher about hiding Jews.

Geisler's view is no less free from problems. He holds that there are some moral absolutes that can be violated in fovour of higher ones. Thus, God excused Corrie Ten Boom for lying, becuase although it is generally wrong to do so, she had a higher moral to obey.

A far more coherent model would not be GRADED absolutism, but QUALIFIED absolutism, where absolutes (e.g. do not lie) should be construed in and of themselves in a way that is compatible with what Ten Boom did. In other words, if we understood whatthe Bible MEANT by telling us not to lie (if it commands that), then we would realise that what she did was actually not a lie.

Glenn

[Pilgrim]

Well made points Socrates. I can't help but think that there is a difference between murder and childbirth thought.

It would be nice to hear Jaltus chime in here because he articulated an interesting take on our responsability for honesty.

But on a purely pedantic mode...Did the command say "thou shall not murder unless it's Hitler?"

[Socrates]

Thanx Pilgrim

Murder is defined as intentional killing of the innocent, and Hitler was not!

[Socrates]

Theonomy writes, I think based on Rushdoony:


Geisler's view is no less free from problems. He holds that there are some moral absolutes that can be violated in fovour of higher ones. Thus, God excused Corrie Ten Boom for lying, becuase although it is generally wrong to do so, she had a higher moral to obey.[quote]That's a reasonable summary.
[quote]
A far more coherent model would not be GRADED absolutism, but QUALIFIED absolutism, where absolutes (e.g. do not lie) should be construed in and of themselves in a way that is compatible with what Ten Boom did.I think Geisler addressed this too, but I'll need to check.


In other words, if we understood whatthe Bible MEANT by telling us not to lie (if it commands that), then we would realise that what she did was actually not a lie.Sounds cumbersome, and I'm not sure whether it has any practical differences. The qualifications would STILL be based on the Biblical hierarchy of morals.

I mean, one could posit a situation where Tante Corrie was hiding suspects from "normal" government law enforcement agents, and lied about this. Then the same action, the untruth, would be wrong, because there is no higher moral law providing any exemption from lying. But I'm not sure how qualifications would help, inless they became practically indistinguishable from graded absolutist arguments, because the actions are the same.

But I think Bonhöffer would not have necessarily been guilty of sin even under your view.

[Glenn P]

Socrates:
Theonomy writes, I think based on Rushdoony:
I think Geisler addressed this too, but I'll need to check.

Rushdoony? No, I have read very little Rushdoony, and I came to this view long before I had heard of him. Actually I just thought about the issue. That's how I reach a lot of my conclusions. I saw Geisler's argument, thought about it for a while, then rejected it.

Geisler, as best I can tell, does not address this anywhere. I don't see why it's cumbersome. It just means that genuine moral precepts do not conflict with each other. Geisler seems to think they can.

After coming to my view, I came across a good article on it by William F. Luck in Grace Theological Journal 8:1 (1987), called "Moral Conflicts and Evangelical Ethics: A Second Look atthe Salvaging Operations." From what I can gather, Luck shares the view that I came to.

Blessings

Glenn

[Epoetker]

Actually I just thought about the issue. That's how I reach a lot of my conclusions. I saw Geisler's argument, thought about it for a while, then rejected it.

Be advised to think harder. And not just to think, but to experience the situations where the hierarchy may come into your practice. If you've never been a soldier, police officer, or a politician, now's the time to try it out, and see exactly how far the rejection of the heirarchy of morals will get you. Meanwhile, I'll try to hold to the defense of all necessary jobs that a Christian must find himself in that aren't inherently wrong.


Geisler, as best I can tell, does not address this anywhere. I don't see why it's cumbersome. It just means that genuine moral precepts do not conflict with each other. Geisler seems to think they can.

:eek:

This burden, I fear, will only become real to you once you've taken it up.

[Pilgrim]

There was a line from a recent movie, I can't remember which now, but it goes, "Absolute morality is the luxary of those on the side lines."

[brother vinny]

:bump: