Final paper (Dietrich
Bonhoeffer: Can the assassination be justified for the lesser evil?)
Introduction
Generally
speaking, it is said that different and somewhat radical characteristic traits
are needed in the times of war in comparison to the times of peace. Under the
atmosphere of war or any devastating situations, the qualities which are
welcomed by the time of peace, may not be the effective elements for survival. Since
human beings shape the internal system continuously by responding to external
factors and experiences they have, it is no wonder that either peace or war
influences the individual into developing certain pattern of thoughts and
behaviors.
For example, I
went through a car accident. After this experience of personal trauma, it was
deeply evident that the muscles in my body absorbed the impact of collision and
the rearrangement of layers of muscles occurred. Since then, it was observed
that the certain range of bodily motion had been restricted. Likewise,
catastrophic event such as war seems to affect layers of the psyche both
mentally and emotionally. Thereafter, the acceptance of certain activity is
established through the reshaping of the thinking pattern and internal
perspective of the individuals that are involved.
It is evident
that Dietrich Bonhoeffer experienced a similar shift in the development of his
theology. Especially, it seems that he was the passionate supporter of God’s
absolute intervention, which is not related to moral constraints of human
beings, but that “a repudiation of pacifism and an endorsement of participation
in war”[1]
was to be examined in the development of his theology. In this paper, brief
description of plot regarding the assassination of Hitler and some biblical,
theological and ethical perspectives are to be examined so that killing can be
defined as either the justified act or not.
Plot to kill Hitler and Bonhoeffer’s turbulent progress in the
development of theology
Bonhoeffer
seemed to struggle with this issue of assassinating Hitler by discussing with
his colleagues and wrestle in an agonizing way. It is said that
“The
discussion lasted for many hours Bonhoeffer explained that the shooting by
itself meant nothing: something had to be gained by it, a change of
circumstances, of the government. The liquidation of Hitler would in itself be
no use, things might even become worse. That, he said, made the work of
resistance so difficult, that the “thereafter” had to be so carefully
prepared.”[2]
The attempt to assassinate
Hitler was established by comrades of Bonhoeffer twice by using explosives.
However, their well-planned plot failed due to the mechanical flaw in the
explosive at the train and the shorter stay at the ceremony scene than
scheduled. At this time, it seemed that Bonhoeffer made an intellectual
conclusion that it was necessary for the church to separate from secular
influences and vocalize what is right, which the churches in Germany failed to do.
This inability to separate allowed the wicked Nazi regime to pervert and coerce
the church. This resulted in the Germany wholly being established into the authority
for evil. Therefore both the church and German government failed to serve as
the divine servant of God. The role of church was overpowered by both
the clandestine and wise wickedness of Nazi theology. Interestingly, it is
heard that “one sometimes hears that Hitler was a Christian. He was certainly
not, but neither was he openly anti-Christian, as most of his top lieutenants
were.”[3]
It can be inferred from this description that he successfully and progressively
transformed churches in Germany to become advocates to justify the
organizational sin by strategic use of his genius political sense.
Lovin states that “a corrupt state inevitably corrupts the church, the
marketplace, and the families that “take up space” in the world alongside the
state.”[4]
In this turbulent time, it seems that what frustrated and infuriated Bonhoeffer
was how the Confessing Church he was associated with changed, rather than the
Nazi regime. In other words, his anger was directed more at how the church
dealt with the Nazi regime. It is believed that the acceleration of wickedness
of the Nazi regime was achieved was by first transforming churches into
servants of the evil authority. Bonhoeffer’s personal embarrassments and
frustration from churches were the very chemical catalyst to cause the crack to
happen on the surface of his previous theological development. And for
the ugly cohesion of churches and the regime in collaboration, it is very
likely that he was forced to add a specific adjustment to his previous theology.
Those whom are not living under the intense atmosphere can never fully known or
understood what it is like to have endure the hopeless vulnerability under the
regime of intense violence and cruelty from perspectives of contemporaries .
During the whole process of
theological development in him, participation in war seemed to instigate the
radical shift, for it is written that
“As the previous chapter
detailed, Bonhoeffer’s 1929 Barcelona lecture on Christian ethics constitutes
both a repudiation of pacifism and an endorsement of participation in war. But
in less than ten years after expressing these convictions, Bonhoeffer publishes
a book in which he completely contradicts them. The clear calls for
nonresistance and enemy love he voices in Discipleship
stand in the strongest possible tension with his previous thoughts on war and
violence.”[5]
In my perspective, his radical
shift from use of violence to love of enemy seems to have been established
reluctantly.
Major theological and ethical approaches
into the assassination
Glen and David say “the cause
that can override the presumption against killing are stopping the massacre of
large numbers of people and stopping the systematic and long-term violation of
the human rights of life, liberty and community.”[6]
This comment can be the rationale to put any violence to demolish any dictator
or certain political leader who is creating catastrophic chaos globally. But,
regarding the use of violence to put the evil to the extinction, one of popular
debate is both the moral relativism and the absolutism. Even if Bonhoeffer
advocated that way of God is amoral and superior, which is not affected by
behaviours of human beings and is activated beyond both good and bad, it seems
that he leaned on the certain degree of relativism. In addition to this, when
the lesser evil action initiated by the moral relativism is launched, the
providence of God will cause the mysterious result to happen. It is obvious
that God makes goodness out of any behaviors or activities incurred by the
moral freedom. But, in terms of use of the lesser violence, Bonhoeffer took a
concrete stand. Despite the goodness God achieves providently and eventually,
it needs to be pondered that “Bonhoeffer’s understanding of God’s action in
Christ should have led him to affirm the freedom of the moral agent to bear the
guilt incurred by both moral options he provides in the cases he discusses.”[7]
It seems to be interpreted that
as long as a Christian is responsible for his action, which is somewhat
illegitimate and even defined as the obvious infraction of law, his action can
remain in the vicinity of being accepted as permissible. Regarding the trait of
both theological and ethical development Bonhoeffer had, Robin states “He
continued to insist that those who take the necessary steps against a tyrant
must accept the guilt of their treachery, deceit, and violence.”[8]
In the Bible, bearing of the
guilt or acceptance of the guilt does not seem to be examined. One thing that
is obvious is that people of God engaged with the ministry had a certain
characteristic of abrasiveness. And it is very likely that this aggression was
examined in the Scriptures. For example, in 2 Kings 2:23-25 narrates that
Elisha who killed eighty three children by cursing them, for they ridiculed him
by calling a baldhead. To me, it is interpreted that his aggression and
abrasiveness, shaped by the intense environment, responded to the external
stimulus proactively and impatiently rather than the way he might have had the
bizarre eccentricity in personality.
In addition, 1 Kings 18 describes the battle between Elijah and the Baal
prophets. That is to say, this battle was the unavoidable conflict between the
true prophet and the false prophets. And the Christian such as Obadiah had to
hide his identity to sidestep the persecution. But, it is very obvious that the
antagonistic environment against the faith of sole God went from bad to worse
in times of Elisha’s spiritual leadership. In 1 Kings 22, a story that king
Ahab asked one prophet named Micaiah and a group of prophets prior to the
departure for war is depicted. To me, it seems the conflict between the true
prophet and so-called true prophets, who masquerade their real identities. In
an intellectual comparison of between the conflict Elijah experienced against
Baal prophets and the conflict Micaiah had against nominal prophets in an era
of Elisha, it is very likely that times of Elisha was the more tougher
atmosphere where people of God should have risked their lives. In the
intellectual analysis, Elisha’s attitudes optimized through the interaction of
external environment seems to override the guilt incurred by his free choice of
ethical morality. It is believed that those who have a powerful strength barely
interrupted by guilt will be prepared for the work of God when the intense
persecution is to be so general globally.
Despite the fact that someone can overpower the guilt for the lesser evil
or the violence, this approach does not seem to justify every reason of using
weapons, waging war, and appealing to violence in its entirety. For example,
when it comes to the case of the lesser evil, the invention of nuclear missile had
been considered as the pertinent example for the deterrence of violence. It
seems to me that by threatening evil doers with the probable use of nuclear
weapons, deterrence of violence has been acquired. However, it seems that the
accumulation of nuclear weapons has been stored for the greatest explosion in
the unknown future. That is to say, although the invention of nuclear weapons
as the effective tool of deterring the evil has achieved the goal politically,
it is still interpreted as the version-up debate of both relativism and
absolutism.
Regarding this, Paul and Robert say “we threaten to inflict evil in
retaliation for evil inflicted on us.” [9]
Obviously, due to the mutual recognition of ultimate extinction, deterring
effect has been put into effect. In this context, nuclear bomb is not a
military weapon but a political one. Any ethical norm or theological value does
seem to have, if ever, minimal relevance to the political gain.
Honestly, the killing of dictators such as Hussein and Kaddafi was
established by political reason associated with a minimal amount of ethical
values. But, God’s providence and justice seemed to intervene in the areas of
oppression and massacre. In my opinion, if God wanted to have Hitler assassinated
by Bonhoeffer’s colleagues, his life should have been demanded under His
providence, which is superior to all the intellectual morality and Christian
ethics. Because no one knows God as a whole, it seems that Bonhoeffer plunged
into the unknown mystery of God with the moral audacity intending to sustain
the guilty, incurred by his involvement with the assassination. From a
perspective of God, it could be imagined that the mechanical flaw in an
explosive happened so that another political involvement may bring Hitler into
justice. It is also possible that this failure occurred in order that what is
outlined in the biblical scripture would not to befall on him. In
Matthew 26:52, Jesus clearly said “put your sword back in its place, for all
who draw the sword will die by the sword.” After all, by using other
authorities in collaboration as the servant of God to fulfill His justice, it
is likely that God let Bonhoeffer fail to achieve.
Conclusion
It is still remembered that a
very religious and radical guy deformed the statue of Dan-goon, known as the
founder of country in the old time of epoch, by cutting the neck of the statue
in Korea. When reading this article in a newspaper years ago, my intellectual
rationale was that if he was willingly determined to take responsibility
incurred by his action, his action could be justified but he had to pay for
what he was deserved for based on the legal punishment. He was a Christian and
was sentenced to put in prison. Even if he had a radical response to other
religion and showed a very strong defiance against a false religion, it seemed
to me that there were many values to learn. Honestly speaking, it might be
useless to discuss an ethical issue over the assassination of leadership, since
contemporary Christians have never experienced such an evil regimes such as
Nazi and other dictatorships.
However, if a Christian prepares
oneself to face what occurs when voicing righteousness against the evil and
somewhat radical activities are established, this can be the confession of
faith. In some ways, the appearance of such an evil demonstrates that churches
fail to take responsibilities for what they have to achieve and keep. And under
the extreme atmosphere of intensity, cruelty, persecution and violence, it
seems that Christians need to either protest or tolerate until God’s justice is
achieved. I would neither like to say that Bonhoeffer’s involvement with the
assassination is justified nor that his ethical morality is to be respected.
Because one’s theological development is by-product of environment one is in,
the time period he had to struggle with unavoidably added a radical element
into his previous theological pacifism.
It is obviously believed that
only God can justify his action. Whether he failed to assassinate or not does
not affects how God thinks. If he was well-prepared to accept any unpredictable
outcome incurred by his action, the assassination of Hitler could be justified.
At least, he was determined to fight against the fear inside and struggled with
the cowardice most of pastors were subject to.
When the prostitute, Rahab, told
a lie to servants of king at Jericho in the Old Testament, some interpretations
consider her action as the confession of faith with the audacity to face the
probable death instead of ethical application. It is believed that Bonhoeffer’s
case is no different from Rahab. Both cases were about the participation in
war, which is very dangerous, intense, violent and unimaginable cruelty.
Ethical approaches should be applied in the time of evil.
Bibliography
Hinlicky, Paul R.,
and Robert W. Jenson. “Can Deterrence Be Justified as a Lesser Evil : A
Debate.” Currents in Theology and Mission, October 1, 1985.
Lovin, Robin W. “The
Christian and the Authority of the State : Bonhoeffer’s Reluctant Revisions.” Journal
of Theology for Southern Africa, March 1, 1981.
Metaxas, Eric. Bonhoeffer:
Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy : A Righteous Gentile vs. the Third Reich.
Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010.
Nation, Mark. Bonhoeffer
the Assassin?: Challenging the Myth, Recovering His Call to Peacemaking.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.
Stassen, Glen Harold,
and David P Gushee. Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context.
Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
[1]
Nation, Bonhoeffer
the Assassin?, 126.
[2]
Metaxas, Bonhoeffer,
425.
[3]
Ibid.,
165.
[4]
Lovin,
“The Christian and the Authority of the State,” 37.
[5]
Nation, Bonhoeffer
the Assassin?, 126.
[6]
Stassen
and Gushee, Kingdom Ethics, 159.
[7]
Nation, Bonhoeffer
the Assassin?, 122.
[8]
Lovin,
“The Christian and the Authority of the State,” 35.
[9]
Hinlicky
and Jenson, “Can Deterrence Be Justified as a Lesser Evil,” 271.
