Can the assassination be justified?

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.