5 ms·

> 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 w

> 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passion_bearer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passion_bearer

paxcoder 2y ago
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.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  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.
  - paxcoder 2y ago
    [dead]
- ergotux 2y ago
  [dead]
tines 2y ago
> 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.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  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.
  - tines 2y ago
    > The choice is between trying stop an ongoing harm or not trying to stop it. That is the normal choice that any person has to make, there's nothing Christian about this, nor about the decision that Bonhoeffer made. Any atheist would agree with him that you've got to minimize harm, etc. The relevant choice for the Christian is to decide whether we're going to "use evil for good" in a way that only God can facilitate, by loving our enemies and dying for them, as Christ died for his enemies. > What you present isn't a third option, it's just a particular mindset about the second one. It's not "just" a mindset because it restricts (and expands) the options you can take. Isn't Bonhoeffer's stance "just" a mindset, because regardless of why you're killing your enemies, they end up dead anyway? An atheist killing Nazis and Bonhoeffer killing Nazis only differ in what they're saying, not really what they're doing. A Christian not resisting evil and loving their enemies is identifiable both by word and deed. > 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. You're construing this as a choice between action and inaction, so I don't think we understand each other yet. Was Jesus action-less when he came to the earth to die for his enemies? Or did he take action to not-resist evil, love and die for his enemies, and bear the sins of the world? What I'm suggesting as the Christian approach to this is very active, but not to kill our enemies the same way literally everyone else does. It's to feed our enemies when they're hungry, give them drink when they're thirsty, and stand in the way of the bullets when they're fired at others, all the while proclaiming our love for them, and God's love, so that they would quit trying to earn their righteousness by good works, and believe on Christ for righteousness. This is all and only what Jesus did, and bade us do. > Not all sin is avoidable, a sinless choice is not guaranteed. This might be your opinion, but I'm not sure you could find any support for this in scripture. I'm also not sure that we can take Bonhoeffer's decision as anything other than the proposition that Jesus would have killed Nazis too. Is that the road we want to go down? (I presume he wouldn't be defending a choice to do something that Jesus wouldn't have done.) Maybe the answer here is that I just need to read his book first. > 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 problem with this is that Big Brother D is morally equivalent before God to the Nazi, so in deciding the fate of the Nazi, he's deciding his own fate: he's too evil to let live, he should be put down. This is Brother D acting like he's still under the Law, which says, "The man who does these [good] things shall live [and by implication, the man who does bad things shall die]." According to Jesus, God cannot and will not have mercy on a (n undeserving) man who does not have mercy on (undeserving) others. There is no forgiveness for those who do not forgive others. Bringing death on others is asking for death upon ourselves (and for consistency, everyone else). Bonhoeffer can't have mercy for himself and death for others. And isn't this the thing that sets Christianity apart? Otherwise Jesus' earth-shattering teachings become just another "treat people nice who are nice to you, punish the bad guys" idea like every other one out there. My personal feeling is that trying to give up this nigh-impossible teaching is trying to give up the heart of Christianity, the core beauty and truth. Christianity has nothing attractive about it if we rip out the core and everything else that depends on it, imo. Sorry for the long post.
mike978 2y ago
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. [1] https://zondervanacademic.com/jesus-and-the-powers https://zondervanacademic.com/jesus-and-the-powers
drcwpl 2y ago
I did not know that, thank you

paxcoder 2y ago

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.

giraffe_lady 2y ago
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.
- paxcoder 2y ago
  [dead]
ergotux 2y ago
[dead]

tines 2y ago

> 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.

giraffe_lady 2y ago
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.
- tines 2y ago
  > The choice is between trying stop an ongoing harm or not trying to stop it. That is the normal choice that any person has to make, there's nothing Christian about this, nor about the decision that Bonhoeffer made. Any atheist would agree with him that you've got to minimize harm, etc. The relevant choice for the Christian is to decide whether we're going to "use evil for good" in a way that only God can facilitate, by loving our enemies and dying for them, as Christ died for his enemies. > What you present isn't a third option, it's just a particular mindset about the second one. It's not "just" a mindset because it restricts (and expands) the options you can take. Isn't Bonhoeffer's stance "just" a mindset, because regardless of why you're killing your enemies, they end up dead anyway? An atheist killing Nazis and Bonhoeffer killing Nazis only differ in what they're saying, not really what they're doing. A Christian not resisting evil and loving their enemies is identifiable both by word and deed. > 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. You're construing this as a choice between action and inaction, so I don't think we understand each other yet. Was Jesus action-less when he came to the earth to die for his enemies? Or did he take action to not-resist evil, love and die for his enemies, and bear the sins of the world? What I'm suggesting as the Christian approach to this is very active, but not to kill our enemies the same way literally everyone else does. It's to feed our enemies when they're hungry, give them drink when they're thirsty, and stand in the way of the bullets when they're fired at others, all the while proclaiming our love for them, and God's love, so that they would quit trying to earn their righteousness by good works, and believe on Christ for righteousness. This is all and only what Jesus did, and bade us do. > Not all sin is avoidable, a sinless choice is not guaranteed. This might be your opinion, but I'm not sure you could find any support for this in scripture. I'm also not sure that we can take Bonhoeffer's decision as anything other than the proposition that Jesus would have killed Nazis too. Is that the road we want to go down? (I presume he wouldn't be defending a choice to do something that Jesus wouldn't have done.) Maybe the answer here is that I just need to read his book first. > 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 problem with this is that Big Brother D is morally equivalent before God to the Nazi, so in deciding the fate of the Nazi, he's deciding his own fate: he's too evil to let live, he should be put down. This is Brother D acting like he's still under the Law, which says, "The man who does these [good] things shall live [and by implication, the man who does bad things shall die]." According to Jesus, God cannot and will not have mercy on a (n undeserving) man who does not have mercy on (undeserving) others. There is no forgiveness for those who do not forgive others. Bringing death on others is asking for death upon ourselves (and for consistency, everyone else). Bonhoeffer can't have mercy for himself and death for others. And isn't this the thing that sets Christianity apart? Otherwise Jesus' earth-shattering teachings become just another "treat people nice who are nice to you, punish the bad guys" idea like every other one out there. My personal feeling is that trying to give up this nigh-impossible teaching is trying to give up the heart of Christianity, the core beauty and truth. Christianity has nothing attractive about it if we rip out the core and everything else that depends on it, imo. Sorry for the long post.

mike978 2y ago

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. [1] https://zondervanacademic.com/jesus-and-the-powers https://zondervanacademic.com/jesus-and-the-powers

drcwpl 2y ago

I did not know that, thank you