Scattered Thoughts: Pacifism, Bonhoeffer, the Move

Greetings to those who occasionally visit my Abyss. Amidst the frenzy of our move and all of the emotions we experienced in picking up our lives and going to Georgia, and as I have attempted to develop a routine for writing sermons (which, now that I have time to do it right, I am actually enjoying again), I have had some random thoughts to share.

First, thanks to all of my friends who interacted with me on the topic of pacifism. Between the posts (which are immortalized in print) and the discussions we had in person, I feel I have a much better grasp on the topic than before--and I've come to understand more fully the view that many of my closest friends hold. Believe it or not, you all influenced me much more than I may have let on. I think I've been forced to re-evaluate my dilemma and approach it from a strictly Christian viewpoint. In asking, "How did Christ approach the dilemma that I have posed?" I found myself thinking of the woman caught in adultery and how Jesus dealt with that. Here we have a woman who was being unfairly persecuted (where was her lover?) and was going to be killed by a merciless gang of lynchers. Granted, their actions, by some interpretations, were protected by Jewish law. Yet, Jesus understood the real ins and outs of the situation. How did he approach it?

My pacifist friends will be proud of me, I hope! Jesus did not fight. He knelt in the sand and wrote something (I have my theories). Then he stood up and told whoever had not broken the law to cast the first stone. Jesus approached the situation non-violently. Ironically, he risked a great deal of violence to himself in doing so. And I think that may be the key. As Christians, on a personal level, where we can, perhaps we are called to suffer for others more so than fight for them. That was, actually, Jesus' entire philosophy of dealing with violence, was it not? It was to receive violence in lieu of someone else. There. I've said it. You've moved me.

I still cannot get past the separation I find inherent in NT teaching about the role of government and its use of violence in situations. It seems to me that, if God has ordained this, then there is some justification for war. I still hold that there is a paradox on war in Christian teaching. Yet, I am moved closer in my own walk to the position of many of my friends.

Interestingly, Bonhoeffer moved from being a pacifist to an attempt to assassinate Hitler. The explanation provided to me was that Bonhoeffer recognized that Hitler's regime was a product of the non-action of the church when it could have done something. Therefore, he moved to violence as a secondary position--not as good as the primary, but necessary according to situation. I think I agree with Bonhoeffer. There is a point at which it is too late to say, "This is what we should have done."

I'm reading Ethics by Bonhoeffer right now (amidst other things--see Theo's Picks for the link). My new schedule affords more time for reading and personal study. (Perhaps I should have made this move a long time ago.) Bonhoeffer is fascinating me with the idea that the whole study of ethics is really a product of the fall--in that people believe they can be the source of knowledge of good and evil. In fact, my first sermon at Castle really ended up being about that (I borrowed heavily from Paul Axton's genius chapel sermon). Once we have updated Castle's podcast, I will add the link to the Abyss. Because of the profundity of some of his comments, I was thinking of just adding a few quotes for discussion, if anyone is interested.

"To know good and evil is to know oneself as the origin of good and evil, as the origin of an eternal choice and election. How this is possible remains the secret of Him in whom there is no disunion because He is Himself the one and eternal origin and the overcoming of all disunion. This secret has been stolen from God by man in his desire to be an origin on his own account. Instead of knowing only the God who is good to him and instead of knowing all things in Him, he now knows himself as the origin of good and evil. Instead of accepting the choice and election of God, man himself desires to choose, to be the origin of election. And so, in a certain sense, he bears within himself the secret of predestination. Instead of knowing himself solely in the reality of being chosen and loved by God, he must now know himself in the possibility of choosing and of being the origin of good and evil. He has become like God, but against God. Herein lies the serpent's deceit. Man knows good and evil, but because he is not the origin, because he acquires this knowledge only at the price of estrangement from the origin, the good and evil he knows are not the good and evil of God but good and evil against God. They are good and evil of man's own choosing, in opposition to the eternal election of God. In becoming like God man has become a god against God." (Ethics, 23)

"Man's life is now disunion with God, with men, with things, and with himself." (24)

"Knowing of good and evil in disunion with the origin, man begins to reflect upon himself. His life is now his understanding of himself, whereas at the origin it was his knowledge of God. Self-knowledge is now the measure and the goal of life. This holds true even when man presses out beyond the bonds of his own self. Self-knowledge is man's interminable striving to overcome his disunion with himself by thought; by unceasingly distinguishing himself from himself he endeavours to achieve unity with himself." (29)

"No longer knowing good and evil, but knowing Christ as origin and reconciliation, man will know all. For in knowing Christ man knows and acknowledges God's choice which has fallen upon this man himself; he no longer stands as the chooser between good and evil, that is to say, in disunion; he is the chosen one, who can no longer choose, but has already made his choice in his being chosen in the freedom and unity of the deed and will of God. He thus has a new knowledge, in which the knowledge of God, yet no longer as the man who has become like God, but as the man who bears the image of God. All he knows now is "Jesus Christ, adn him crucified (I Cor. 2.2), and in HIm he knows all. As one who is without knowledge he has become the one who knows only God and all things in Him." (37)

One of my favorites:

"The voice of the heart is not to be confused with the will of God, nor is any kind of inspiriation or any general principle..." (41) He goes on to discuss that the will of God, at its base, is the metamorphasis of the human.

In some of my earlier wrestlings with the "will of God," Bonhoeffer sums up beautifully and solves the problem:

"But when all this has been said it is still necessary really to examine what is the will of God, what is rightful in a given situation, what course is truly pleasing to God; for, after all, there have to be concrete life and action. Intelligence, discernment, attentive observation of the given facts, all these now come into lively operation, all will be embraced and pervaded by prayer. Particular experiences will afford correction and warning. Direct inspirations must in no case be heeded or expected, for this could all to easily lead to a man's abandoning himself to self-deception. In view of what is at stake there must be a lofty spirit of sober self-control. Possibilities and consequences must be carefully assessed. In other words, the whole apparatus of human powers must be set in motion when it is a matter of proving what is the will of God. But in all this there will be no room for the torment of being confronted with insoluble conflicts, or for the arrogant notion that one can master every conflict, or even for the enthusiastic expectation and assertion of direct inspiration. There will be belief that if a man asks God humbly God will give him certain knowledge of His will; and then, after all this earnest proving, there will also be the freedom to make a real decision, and with it the confidence that it is not man but God Himself who, through this proving, gives effect to His will." (43-44) Beautiful!

Anyhow, I'm liking Bonhoeffer! Thoughts?

Pacifism and Reality

Numerous recent discussions with some of my closest friends have repeatedly concerned the topic of pacifism. It is no wonder to me that this view is enjoying a revival of sorts. Myth of a Christian Nation deals largely with it. And I think that it is good that the discussion is reemerging. (Perhaps I am just being re-introduced to it.) Evangelical Christians have not helped the kingdom of God by taking (on the whole) what appears to be a radical pro-war stance which is Zionistic and not consistent with Christian values.

However, I think the pacifist view has a few weaknesses. I've dealt with those in earlier posts, but I wanted to throw out a few responses to comments made by a friend of mine in a discussion on pacifism recently.

The central idea (as I can tell) to the Christian pacifist viewpoint is Jesus' claim that his kingdom is not of this world--else his servants would fight! What is drawn from this, and from the command to love our enemies, is that Christians are not called to fight--that's worldly kingdom thinking. And, from the point of view of the role of the church and the method of evangelism the church is to use, I think it is relevant to discuss this. But is this teaching in all cases relevant to the Christian's attitude toward civil government?

In our discussion, I (again) threw out the topic of the holocaust. In the early 40's of the last century, Hitler's Germany was mercilessly slaughtering millions of people. The question is, "Is this not a justified reason to enter a war--even as a Christian called to love his enemy?" One of my friends asked the question recently, "Do you think when Jesus said to 'love your enemy' he meant we shouldn't drop bombs on them?" The sarcasm of the comment implies that war is a direct contradiction to the teaching of Christ. However, I asked my friend a few days ago, "Yes, we are commanded to love our enemy. But we're also commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves. So, what do I do when my enemy is trying to kill my neighbor?" I ask, "Do you think when Jesus said to love our neighbor, we should be concerned that they not be murdered?"

The answer I bumped into that evening is the same one I've found in similar discussions. It is that "You can always argue some exception to the rule, but we don't develop theology based on these exceptions." In other words: the reality is that WWII is the anomoly, and the rule is much easier to apply in every day life. However, I think the pacifist forgets that the doctrine of pacifism has inherent practical implications. OF COURSE, the first thing someone who does not subscribe to pacifism is going to say when approached is, "So, how do I put this into practice?" Is it really such a rare thing that a Christian must decide whether to go to war? In reality, it is doubtful whether any generation in the last two hundred years (maybe ever) has NOT had to wrestle with this question. So, I don't think the pacifist escapes the practical consequences of his viewpoint by arguing that pacifism's practicality is irrelevant. Violent situations do happen and it is up to the pacifist to explain how his view is rightly lived out in light of real-world conflicts.

Also, I think the pacifist muddies the water by referring to Jesus' statement that the kingdom of God is not of this world. Here is how: when Jesus refers to the kingdom of God, it is a reference to the church--not the nation! (Thanks, Greg Boyd--though I'm not sure you'd like the conclusion I'm drawing.) And Paul also stated that government is ordained by God to bear the sword. There seems to be an implication that human government has the God-ordained responsibility to utilize violence in order to protect the welfare of the public. Keeping in mind that Jesus' indictment regarding the kingdom of God is specifically about the church, it would seem that there is a difference between the attitude Christians take regarding the role of the church in the world, and the attitude we might rightly take in participating in violence in civil matters. I think this is a much better way to understand the instances in the New Testament in which Roman soldiers come to belief in Christ, yet no mention is made of their abandonment of their posts. Even the NT reveals a paradox on the issue--perhaps reality in theology lies somewhere between the poles of conservative zionist warhawk and pacifism?

It seems to me that the church's role is a counter-cultural phenomenon--but one which operates within culture. New Testament teaching is not polar, it is paradoxical. Our job is to discover the proper balance.

I welcome responses from some of my friends on this issue!