I was horrified in my Metaphysical Theology class when our esteemed professor, a man of great learning and intellect, trotted out the theology of one Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a theologian in WWII Germany who actively subverted the Third Reich and was even part of the failed assassinations plots against Hitler. My professor is a Vietnam veteran who flew helicopters and served our nation as a Chaplain for decades. From the padded seat of my bourgeois office I can only imagine the things he may have seen- like Bonhoeffer- and the impact those observations made on these men. For Bonhoeffer at least, violence toward Hitler- and ultimately his own death at the orders of Hitler- became the “cost of discipleship” in a country where Christians tacitly acquiesced to the horrors of the Holocaust.
I
found myself repulsed by the professor’s idea that Bonhoeffer’ s ideology could
be equated with the non-violence of Gandhi.
I found it took all my legal training to be able to hold those
paradoxical views in mind at the same time.
I felt intuitively that one residing in Christ consciousness would not
kill another divine being. Can we
imagine Jesus or Buddha advocating Hitler’s death? In what circumstances is “holy murder” acceptable? In class I proffered the holy violence
examples of Anders Breivik, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the KKK as
historically rejected philosophies of violence as a means to an end. To this I would add the murders of abortion doctors, Hammurabi’s Code, Timothy McVeigh and extremist fundamentalist Muslim
terror groups- all who advocate violence as a viable means to their respective
ends. I do not subscribe to these
positions.
Professor
Shepherd asks “Should Christians concern themselves with making this world a
better place or concentrate on spiritual pursuits?” as if the two practices are
separate. My answer is- both. But, the world is not made a better place by
sinking to the level of murder. Where does one draw the line? Is the legal status of abortion in America a "genocide" such as Hitler perpetrated that authorizes the use of deadly force? The slippery slopes abound. To paraphrase a cliched license plate: Who would the Christ kill?
4 comments:
I hear your passion and conviction loud and clear- it comes across in such an intellectual verse and also sounds like a challenge for debate to the reader. Good! It is likely my own style of writing which has influenced my commentary. It is clear, strong and so well written. It comes across as a "ready to play?" let's go! Thank you for sharing your words, your passion and engaging thoughts.
And yet in class you stated you would defend what is yours and that was where you would draw the line. It seems to me that Bonhoeffer's position is the same as yours the difference being whom he choose to include in his circle. From my position his appears to be more inclusive.
For the record the bumper stickers on my vehicle are as follows: "When Jesus said love your enemy he probably meant don't kill them" and the second one says,"Seek Peace and Pursue It."
So I am not necessarily advocating Bonhoeffer's position yet I can see clearly how he could arrive at his conclusions.
Also it is to be noted that Jesus' example of "pacifism" is demonstrated in a situation that only involved harm to his own person. According to what is purported in the Christian bible, Jesus reacted with anger when people were being taken advantage of by money changers so I could theorize that his reaction to a systematic persecution and annihilation of masses may not have been as peaceful as some would like to think.
Two thoughts, just to stir up a little more cognitive dissonance...
The first is epistemological: What makes Yeshua ben Joseph, a first century Jewish rabbi, a source of ethical authority for twenty-first century people? If he could be contacted, would his opinion carry more weight than other sages of antiquity? Are you conflating the historical Jesus of Nazareth--a unique individual with assorted religious opinions and cultural biases--and the Indwelling Christ, which most Unity people think everyone obtained ontologically from the One Presence/One Power?
The second is content-driven: Did Jesus speak words of pacifism, or pragmatism? His nation was under Roman domination, and the Senate and people of Rome had no sense of humor about insurrectionists, as the disastrous Jewish Wars of the first and second century would show. Did Jesus tell the Centurion to abandon his profession of arms after praising the Roman soldier's faith as greater than all he had found in Israel? Speaking of violence, did the historic Jesus describe a future of universal love, or a horrific fate for those who were outside the Kingdom of God at the Day of Judgment? Biblical proof-texting is always fraught with peril. You don't get to pet the lambs and ignore the lions.
Finally, if the "just war" theory doesn't work for you--if there are no circumstances in which you would respond with violence even in defense of the innocent--then you have a valid contribution to make in the conversation about Bonhoeffer's choice.
I share your passion for ideas, but I always have to guard myself from the tendency to drift from dialogue to diatribe.
Post a Comment