Bonhoeffer On: Peace and War

What do we do when there are no 'clean' options?

I was a junior in high school on September 11, 2001. I was 16 years old, and I honestly had no idea what was going on when it all happened. I followed politics pretty closely for a teenager, but I couldn’t tell you much about the World Trade Center or Jihadist terrorism or any number of things that would come to dominate the headlines in the early years of my adulthood. I probably thought a lot more about my sweet 1991 4-cylinder Ford Mustang or the girls I wasn’t dating than I did about the difference between various Christian positions on the ethics of war and peace. Things like war and peace, right and wrong, bad guys and good guys seemed more simple back then. That all changed pretty quickly, as I dove more and more into the study of history, politics, theology, and eventually, Christian ethics. Now, as we witness yet another President try to bring the “forever war” in Afghanistan to some kind of conclusion, with all the complications involved and lives at stake, I’m reminded of how much more complex things have become, at least in my own mind, over the past two decades.

As the years went on, I encountered more and more Christians who identified as pacifists, and knew many who subscribed to Just War Theory, and many more who didn’t see the problem with defending your nation from military aggression in the first place. In my twenties and into my thirties, I attended 4 institutions of higher learning, including 3 seminaries, and the perspectives on war and pacifism were no less diverse in those settings, although perhaps slightly more thought out. 

In my ThM and then doctoral study, which centered on Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I realized that there was a kind of academic war over just how much Bonhoeffer affirmed any kind of violence, say, against a tyrant like Adolf Hitler, and how much and what kind of a pacifist he had been. Books have been written on this topic, from multiple angles, and people’s agendas are pretty easy to spot fairly early on if you know what to look for. Some seem to be comfortable twisting or omitting facts, reframing historical correspondence and events, and putting their thumb on on one side of the scale or another, to arrive at the kind of Bonhoeffer that they wanted to find when they picked up a pen to start writing. 

What I wanted in my own study was something like the truth, and in my last year at Boston College, I set out to find at least some small shred of it when it comes to what Bonhoeffer, a famed pacifist who nevertheless seemed to have affirmed the attempted coup against Hitler, actually wrote and did. This is an adaptation from a section of my exploration of Bonhoeffer’s evolution on these crucial human concerns of peace, war, tyranny, and violence:

Resistance

In the introduction to the English translation of Bonhoeffer’s Ethics, the editor, Clifford J. Green, begins like this: “The Ethics is Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s magnum opus. Although the work is incomplete and was published posthumously, it is nevertheless the rich result of mature reflection during a decade of Christian resistance to National Socialism.” It is here that we will find Bonhoeffer’s ultimate position on violence and war articulated. It is a series of careful theological reflections on Christian ethics during concrete times of war and peace. It is in Ethics that we also find his rationale for participating in an attempt to violently overthrow the government of Germany under Hitler and the Nazi party. 

The two manuscripts of Ethics that concern my project most directly are “Ethics as Formation” and “History and Good,” in which the section entitled “The Structure of Responsible Life” can be found. In these sections, Bonhoeffer addresses Tyrannicide, the ethically justifiable killing of a tyrant. In “Ethics as Formation” Bonhoeffer delivers powerful critiques of six approaches to ethics in times of war and great evil; these include reason, principle, conscience, duty, absolute freedom, and private virtue. I don’t have space for a detailed description of each critique, but we can say that Bonhoeffer finds practical limitations within each approach and critiques all of them as “convictions of a noble humanity…not sufficient for the present struggle.” He had personally seen all of these approaches fail under the strain of the historical realities brought about by German National Socialism, and he knew them to be “rusty weapons” not up to the task of defeating so great an evil. Bonhoeffer’s own prescription for endurance is the combination of “simplicity with wisdom.” What does he mean by this? He means the person who 

keeps in sight only the single truth of God…Because of knowing and having God, this person clings to the commandments, the judgment, and the mercy of God that proceed anew each day...Not fettered by principles but bound by love for God, this person is liberated from the problems and conflicts of ethical decision, and is…free and unconstrained, to see the reality of the world. Thus simplicity becomes wisdom…Wise people know…that reality is not built on principles, but rests on the living, creating God.

Bonhoeffer goes on to argue that the only place where one can look to see both God and the reality of the world is “Jesus Christ, the reconciler of the world.” This is why the commands of Jesus Christ are so powerful, because they are the only meeting place of God and concrete humanity. The only way a Christian can navigate such difficult ethical decisions as Bonhoeffer was faced with is to look to Jesus and his words, to seek the face of God, every new day. No principle can answer these questions for Bonhoeffer at this point. Only Jesus can provide the answer, because Jesus has become the human being. When the “tyrannical despiser of humanity” (an almost obvious reference to Hitler) comes to utilize the “base” and “mean” characteristics of humanity, he “despises the very form of God become human.” What is the Christian to do in the face of this? The Christian must say “yes” to life and “no” to death. She must be conformed to the image of Jesus, the “one who became human, was crucified, and is risen.” (Italics original) The Christian must not be concerned with principles, universal laws, systems, or abstract ethics. He must be concerned with real people, in concrete situations, here and now, in light of the reality of Jesus Christ.  

In the section of “History and Good” entitled “The Structure of Responsible Life,” Bonhoeffer addresses the use of violence (particularly Tyrannicide) quite concretely. He starts the first version of “History and Good” by summarizing how he has “abandoned the abstract notion, largely dominant in ethical thought, of an isolated individual who has available an absolute criterion by which to choose continually and exclusively between a clearly recognized good and a clearly recognized evil.” For Bonhoeffer, this scenario in which “a static basic formula” can be utilized does not exist. Once again it is Jesus who provides the solution. Because Jesus, not a principle, acted in “vicarious representative responsibility,” out of love for real human beings, within history, we are called to do likewise. The Sermon on the Mount is just such a call. We are not isolated individuals; we are persons in community who are called to love others through responsible action. When God’s becoming human in love is understood, political action and power can be exercised in responsibility

The second version of “History and Good” is my final major primary source in the establishment of Bonhoeffer’s “mature” ethical stance toward violence and pacifism. He obviously thought these themes important enough to merit a second version. He speaks again of “responsibility” as “lived in answer to the life of Jesus Christ…as opposed to…considerations of usefulness, or with reference to certain principles.” Responsibility here means risking one’s life, “aware that one’s activity is a matter of life and death.” This means answering for Jesus Christ before human beings, and answering for humans beings before Christ.  

“The Structure of Responsible Life” involves our relationship with God, human beings, and the freedom of our own life. Again, this involves “vicarious representative action” and “accordance with reality” lived in out in freedom which involves “accountability” and the “venture” of concrete decision. What this means is that when we are called to act on behalf of others (like a father for his child), like Jesus did, we do not choose a non-existent “absolute good,” but we deny ourselves in “choosing something relatively better over something relatively worse.” We are limited, our situation is limited, and our ethical decisions take place from within situations over which we have little or no control. We must also realize that our neighbor also has a limited responsibility as well. 

In this context Bonhoeffer addresses matters of politics and statecraft. He says that there are times when laws (natural, human, other) clash with the basic necessities of human life. There are instances, extraordinary situations, when a person must confront the “ultima ratio” or “last resort.” In politics, the ultima ratio is war, and it is beyond reason; it is not rational. It is a borderline case and must not be made the norm. This option must be taken apart from any law, in freedom, and it must be realized that the commandment is being violated “out of dire necessity, thereby affirming the very legitimacy of the law in the very act of violating it.” In doing this a person is submitting to judgment by God and trusting in grace and forgiveness. It is unspoken here, but Bonhoeffer has established the situation in which he took part in the conspiracy against Hitler. In freedom, taking responsibility for others, knowing that the law was being broken and resting in faith on God’s grace and forgiveness, Bonhoeffer followed Jesus as best he could, responding to the concrete realities of human life in the love of vicarious action. Bonhoeffer knew what he was taking upon himself, and risked the venture, being willing to take upon himself the cost of discipleship. That was his ultimate peace ethic.  

Summary   

….

In Discipleship, Bonhoeffer talks about arriving at a conclusion only after taking the appropriate measures or journey to get there: In other words, finding an answer after attempting a solution, rather than simply looking up the answer in the back of the book. He speaks of learning this way, and he also speaks of grace and obedience this way. There are no short cuts here. I would like to use that as my interpretive key to Bonhoeffer’s “mature” stance on violence and peace. He started his journey with a “conventional” (German) ethic which demanded little of him, but was challenged through life experiences and personal growth to convert to a form of pacifism which was more congruent to his understanding of the Christian life. His journey did not end there; he found himself inexorably drawn into situations which challenged his pacifist paradigm to the breaking point. In the end, he held on to a very robust form of pacifism as a way of life, but made a way for responsible action in the light of Jesus Christ on the behalf of others.

Bonhoeffer’s pacifism was never one of simple principles or universal norms, but it became more and more concrete, almost alive, as his thought and actions played out in the most “borderline” of situations. I am therefore not arguing that he rejected or moved away from pacifism, but that he rightly relegated any pacifism not grounded in concrete life and actual realities to a category not fit for a Christian to build upon. The center of a stance on violence and pacifism must not be principles, or pragmatism, but Jesus Christ. Only when someone is living out a daily relationship with Christ can they be vicariously responsible for others in the way Jesus was. In that context, there are times when the rule must be broken in accordance with the “ultima ratio” of the necessities of the human condition.  

Application to a Contemporary Context

What can we take away from a study like this? What from Bonhoeffer’s insights can be appropriated for Christians in the here and now? I believe there is much to be taken, but I will limit myself in this space to three lessons.

First, a Christian must take the commands and call of Jesus Christ very seriously. To be a Christian should mean to be a follower or disciple of Jesus, and we theologians would do well to avoid brushing away difficult commands with too much intellectual ease. When Jesus tells us to love our enemy, or not to resist evil, we should try simple obedience before a paradoxical, dialectic, or complex interpretation.

Secondly, we should recognize that being a Christian does not mean allegiance to a universal principle, or law, or ethical rubric, but to the person of Jesus Christ. Because of who Jesus Christ is and what he has done, we can follow his example in valuing other human beings over abstractions or rules which may at times fail to address the concrete situations in which we find ourselves. Jesus lived and died to love people, and he calls us to do the same.

Lastly, we should seek to live a journey that eschews short-cuts; we should be willing to evolve, to seek a more difficult and concrete truth than we currently embody. If we stay face-to-face with God and seek simplicity and wisdom, we can have faith that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. If we arrive at any kind of violence, may it only be on the other side of a demanding peace ethic which is rooted in the concrete reality of Jesus Christ.

I would add to these reflections, made almost a decade ago, that for Bonhoeffer, Christian ethics, like Christian theology and practice, are and should be undertaken on the basis of grace and faith. We can risk real, difficult, sometimes ambiguous actions only because we believe that we are already imperfect people, living in a sinful and imperfect world, and we believe in faith that we have been forgiven, given grace, and that truth allows us to let go of ideas of literal perfection and getting everything absolutely right. 

Sometimes there is no absolutely right, pure, or good option available to us. Nazi Germany was one of those places and times that offered no perfect solutions to awful and often deadly problems. Sometimes, in following Jesus, we risk guilt on the basis of faith and grace, because absolute purity is already off the table. No one has clean hands. Sometimes a committed pacifist affirms the attempted assassination of a deadly tyrant. Sometimes, no matter what a President does, say, by ending a war or by continuing to fight it, there are no right choices, only ones that seem to maybe, just maybe, be better than others by a small degree. Turns out not everything is as simple as it seems when you’re 17 years old, cruising around in your 4-cylinder mustang, thinking about all the girls you aren’t dating.