# Was Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrong to try to kill Hitler?



## Pergamum (Jan 30, 2012)

Was Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrong to plot against Hitler's life? - Desiring God

I don't think he was; but what do you think?


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 30, 2012)

One of his Christian contemporaries, Helmuth James Graf von Moltke, had been opposed to efforts to kill Hitler for conscience reasons and out of concern for making him a martyr. And considering that they really needed to also eliminate Himmler, Goebbels, and Bohrmann to actually succeed in such an endeavor (and that each of them would have been worse than Hitler), it is understandable why he wouldn't see the point in killing the top of a vicious system with even nastier people in the wings.

On the other hand, the July 20 plot (and most of the 20+ other plots) was conducted not by private citizens but members of the military and military intelligence, so it's not entirely accurate to say it was private action. Can a lesser magistrate legitimately plot to assassinate a greater one when the rule of law has been vanquished, or is that inherently illegitimate? 

It also brings up questions of specific targeting like that. When rifles were introduced into warfare, there was a great deal of ethical and moral concern over the fact that specific shooter A could accurately, from range, target person B and pick a target rather than simply letting shots go where they may. We'd probably find those scruples a bit strange, but such was gentlemanly warfare in at least a more Christian-influenced society than today. And I don't think anyone would have any question that an Allied soldier would be justified in targeting Hitler if he were to command from the battlefield. When the battlefield is politics, propaganda, and power, rather than guns and tanks, how much should that change a lesser magistrate's willingness to remove a wicked ruler?


----------



## Loopie (Jan 30, 2012)

Scott makes several excellent points, and I would say that those who plotted to kill Hitler (in general) were not acting as private citizens, but worked together as a group (and as representatives of the resistance). Still, it was a difficult situation for those living in Germany. Not only had those in the military taken an oath to Hitler himself, but many of his generals would have felt that it would be better to win the war and THEN deal with Hitler rather than trying to deal with Hitler and end up dividing Germany to the point that it was defeated anyways. It also did not help that the Allies (particularly Roosevelt) refused to demand anything less than unconditional surrender (regardless of who ruled Germany). This did not provide much of an incentive on the part of anyone hoping to remove Hitler while trying to save Germany.


----------



## jogri17 (Jan 31, 2012)

Yes he was wrong. Romans 13. Simple as that. Given the atroscities the Romans were guilty of, you would think Jesus or Paul would have thought some sort of agressive defense would be acceptable. But no, Christianity spread because they were good citizens as much as possible within their realm of theological convictions. The earliest apolegists pointed to the fact that Christians were desirious citizens. Jesus said ''My kingdom is not of this world''. Pastors represent that kingdom. Bonhoeffer betrayed his ordination vows and was justly executed, though by an unjust and immoral system. The military, on the other hand, would have had the right to do so in my opinion. Or other government officials. When you have a state church, things get rather confused, but fundamentally in all of Christianity from Orthodoxy to Catholicism to almost all branches of Protestantism believed in the fundamental spiriutally of the Church.


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 31, 2012)

With Bonhoeffer there is the other factor that he joined the resistance-dominant Abwehr (military intelligence), after being silenced as a pastor, so his role is a little more complicated. But all the same, I think a pastor should clearly resign that calling before moving into the civic realm, whether in Nazi Germany or Revolutionary America.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 31, 2012)

jogri17 said:


> Yes he was wrong. Romans 13. Simple as that. Given the atroscities the Romans were guilty of, you would think Jesus or Paul would have thought some sort of agressive defense would be acceptable. But no, Christianity spread because they were good citizens as much as possible within their realm of theological convictions. The earliest apolegists pointed to the fact that Christians were desirious citizens. Jesus said ''My kingdom is not of this world''. Pastors represent that kingdom. Bonhoeffer betrayed his ordination vows and was justly executed, though by an unjust and immoral system. The military, on the other hand, would have had the right to do so in my opinion. Or other government officials. When you have a state church, things get rather confused, but fundamentally in all of Christianity from Orthodoxy to Catholicism to almost all branches of Protestantism believed in the fundamental spiriutally of the Church.



Wow, that sounds overly harsh and dogmatic.

At what point can pastors then resist the government?


----------



## Andres (Jan 31, 2012)

jogri17 said:


> Yes he was wrong. Romans 13. Simple as that. Given the atroscities the Romans were guilty of, you would think Jesus or Paul would have thought some sort of agressive defense would be acceptable. But no, Christianity spread because they were good citizens as much as possible within their realm of theological convictions.



While my first inclination was to disagree with Joseph, I do think he's correct. If we justify Bonhoeffer's assassination attempt, then what's to say that pastor's (or other Christians) shouldn't take up arms against abortion doctors?


----------



## asc (Jan 31, 2012)

Pergamum said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > At what point can pastors then resist the government?
> ...


----------



## jogri17 (Jan 31, 2012)

Pergamum said:


> Wow, that sounds overly harsh and dogmatic.
> 
> At what point can pastors then resist the government?



Well this is the Puritan board  I am passionate about this issue! And this is an issue of dogma, so I better be dogmatic! 
If you are called to be a pastor, you better be prepared to die for your calling. Now, of course I will make a distinction between house robbery v. oppressive government. And if there are legal means by which you can go about trying to resist, then that is to be encouraged. But if those means no longer become an option then we can rejoice to be suffering as our Lord suffered.

---------- Post added at 02:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 AM ----------




asc said:


> in my opinion, resistance is one thing; assassination is another.


 To take a government to court (within the country or through an international organisation) is legtimate, becuase you are going about it in a legal way that the oppressive governent has conceded, but the Church does not have the sword; they have the keys


----------



## Jeffriesw (Jan 31, 2012)

When does a government go from being a legitimate government to an illegitimate government? Is there a threshold point where it crosses the line?


----------



## jogri17 (Jan 31, 2012)

Jeffriesw said:


> When does a government go from being a legitimate government to an illegitimate government? Is there a threshold point where it crosses the line?


 This question has to be answered from two perspectives: As a citizen and as a Christian. As a Christian, we recognize all government is given by God- either as a blessing or as a curse or as it usually is a mélange of the two. 

As a citizen, that is relative to country, I suppose relatif to founding documents, the acceptance of the government by the culture, etc... and in accordance to natural law. I think the question comes down to is whether or not you believe as the Reformers/ most of the Puritans did that the Civil Magistrate has a natural obligation to support the true religion. This is an area which I disagree with the Confessions and practice of Reformed Orthodoxy as historically practiced and confessed and glad for theological innovation that took place in the 18th century principally in North America in revising the Confessions on this point. But as a Christian I don't think there is every such thing as an illegitmate government, because all the powers from Queen to PM to President to Dog Catcher to Elders to Deacons to principals of schools to teachers to parents; to babysitters, etc.... are ordained by God for his purposes and goals even if we don't like them because we do not know his will.


----------



## mvdm (Jan 31, 2012)

"Tyranny being a work of Satan, is not from God, because sin, either habitual or actual, is not from God: the power that is, must be from God; the magistrate, as magistrate, is good in nature of office, and the intrinsic end of his office, (Rom. xiii. 4) for he is the minister of God for thy good; and, therefore, a power ethical, politic, or moral, to oppress, is not from God, and is not a power, but a licentious deviation of a power; and is no more from God, but from sinful nature and the old serpent, than a license to sin. God in Christ giveth pardons of sin, but the Pope, not God, giveth dispensations to sin." Samuel Rutherford, Lex Rex, p.34


"For earthly princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God, and are unworthy of being reckoned in the number of mankind. We ought rather to spit upon their heads than to obey them whenever they are so stubborn and wish to spoil God of his rights, and, as it were, to seize upon his throne and draw him down from heaven." John Calvin, Lecture 30 on Daniel.


"The powers that be are ordained of God to protect the good and punish the bad (Romans 13), but if they start to persecute the good, they are no longer ordained of God." The Magdeburg Confession


----------



## earl40 (Jan 31, 2012)

mvdm said:


> "Tyranny being a work of Satan, is not from God, because sin, either habitual or actual, is not from God: the power that is, must be from God; the magistrate, as magistrate, is good in nature of office, and the intrinsic end of his office, (Rom. xiii. 4) for he is the minister of God for thy good; and, therefore, a power ethical, politic, or moral, to oppress, is not from God, and is not a power, but a licentious deviation of a power; and is no more from God, but from sinful nature and the old serpent, than a license to sin. God in Christ giveth pardons of sin, but the Pope, not God, giveth dispensations to sin." Samuel Rutherford, Lex Rex, p.34
> 
> 
> "For earthly princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God, and are unworthy of being reckoned in the number of mankind. We ought rather to spit upon their heads than to obey them whenever they are so stubborn and wish to spoil God of his rights, and, as it were, to seize upon his throne and draw him down from heaven." John Calvin, Lecture 30 on Daniel.
> ...




Powerful words from great thinkers.


----------



## Philip (Jan 31, 2012)

Theoretical said:


> But all the same, I think a pastor should clearly resign that calling before moving into the civic realm, whether in Nazi Germany or Revolutionary America.



If he hadn't been a pastor, he would not have been able to move into that role. His calling as a pastor was actually his cover for his espionage activities, which were a cover for his role in the plot to assassinate Hitler. For example, he would attend conferences in Sweden ostensibly to report on things the English attendees said, but actually in order to get messages to British authorities.


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 31, 2012)

Pergamum said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes he was wrong. Romans 13. Simple as that. Given the atroscities the Romans were guilty of, you would think Jesus or Paul would have thought some sort of agressive defense would be acceptable. But no, Christianity spread because they were good citizens as much as possible within their realm of theological convictions. The earliest apolegists pointed to the fact that Christians were desirious citizens. Jesus said ''My kingdom is not of this world''. Pastors represent that kingdom. Bonhoeffer betrayed his ordination vows and was justly executed, though by an unjust and immoral system. The military, on the other hand, would have had the right to do so in my opinion. Or other government officials. When you have a state church, things get rather confused, but fundamentally in all of Christianity from Orthodoxy to Catholicism to almost all branches of Protestantism believed in the fundamental spiriutally of the Church.
> ...



The governments which were in power when the apostles lived (particularly Peter and Paul who specifically addressed the issue) were ruthless and despotic. It was in just this setting that the Holy Spirit inspired those words directing God's people in all ages to submit to the governing authorities. Paul, in context, even calls the Roman emperor "God's deacon" relative to managing the kingdom.


----------



## mvdm (Jan 31, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > jogri17 said:
> ...



But that submission is not absolute.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Jan 31, 2012)

The only thing wrong was that it was obviously not in God's providence that Bonhoeffer should have owned Hitler. On a moral basis, I believe Bonhoeffer should be commended on courage! His attempt to off a mass murderer (and thereby end the murder) is commendable under the Sixth Commandment alone!


----------



## J. Dean (Jan 31, 2012)

Question: does this apply to invading governments? For example, was Ehud wrong to slay Eglon in order to free Israel?


----------



## Jack K (Jan 31, 2012)

Was Elisha wrong to plot against the house of Ahab by having Jehu anointed?

Those circumstances were somewhat different. Mainly the fact that Israel was supposed to be a theocracy. But I believe there's a place for some pastors to speak out against crimes of the magnitude represented by Nazi Germany and then, bravely, put feet to their words.

The situation with Hitler is not completely comparable to abortion in America. In the case of Nazi Germany, there was a declared war going on. War requires you to pick sides and fight, with deadly force if necessary. Bonhoeffer picked a side, the resistance, and fought. Oh, and he wasn't an assassin. He was part of the resistance, which is different from being the actual guy who carried the bomb or whatever.

As for Romans 13, we ought to note that authorities are instituted by God and, therefore, we should be hesitant to plot against them. But was Hitler the legitimate governing authority, or did he seize power improperly? Plus, the Romans 13 passage seems mostly to be addressing those who are trying to get out of paying taxes or hope to get away with questionable conduct the government does not allow. If the ruler in question does not fit the "not a terror to good conduct" (v. 3) description mentioned in the passage, we have to wonder if the passage is meant to apply to that ruler despite the "no authority except from God" line. There's a difference between opposing the government for _your_ benefit, to avoid taxes or something, and opposing it because it is killing others without the authority to do so.


----------



## Fly Caster (Jan 31, 2012)

So, how many who suggest that Romans 13 is the _only_ final word that Scripture has to say on the subject would, upon coming upon a local elected sheriff lining up citizens to gun them down, would stand by --doing nothing to interfere and condemning anyone who did?

The same question could be asked about seeing a father murdering his children-- again, how many would condemn taking him out?

I come to Romans 13 with fear and trembling. It convicts me of sinful attitudes and not a few of my actions. I agree that it's requirements are just and good. But I cannot see that it's requirements trump the requirement to preserve life-- especially against murder.


----------



## Loopie (Jan 31, 2012)

It is always difficult to know where to draw the line. When is a government legitimate or illegitimate? Is legitimacy founded upon popular vote amongst the people? Not necessarily, especially in a Monarchy. Keep in mind that Hitler was appointed Chancellor by legitimate means (Hindenburg appointed him), and then he ended up dissolving the Reichstag. Dissolving the Reichstag was done multiple times during the reign of Bismarck as Chancellor, so it was not something that was without precedent. Also, it is difficult to determine whether a government has the support of the people. If the people live in fear, any 'support' might not necessarily be honest support. Many people 'supported' the Nazis simply out of fear of being put to death.

When it comes to how Christians should deal with tyrannical governments, I honestly recommend reading VINDICIAE, CONTRA TYRANNOS: A DEFENSE OF LIBERTY AGAINST TYRANTS. It was written in the 16th century by a French Protestant, and can be found on the Reformed.org website at: Vidiciae Contra Tyrannos


----------



## Philip (Jan 31, 2012)

Here's a bit of my thought. I conclude from Scripture that during the American Revolution, one who consistently followed Scripture should have been a loyalist. However, I also think that under Nazi Germany, it was completely legitimate for Christians like Stauffenberg, Helmuth von Moltke, and Bonhoeffer to attempt a coup against Hitler.

The Nero example is interesting, though. Nero was persecuting the Church, and Paul tells the Christians at Rome to submit to the governing authorities. I wonder, though, if those Christians in positions in the Imperial court would have been warranted in taking part in the various plots against Nero. I don't know the answer to this one, I'm just thinking out loud.

Bonhoeffer himself felt that while God was calling him personally to take part in the plot against Hitler, that God was not necessarily calling every Christian in Germany to do so. He knew that it was an extra-ordinary calling.


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 31, 2012)

Is Romans 13 really so vague? As Paul wrote to Christians living under the thumb of Rome did his epistle leave them in doubt of their duty under God toward Caesar?

Here is an excerpt from a paper I wrote some years ago on the subject:



> Beginning with his premise that governments derive their power, not from God, but from the consent of the governed, Locke takes the further step to assert that it is right to tell mistreated citizens that “ they are absolved from obedience ... and may oppose the unlawful violence of those who were their magistrates.”
> 
> Yet we read in Romans 13 that “... there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.”These two views are mutually exclusive. Authority to rule is derived either from God or it is derived from man.
> 
> ...


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 31, 2012)

I've actually done a fair bit of study on totalitarian systems, and there's something deeply troubling about them _inherently_ that I think puts them on a different plane than many of the dictatorships and tyrannies of the past.

Two things particularly stand out with them. One is that the entire structure of a totalitarian state is built upon deceit and lies, all the way up to the top, and that they are interwoven into its power structures. Two is that they require innocent blood to be shed in order to preserve the purity of the state and continue as a totalitarian state. For example, the Holocaust is associated with Jews, Poles, Gypsies and various other non-Aryan groups, not due to them being the sole groups targeted but because the Nazi machinery of death hadn't finished with them by the war's end. Himmler had plans for the SS to turn it's attention to _Germans_ with heart and lung conditions in order to further purify the Master Race. In a way it has disturbing parallels to pagan human sacrifice.

Normally this results in perpetual instability or a decline into simple tyranny, but the Kim family in North Korea has managed to build a true monstrosity in the form of a stable totalitarian society by combining totalitarianism, a cult, and absolute monarchy.

There's therefore something inherently wicked about such a system that's not necessarily the case with a dictatorship, monarchy, or republic. How that factors into a Christian response to it is something I'm still not sure of. Another issue is the fact that even defining what following the law (from a Christian perspective) is in one of these societies is a massive challenge. There's always an aspirational governing document (unlike in a brutal monarchy) that talks about rights and privileges, yet the state deliberately and consciously overrides those laws not by abolishing them but by ignoring them.


----------



## Philip (Jan 31, 2012)

Scott, I think you're right on there. I am fairly certain that there was sufficient justification for Germans to resist Nazi rule---particularly since "submitting" usually entailed active support of and collaboration with severe injustice. When the government requires one to send one's children to worship idols (aka: the Hitler Youth) and requires one to contribute money toward the destruction of one's neighbour, that constitutes Biblical grounds, given the command to love our neighbour. Resistance to Nazism was warranted---resistance to Mussolini and Franco was not. There's your distinction.


----------



## Andres (Jan 31, 2012)

Pilgrim Standard said:


> His attempt to off a mass murderer (and thereby end the murder) is commendable under the Sixth Commandment alone!



So do you think it's commendable to shoot abortion doctors?


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 31, 2012)

*Bob*


> He professed to be a Christian and, though there may be evidence to call such a profession into question,



What evidence is there that Cromwell wasn't a true Christian?


Bonhoffer would have been justified to plot to kill Hitler, but it was better in the event that Hitler continued to the end of the war, because he made so many mistakes militarily, and because his ongoing post-mortem reputation, and that of National Socialism may have been better if he had been killed by his enemies in the middle of the war.

---------- Post added at 08:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 PM ----------




Andres said:


> Pilgrim Standard said:
> 
> 
> > His attempt to off a mass murderer (and thereby end the murder) is commendable under the Sixth Commandment alone!
> ...



You have to weigh up the pros and cons. If people took the law into their own hands and did this, America and Great Britain would be in a worse position than they are now, and the witness of the Church would be terribly marred.


----------



## Loopie (Jan 31, 2012)

Going a bit further on this topic, it would be interesting to know how exactly to understand Romans 13 when it says to submit to "governing authorities". The reason I ask is because there is a tier-system in almost ANY form of government. Even in an absolute monarchy, or an Empire, the nation is usually divided up into districts/states/prefects, and each of those sections has their own governing body. This becomes VERY interesting when the governing leaders of a particular section of a nation (such as several prefects) decide to resist the overall authority of the Emperor or Dictator. How does one submit to the governing authorities in this scenario? Which governing authorities? Those directly over you (governors, magistrates) or those who rule indirectly over you (Emperor, King)?

A perfect example is the American Civil War. There is no doubt that both the Confederacy and Union felt that they were in the 'right'. There were devout Christians on both sides, and both sides did not view the situation similarly. So if you were a devout Christian living in Virginia, and the Virginian government (both governor and state legislature) decides to secede from the Union, do you submit to the governing authority directly above you (Virginia) or the overall governing authority (The Federal Government)? Do you resist the Union army that is marching into your city (such as Fredericksburg) and pillaging private property? Do you try to leave the state of Virginia when it attempts to draft you into the military? 

I do not ask these questions just for fun. These are the very questions that our forefathers struggled with. I myself tend to side with the attitudes of Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson, and how they viewed the relationship between state and federal government. It is also important to note that unlike a revolution, which attempts to remove the existing form of government, the American Civil War was an attempt at separation, forming a completely different nation out of an existing nation.

It is by this understanding that I also support the American Revolution. Our forefathers were not attempting to kill King George III, or to change the form of government that existed in England. The goal was to simply separate and form an independent nation, using forms of government that already existed (states already had state governments and legislatures). So when Massachusetts and Virginia go to war against Britain, the DIRECT governing authority over Americans is the state governments that are in place. The INDIRECT governing authority is the British Empire. Which one do you submit to? I would say that an argument could be made that you should submit to the direct governing authority. If this is true, then a Christian COULD be completely consistent with scripture and still be in favor of independence from England. Thoughts?


----------



## Wretch67 (Jan 31, 2012)

Matthew 5:44
King James Version (KJV)
44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;


----------



## earl40 (Jan 31, 2012)

Andres said:


> Pilgrim Standard said:
> 
> 
> > His attempt to off a mass murderer (and thereby end the murder) is commendable under the Sixth Commandment alone!
> ...



A better thing to ask to expel the rhetoric would be "How far would you go to stop your daughter from having an abortion?". Personally I would have no problem at all if the state executed those that performed or had abortions.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Jan 31, 2012)

Andres said:


> Pilgrim Standard said:
> 
> 
> > His attempt to off a mass murderer (and thereby end the murder) is commendable under the Sixth Commandment alone!
> ...


Totally unfair comparison, and deters nill from the commendation of Bonhoffer.

There is a difference between a Single Dictator Head of State who is a mass murderer, and Ten Thousand Abortion Mill Doctors acting independantly with relatively no power. I knew someone would attempt to throw in the abortion mill murderer if I was not more specific.

There was Zero option to utilize the legal system and apointed government in Nazi Germany to stop Hitler. 

Now to make the playing field fair I ask you "if a pharaoh stylized decree to end the life of all male children of Christians" were declared would you support the offing of the dictator with the power to enforce this? with lethal force?

---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:50 PM ----------




Loopie said:


> So if you were a devout Christian living in Virginia, and the Virginian government (both governor and state legislature) decides to secede from the Union, do you submit to the governing authority directly above you (Virginia) or the overall governing authority (The Federal Government)?


You begin with the presupposition that a Federalized Centeralized Government with a Top Down Power was the accepted and intended government structure by calling it the "overall governing authority." 




Loopie said:


> Which one do you submit to?


The one that does not bring arms against me.



Loopie said:


> If this is true, then a Christian COULD be completely consistent with scripture and still be in favor of independence from England.


The Magistrate not only failing to be an exactor of God's Righteousness, but being bold enough to bring arms against, or disarm the people of the land is not to be tolerated, for to tolorate this before it got out of hand would be to sanction and welcome the evils of history on your children. Once the people are disarmed or forced into submission through military might alone, it will take the blood of martyrs and the will of God to bring courage enough to the people that they may then reclaim their liberty.


----------



## Philip (Jan 31, 2012)

Loopie said:


> A perfect example is the American Civil War. There is no doubt that both the Confederacy and Union felt that they were in the 'right'. There were devout Christians on both sides, and both sides did not view the situation similarly. So if you were a devout Christian living in Virginia, and the Virginian government (both governor and state legislature) decides to secede from the Union, do you submit to the governing authority directly above you (Virginia) or the overall governing authority (The Federal Government)?



The issue here is one of constitutional law and a disagreement over its interpretation, so it depends on whether one considered the states to have the right of secession. Personally, I think that the states did have that right, but were wrong to exercize it (chattel slavery is unjust and should have been abolished long before then).



Loopie said:


> It is by this understanding that I also support the American Revolution.



The colonial governments had no legal right to secede from the British Empire, and the rationale for doing so was not sufficient to warrant nullifying that law.

---------- Post added at 04:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:08 PM ----------




Pilgrim Standard said:


> The Magistrate not only failing to be an exactor of God's Righteousness, but being bold enough to bring arms against, or disarm the people of the land is not to be tolerated, for to tolorate this before it got out of hand would be to sanction and welcome the evils of history on your children. Once the people are disarmed or forced into submission through military might alone, it will take the blood of martyrs and the will of God to bring courage enough to the people that they may then reclaim their liberty.



Civil liberties are not sufficient warrant for armed rebellion---they are at most warrant for civil disobedience.


----------



## J. Dean (Jan 31, 2012)

Jack K said:


> Was Elisha wrong to plot against the house of Ahab by having Jehu anointed?


Yes, but Ehud was left-handed 

Seriously, though, it begs a question: did Hitler's position lead to (or would it have led to) a coercion for believers to disobey God? Romans 13 does have a limit, as we are expected to disregard government ordinances which violate Scripture.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 31, 2012)

Philip:

It's historically debatable whether states had a presumed right of secession. This is quite a complex issue, particularly given all the aspects involved. I do agree with your clearer statement: chattel slavery was wrong, and even if there was a right of secession, it was wrongly exercised in 1861. And, to any others who may demur that the issue was states' rights--that would not have been the issue that it was apart from the institution of slavery. 

I would also maintain that your dismissal of the colonists' quest for independence is facile. This is a rather complex situation, the legal issues not being so clear cut, and falling, arguably, within the parameters of historic Reformed "resistance theory." 

I have found, over the course of many years of study, that both the American War for Independence and the U.S. Civil War present a plethora of thorny problems to which a few comments will not do justice.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Philip (Jan 31, 2012)

Joshua said:


> We should never use unlawful means to redress grievances.



Can you expound on what constitutes unlawful means?


----------



## moral necessity (Jan 31, 2012)

mvdm said:


> "Tyranny being a work of Satan, is not from God, because sin, either habitual or actual, is not from God: the power that is, must be from God; the magistrate, as magistrate, is good in nature of office, and the intrinsic end of his office, (Rom. xiii. 4) for he is the minister of God for thy good; and, therefore, a power ethical, politic, or moral, to oppress, is not from God, and is not a power, but a licentious deviation of a power; and is no more from God, but from sinful nature and the old serpent, than a license to sin. God in Christ giveth pardons of sin, but the Pope, not God, giveth dispensations to sin." Samuel Rutherford, Lex Rex, p.34
> 
> 
> "For earthly princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God, and are unworthy of being reckoned in the number of mankind. We ought rather to spit upon their heads than to obey them whenever they are so stubborn and wish to spoil God of his rights, and, as it were, to seize upon his throne and draw him down from heaven." John Calvin, Lecture 30 on Daniel.
> ...



Good post, Mark!

Blessings!


----------



## Andres (Jan 31, 2012)

earl40 said:


> Personally I would have no problem at all if the state executed those that performed or had abortions.



I wouldn't either, just as I don't have a problem with the state executing convicted murderers. The question then becomes whom does the responsibility of carrying out the execution fall upon - the state or individual Christians? This also seems to be the heart of the Bonhoeffer question, however in his case many are arguing the individual Christian is justified in executing a mass murderer. It seems like a double standard to me, unless they'd argue Christians should be shooting abortion doctors.


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 31, 2012)

Loopie said:


> Going a bit further on this topic, it would be interesting to know how exactly to understand Romans 13 when it says to submit to "governing authorities".






Loopie said:


> A perfect example is the American Civil War. There is no doubt that both the Confederacy and Union felt that they were in the 'right'.






Loopie said:


> So if you were a devout Christian living in Virginia, and the Virginian government (both governor and state legislature) decides to secede from the Union, do you submit to the governing authority directly above you (Virginia) or the overall governing authority (The Federal Government)?



Robert E. Lee was a devout Christian, a godly man and an outstanding soldier. He was adamantly opposed to secession at first and only consented reluctantly later. His belief was that the Governor of Virginia was the highest authority to which he was answerable according to the principle of Federalism. In this I have much sympathy with him.

But Lee also firmly believed that Virginia entered the Union conditionally, preserving to itself the right to leave the new nation if necessary. Like many other Virginians he had always heard that in the Virginia Constitution Ratifying Convention Virginia voted for ratification with the condition that it could withdraw from the Union later. On this point he was mistaken at to the facts.
Operating, as he was, from mistaken information Lee understandably reported to his Governor taking up arms against, what he saw as an unconstitutional intrusion from the federal government.
A misconception persists relative to the terms upon which the several states entered into union under The Constitution of the United States of America. This misunderstanding dates back at least to the early 1830’s in which some in South Carolina were clamoring for secession from the union. During these debates much was made of Virginia’s supposed conditional ratification of the Constitution in 1788. Although a mere quarter of a century had passed and there would have been those still living who remembered Virginia’s debate over ratifying the Constitution, the collective memories of this older generation were flawed. Perhaps Patrick Henry’s thunderous opposition to ratification and his subsequent proposal of a conditional ratification lingered in their recollection *while his defeat on both counts* had faded.
These rumblings in South Carolina drew the attention of the aged James Madison. Keeping up on the events by way of the South Carolina papers, the father of the Constitution was deeply troubled over the “headlong course” being taken by that state. In letters written in 1833 he points out the unconstitutionality of secession saying,

“The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U.S. shall be supreme over the Constitution & laws of the several States; supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier without a sword in it.”

Despite the historical verity that *no state entered the union upon a condition reserving to itself the option of withdrawal*, the myth persisted that such was the case in Virginia. During the fracture of the Union leading up to the Civil War, the leading men of Virginia took as axiomatic their state’s “conditional” ratification of the Constitution. Consider the following comments of R. L. Dabney, a southern Presbyterian theologian who served under General “Stonewall” Jackson,

“Yet, more, Virginia cannot be condemned, because, in the ordinance of 1788, in which she first accepted this Constitution, she expressly reserved to herself the right to sever its bonds, whenever she judged they were used injuriously to her covenanted rights. It was on this condition she was received into the family of States, and her reception on this condition was a concession of it by her partners. From that condition she has never for one hour receded. (Witness the spirit of the Resolutions of 1798, 1799) And now, shall she be called a covenant-breaker because she judges that the time has come to exercise her right expressly reserved? Nay, verily.” 

As we have already seen, *Patrick Henry’s efforts at a conditional ratification were voted down in the Virginia Ratification assembly*. The “Resolutions of 1798, 1799” which Dabney offers as corroborative evidence is equally faulty. 
In the following letter dated January 23, 1861, Robert E. Lee said,

“The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North, as you say. I feel the aggression, and am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions. and would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. *Secession is nothing but revolution*. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for "perpetual union," so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession.”
Life & Letters of General Robert Edward Lee, by Dr. J.W.Jones, pp.120-121


----------



## Loopie (Jan 31, 2012)

Pilgrim Standard said:


> You begin with the presupposition that a Federalized Centeralized Government with a Top Down Power was the accepted and intended government structure by calling it the "overall governing authority."



I think my presupposition is warranted. I would argue that the federal government had authority over individual states in specific areas (foreign policy as an example). I think that the federal government was 'greater' than any one particular state, but that the federal government was 'lesser' than the states in general, or as a whole. I do not think that 'top down power' is the best way to describe the entire system. It was top down power in SOME areas, such as foreign affairs. Ultimately I would agree that the final authority (as I understand the constitution) is in the hands of the states (plural), not in the hands of just one state.



Pilgrim Standard said:


> The one that does not bring arms against me.



I agree with you in a sense that the side that is morally right should not be the aggressor. Violence is but a last resort (self-defense).

---------- Post added at 03:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:44 PM ----------




P. F. Pugh said:


> The issue here is one of constitutional law and a disagreement over its interpretation, so it depends on whether one considered the states to have the right of secession. Personally, I think that the states did have that right, but were wrong to exercize it (chattel slavery is unjust and should have been abolished long before then).



I agree that the states did have the right of secession. I do agree that they perhaps exercised it for the wrong reasons (some of them). 



P. F. Pugh said:


> The colonial governments had no legal right to secede from the British Empire, and the rationale for doing so was not sufficient to warrant nullifying that law.



I must disagree with you here. Who decides whether there was a legal right or not? Obviously the British did not think that the Americans had the right to secede. Of course, the Union did not think the Confederacy had the right to secede. When do a group of people have a right to secede or not?

---------- Post added at 04:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------




rbcbob said:


> Robert E. Lee was a devout Christian, a godly man and an outstanding soldier. He was adamantly opposed to secession at first and only consented reluctantly later. His belief was that the Governor of Virginia was the highest authority to which he was answerable according to the principle of Federalism. In this I have much sympathy with him.



Yet no one forced him to become the commander of the army of Northern Virginia (he could have just stayed out of it). No one forced him to invade the Union States TWICE. In fact, during the last days of the Army of Northern Virginia, Lee had every intention of fighting a guerilla style warfare in the Appalachian mountains. Everything of course changed when Grant cut him off from escape. I agree that he found secession to be the worst possible result, but I would say that he probably felt that it was the ONLY possible solution given the attitude of the Federal Government. 



rbcbob said:


> “The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U.S. shall be supreme over the Constitution & laws of the several States; supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier without a sword in it.”



Yet this does not mean that the right to secede does not exist. Obviously the U.S. Constitution and laws that concern the nation has a whole will 'trump' the laws of individual states. One could easily argue that the right to secede is not dependant upon a piece of paper declaring it to be so. Just like the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be considered God-given rights, not rights that only exist if the U.S. Constitution says they exist.



rbcbob said:


> In the following letter dated January 23, 1861, Robert E. Lee said,
> 
> “The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North, as you say. I feel the aggression, and am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions. and would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. *Secession is nothing but revolution*. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for "perpetual union," so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession.”
> Life & Letters of General Robert Edward Lee, by Dr. J.W.Jones, pp.120-121



I do not doubt that Lee felt that secession is nothing but revolution. But then again, I do not think he would say that ALL revolutions are inherently morally wrong. The assumption here is that revolution is always wrong, no matter the situation. I do not think that Lee held to such an extreme position. Keep in mind that the purpose of Lee's letter was to calm down those southerners who were clamoring for secession. Perhaps he felt that they had no good reason for doing so. Also keep in mind that this letter was written BEFORE Lincoln called for volunteers to 'invade' the southern states. So again, a person's opinion can change based on changing circumstances. The Consitution was certainly intended for a more perfect union, but it would be fantasy to think that somehow the U.S. Federal Government was so much different from all other central governments in history that it was immune to corruption and tyranny. 

With regards to secession, I would consider the example of the Hartford Convention, where Federalists from New England very much considered the option of secession. Secession was discussed in the United States prior to the Civil War, and an argument can be made that secession was always viewed as a right by the states.

Now as for the United States, I do not think any of the original 13 colonies entered the Union with the understanding that they could never again leave. Even though the states did not explicitly declare that they retained the right of secession, I would argue that they perhaps did not feel it needed to be explicitly stated. They had just finished seceding from the British Empire, and they already understood the fact that governments can become corrupt over time. I do not think they would have believed that the new Federal government was free from future corruption or tyranny.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 31, 2012)

Bob:

What you cite from VA is, of course, some of the evidence that I had in mind in my earlier response in which I noted the debatability of secession (I tend to lean your direction).

It is the case, as you know, that, with respect to the Nullification debates of the late 1820s and earlier 30s, the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798-99 (opposing the Alien and Sedition Acts and involving Jefferson and Madison!) were cited often in defense of state sovereignty. And there were antecedent claims in NE and elsewhere in the War of 1812 and the Mexican War. Calhoun, as the great constitutionalist, kept it alive, ultimately arguing on natural law as well as constitutional grounds. 

Do you disagree with Hodge and Breckinridge in their opposition to the Gardiner Spring Resolution that which government was owed allegiance was a political question? Do you find it to be a manifestly biblical one? I would be quite interested to know, although now I realize I am hijacking Perg's OP. Sorry!

Peace,
Alan


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 31, 2012)

Loopie said:


> Now as for the United States, I do not think any of the original 13 colonies entered the Union with the understanding that they could never again leave.



Eric what makes you think this? Have you read the deliberations in the ratification debates in those colonies? I have and I assure that the issue of conditional ratification was vigorously debated and settled. None of the States entered the Union with the option to secede. How much have you read, in primary sources, of the founding of our country?


----------



## Philip (Jan 31, 2012)

Loopie said:


> Who decides whether there was a legal right or not?



Duly constituted judicial authority.

Actually, I'm skeptical of all talk of "rights" but that's another debate entirely. In English law, secession would have had to be ratified by Parliament and so if the Colonists wanted independence, then they needed to go through legal channels to obtain it. The South, in contrast, was arguing for secession under constitutional law rather than Lockean social-contract nonsense.



Joshua said:


> We can't be pragmatists and do evil that good may come, so, for example: We shouldn't lie, steal, or murder to accomplish just ends.



I would agree depending on how one takes this. I know we have discussed lying to evil authorities before, but to my mind, if one is in a situation of trust where lives are dependent on one's dissembling and not telling truth, then either one lies to the authorities (either explicitly or implicitly by misleading) or else one betrays the trust of those under one's protection. If one finds the latter course to be morally imperative, then one was indeed lying when one received the trust of others in this matter.

At the very least, Joshua, if one with these convictions were to offer me shelter from unlawful oppression, I would be more likely to accept aid from someone with less dangerous scruples.



earl40 said:


> Personally I would have no problem at all if the state executed those that performed or had abortions.



Performed, yes possibly. Had, no---dealing with those who have had abortions is, I think, the task of the Church, not of the state. Leaving mediating institutions out of the picture in this question is a grave mistake.



Loopie said:


> Just like the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be considered God-given rights, not rights that only exist if the U.S. Constitution says they exist.



Eric, these are not rights: these are obligations which all governments have toward their citizens as stewards of power under God. Again, Lockean social-contract theory has no basis in Scripture whatsoever. The Bible does not say "you have a right to life," it says "thou shalt not murder."


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 31, 2012)

Concerning those who say that Pastor Bonhoeffer erred:

I find it odd that most would also not charge German soldiers with sin for supporting a tyrannical ruler by serving in the armed forces. Many of those soldiers (not all, but many) knew the injustices done to the Jews and shared a part in the guilt of those injustices by defending the Nazis.

To fight against injustice seems to be a good thing. The German Resistance was an organized opposition with switched sides in a just war to eliminate an evil dictator. 

It seems terribly inconsistent to say that german soldiers fighting the Allies would be free from sin, but a German Pastor trying to help this same cause of the Allies would be sinning. 

What is one to do if they find themselves on the wrong side in a war? Rather than blindly obey, it seems that switching sides seems the most moral thing to do unless one in good conscience can avoid the conflict altogether.


----------



## moral necessity (Jan 31, 2012)

Sorry if off topic from Bonhoeffer, but wanted to interject this information, because the subject was mentioned.

Here's a few articles to consider, citing the reformation and its role in social-contract theory:

The Reformation and the Calvinist roots of “Social Contract Theory” and the Founding of America « Larry Temple – Cross, Crown, and Covenant

The Reformation Roots of Social Contract | Acton Institute

Blessings and fellowship!


----------



## Loopie (Jan 31, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> Eric what makes you think this? Have you read the deliberations in the ratification debates in those colonies? I have and I assure that the issue of conditional ratification was vigorously debated and settled. None of the States entered the Union with the option to secede. How much have you read, in primary sources, of the founding of our country?



Bob,

I probably have not read nearly as many sources as you have. Yet in all my studies in high school, college, and my master's degree in history, I never once came to understand that it was explicitly said that no state could leave the Union upon entering. I mean, if the issue WAS settled so clearly, then there really should not have been too much of a discussion throughout American history leading up the Civil War. I just don't see how it was so clearly solved at our nation's founding. Also, I would be happy to read any primary sources that you recommend.


----------



## jogri17 (Jan 31, 2012)

Andres said:


> While my first inclination was to disagree with Joseph, I do think he's correct. If we justify Bonhoeffer's assassination attempt, then what's to say that pastor's (or other Christians) shouldn't take up arms against abortion doctors?



Dude, by saying you that, you provided me such a gift of encouragement in my life now. Thank you for saying that (whether I'm right or wrong).


----------



## Loopie (Jan 31, 2012)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Duly constituted judicial authority.
> 
> Actually, I'm skeptical of all talk of "rights" but that's another debate entirely. In English law, secession would have had to be ratified by Parliament and so if the Colonists wanted independence, then they needed to go through legal channels to obtain it. The South, in contrast, was arguing for secession under constitutional law rather than Lockean social-contract nonsense.



I too am skeptical of the concept of rights, especially as they are understood today. I agree that rights are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, although the concept of them is there. Yes we are not supposed to murder or steal, but this also suggests the fact that if someone DOES murder or steal, the community is obligated to either do something about it, or prevent it from happening. In that sense one could be said to have a 'right' to stay alive and own property. 

As for arguing or secession under constitutional law or 'rights', I think a case can be made for both.



P. F. Pugh said:


> Eric, these are not rights: these are obligations which all governments have toward their citizens as stewards of power under God. Again, Lockean social-contract theory has no basis in Scripture whatsoever. The Bible does not say "you have a right to life," it says "thou shalt not murder."



I agree that they are obligations, but when a government does not recognize or adhere to those obligations, what options do the people have? The Bible might not say you have a right to life, but the very concept that murder is to be punished by a judicial system of some kind, and that the community is obligated to PREVENT someone's murder (the good neighbor), one could argue that a person DOES have a 'right' to not have their life taken from them. By 'right' I mean that the community is obligated to protect the object in question of an individual (life, property, etc.). I mean, if I stood by and watched someone get murdered, and if I did absolutely NOTHING about it, I honestly believe I would be committing a sinful act.


----------



## jogri17 (Jan 31, 2012)

mvdm said:


> But that submission is not absolute.


 Where in the Bible do you get that idea?


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 31, 2012)

Returning to Nazi Germany as the main topic:

It appears that Hitler seized power and that, while his seizure of power was tolerated, that such a seizure might not have been the most legitimate.

Also, to stray from the topic, where those that made King John sign the Magna Carta then wrong? 


More broadly: What constitutes one group of resisters as wrong and what constitutes another group of resisters as legitimate? Bonhoeffer worked with the Abwehr (sp?). The Jews had groups which hunted down and killed SS officers, there was a Dutch and A french resistance and individual Frenchmen and Dutchmen resisted even when they could not get into contact with these wider resistance networks. Were they right to do so?

Then, even more broadly, what about slave revolts? Spartacus, Nat Turner? Being sold as property appears to be a greivous offense.


----------



## J. Dean (Jan 31, 2012)

BTW, didn't John Knox advocate rebellion against unjust government?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 31, 2012)

Knox did advocate such, along with Theodore Beza, George Buchanan, Samuel Rutherford, and others of the 16th and 17th centuries. Their arguments, in my opinion, need to engaged and carefully worked through if we are to have a mature understanding biblically, theologically, and historically of one of the most difficult subjects that confronts us in theology--having to do with the relationships of Christians, Church, and State--an area not clearly settled in our Reformed confessions and one which divides men of the same confession(s). Thus, to be handled with great humility and care.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## jogri17 (Jan 31, 2012)

I think we are getting a bit off track. The conversation is about a specific person (bonhoeffer) in a specific historical situation and with the He was not doing this as an individual citizen. He was a theologain in the Church as well as an ordained pastor. 

This is why Bonhoeffer, despite some liberal tendancies, is worth reading, because he was a sort of a pre- German-semi Liberal- Lutheran version of RC Sproul. Because of this action, though hitler clearly deserved to die, his job was to give the Law and the Gospel (sorry for the Lutheran terminology! But I'm trying to struggle with this from his perspective) to the Nazi leadership and to resistance fighters. The Church must always be the 3rd side in any civil conflict, but we always standing for Biblical morality. He had an obligation to teach against Nazism (such as what Karl Barth did to the best of his ability), to preach against it. 

Presuming Bonhoeffer didn't get executed, how could he share the good news of the Gospel with those who partipated with the nazi party and believed in it (all be it wrongly)? He looses the ability to stand behind the Bible as the final authority. He was a remarkable man, patriot, nationalist, ethical, moral, theologically brillant (though wrong often), but at the end of the day he died not as a witness of Christ but as treasonist.

I don't know about yall, but if I have to choose my death between as dying for my country or for Jesus of Nazarath, I pick the second. Now, that is NOT to say that military service is wrong or to die for your country is wrong, but given his status as an ordained minister, you have to pick one or the the other. I'm not denying that there are situations where you can die for both proudly, or that the notion of assisinating Hitler isn't a good. I am not a minister (yet... maybe some day by the Grace of God and the affirmation of the Church). If i was in Nazi Germany, I'd probably be willing to put on a suicide vest and blow my self up to kill him. But this is where the distinction between the Church as assembled with elders as the leadership and the Church dissassembled is so important theologically in working out this. The call to the ministry is a sacred one and is to the entirity of the man, not just as in his role in the church, but also outside (1 timothy 3's qualifications prove this beyond doubt). But to be a member of a church, you just have to have a credible profession of faith! Simple as that.

---------- Post added at 09:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 PM ----------




J. Dean said:


> BTW, didn't John Knox advocate rebellion against unjust government?


 yes and he was wrong I believe, though I believe the government he was against was unjust. But remember Calvin did not agree with him on this point.

---------- Post added at 09:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ----------




Alan D. Strange said:


> Knox did advocate such, along with Theodore Beza, George Buchanan, Samuel Rutherford, and others of the 16th and 17th centuries. Their arguments, in my opinion, need to engaged and carefully worked through if we are to have a mature understanding biblically, theologically, and historically of one of the most difficult subjects that confronts us in theology--having to do with the relationships of Christians, Church, and State--an area not clearly settled in our Reformed confessions and one which divides men of the same confession(s). Thus, to be handled with great humility and care.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan


Totally agree good sir. I think though it is important to make a distinction between the Confessions as they have been used, viewed, confessed throughout history *and * how a church confesses a text today. While on certain issues within the confessions we may allow for disagreements (civil magistrate for example), but the text of the Confession of faith of the OPC and PCA is *not* the same as the Original document, nor the one adopted by the Scotish church (I recall Chad Van Dixhorn mentioning that there is a 1 or 2 word difference in the texts), nor the one of the ARP, or RPCNA, or my own denomination the ERQ. I understand that *some* even the majority of Reformed thinkers may have believed xyz and it had a major influence with confessional documents, but the church has the authority to change that confession by the authority given to her derived through Scriptural alone and after reflexion depart on various points, and still be legtimate in saying they stand within that tradition.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 31, 2012)

Calvin did not agree with Knox on his more popular method of rebellion, but Calvin did support a revolt of the lower magistrates in certain circumstances. 

Mark Larson did a recent Ph.D. under Richard Muller at Calvin and has published his research in _Calvin's Doctrine of the State_. I recommend it for those interested in the subject.

Joseph, I have written a good bit and given conferences on the _animus imponentis_ and the importance of recognizing that the confessions are the churches' confessions of faith. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Philip (Jan 31, 2012)

Loopie said:


> Yes we are not supposed to murder or steal, but this also suggests the fact that if someone DOES murder or steal, the community is obligated to either do something about it, or prevent it from happening. In that sense one could be said to have a 'right' to stay alive and own property.



When we talk about a "right to life," though, we have to start justifying things like just wars and the death penalty. Whereas, if we were to talk about a government's obligations to protect life and to keep its citizens from killing one another, the game changes. Similarly with property: if we talk about a "right to property" rather than the obligation of government to protect property, we run into issues with taxation (which the Scriptures suggest is legitimate) and public works. 



Loopie said:


> I mean, if I stood by and watched someone get murdered, and if I did absolutely NOTHING about it, I honestly believe I would be committing a sinful act.



No question. Similarly, if you see a madman (like Hitler) aiming a gun at a child, you have to obligation to try and stop him if you are able.



Pergamum said:


> Also, to stray from the topic, where those that made King John sign the Magna Carta then wrong?



No---the authority of the king in England was not absolute but depended on the consent of the barons: Magna Carta simply made what had been de Facto the case de Jure. (EDIT): There are a number of complicating factors here including the nature of the feudal system, which worked less on the principle of law than on that of personal loyalty. Magna Carta was actually part of a series of changes that changed this and did away with Feudalism. Oddly enough, the Barons who demanded Magna Carta were demanding the end of their independence. Within seventy-five years, England had a working legal system and a working state independently of the whims of the barons, even with their special privileges.



Pergamum said:


> More broadly: What constitutes one group of resisters as wrong and what constitutes another group of resisters as legitimate? Bonhoeffer worked with the Abwehr (sp?). The Jews had groups which hunted down and killed SS officers, there was a Dutch and A french resistance and individual Frenchmen and Dutchmen resisted even when they could not get into contact with these wider resistance networks. Were they right to do so?



I think that all of these were legitimate. The trouble with talking about the Nazi regime here is that we are talking about something incredibly evil---almost Satanic. And there is no doubt in my mind that fighting it tooth and nail was the right thing no matter who you were. The Nazis had as their goal the corruption of the Church, the death of millions, and the enslavement of millions more. There was no middle ground with Nazism: you were for it or against it, and if you were against it, you were an enemy and had every justification for treating the Nazi government as that of an enemy nation. To stand idly by and do nothing was to collaborate. I am very careful about saying this kind of thing about any idealogy, but the Nazi regime was one of the vilest and most evil attempts at Babel-building in history. And it happened because good men did nothing and thought that they could stay above it, ease their own consciences without doing anything actively to oppose it. 

The Church did nothing: it did not speak truth to power. The few faithful churches in Germany hunkered down with their Barmen declaration, closed their eyes, and hoped that the storm would blow over---and so they failed. Bonhoeffer saw this and urged the Church to do more---and it wouldn't listen. 

This is one of the few historical cases where I think that a full-on revolt would have Biblical warrant. I can think of few others.

---------- Post added at 10:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:57 PM ----------




jogri17 said:


> but at the end of the day he died not as a witness of Christ but as treasonist.



You know, that's the odd thing: that's not how he's remembered. He's remembered as a martyr. His guards and fellow prisoners recalled his witness to them. He felt that plotting to assassinate Hitler was the best way that he could witness to Christ (and he struggled a long time to get to that conclusion---at one time he was a pacifist). In this case, standing for Biblical morality did mean standing against Nazism, standing against Hitler, and doing everything within one's power to bring him down. The more I study what the Nazis did and believed, the more I become convinced that Bonhoeffer was right and that his death was a witness to Christ.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 31, 2012)

Philip;;

I agree.



> To stand idly by and do nothing was to collaborate.



I am reminded of Pastor Martin Niemoller's quote here:




> First they came for the communists,
> and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
> 
> Then they came for the trade unionists,
> ...




---------- Post added at 03:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:07 AM ----------

I believe the German churches sinnned greatly due to passivity as Hitler grew in power. Perhaps the sin of Bonhoeffer (if he sinned at all in his conduct) was not that he acted, but that it took so long for him to act. I believe that most of the population of Germany was culpable to some degree for allowing evil to grow and for not sticking up for the oppressed. Many, many Germans heard the rumors of what was happening in Poland, and to their own infirm "useless eaters" in German hospitals. 

Perhaps American Christians, too, are culpable at present for not opposing abortion more vigorously.


----------



## Loopie (Jan 31, 2012)

P. F. Pugh said:


> When we talk about a "right to life," though, we have to start justifying things like just wars and the death penalty. Whereas, if we were to talk about a government's obligations to protect life and to keep its citizens from killing one another, the game changes. Similarly with property: if we talk about a "right to property" rather than the obligation of government to protect property, we run into issues with taxation (which the Scriptures suggest is legitimate) and public works.



I don't think it is too difficult to justify 'just wars' and the death penalty even if people have the right to life. I would argue that a persons forfeits their right to life when they take the life of another, and I advocate the death penalty for those who commit murder. I agree with you completely that the government is obligated to protect property and life. But it isn't JUST the government that is obligated. I myself as an individual am obligated to protect my neighbor with regard to those very same things (I know that you would agree). I honestly do not mean to separate a person's 'right' from a person's obligation to his or her neighbor. I think the two are linked. I believe that 'rights' are biblical in the sense that God condemns murder and theft, and so therefore a person's life and property has 'value' in a sense. 

In other words, if a person goes to the governing authorities and claims that someone stole their property, that person makes an argument that their 'rights' have been violated. If the government says that an individual's property is not their concern, the person appeals to 'rights' that they have. By the term 'rights' I simply mean that the community SHOULD do something about it. I don't believe that people have the 'right' to own a car. When people claim to have this right, they are essentially declaring that society is obligated to solve the problem by finding a way to provide them with a car. By this definition, a 'right' simply refers to something that concerns the entire community, and that the entire community should seek to protect. The only way we can know what would constitute a legitimate 'right' is to see what God has declared to be a community concern. If scripture presents a situation where one person is obligated to protect something concerning another person, a 'right' could be said to exist for the victim.

I hope that clears my position up a little bit. I definitely see where you are coming from, and I think you make some excellent points concerning 'rights' (as they are viewed today) and 'obligations'.

---------- Post added at 08:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:41 PM ----------




Pergamum said:


> I believe the German churches sinnned greatly due to passivity as Hitler grew in power. Perhaps the sin of Bonhoeffer (if he sinned at all in his conduct) was not that he acted, but that it took so long for him to act. I believe that most of the population of Germany was culpable to some degree for allowing evil to grow and for not sticking up for the oppressed. Many, many Germans heard the rumors of what was happening in Poland, and to their own infirm "useless eaters" in German hospitals.
> 
> Perhaps American Christians, too, are culpable at present for not opposing abortion more vigorously.




It was a very tough situation for the German people, and I honestly don't know what it would be like for myself to live in such a nation. I mean, we Americans cannot fathom what it would be like to live under Nazi Germany, especially when the nation was at war for its survival (especially when your enemies demand unconditional surrender). It is also hard to say how exactly each German is responsible in some way. I mean, many of them probably felt that things got out of hand EXTREMELY quickly. One moment (December 1932), Hitler had not even been appointed Chancellor yet, and the next moment (July 1933), the Nazi Party is the only legal party in the state, and Hitler has near absolute power. Events moved so quickly (and Hitler was so quick to consolidate power) that it would be hard to expect most Germans to immediately rise up against him.


----------



## jogri17 (Jan 31, 2012)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Joseph, I have written a good bit and given conferences on the animus imponentis and the importance of recognizing that the confessions are the churches' confessions of faith.


Wasn't a point of disagreement just on clarification for the sake of the conversation. I think sometimes that we are Reformed folk think sometimes that we think 100% like our Fathers, when in reality there was and still continues to be to this day a true and spiritual diversity within a unitiy.

But I think you would agree Calvin's distinction between ''lower magistrates'' and ''higher'seems to lead to the understanding that There was diversity within the first generation of Reformational theology and it is ok for Churches to change the confessions in light of Scriptura.

---------- Post added at 11:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 PM ----------




P. F. Pugh said:


> The Church did nothing: it did not speak truth to power. The few faithful churches in Germany hunkered down with their Barmen declaration, closed their eyes, and hoped that the storm would blow over---and so they failed. Bonhoeffer saw this and urged the Church to do more---and it wouldn't listen.



I am not convinced by your analysis of history that Nazi germany was qualitively different or quantitatively more evil than other repressive regimes. But even if it was your argument fails in one primary thing:

There is no way to get around Romans 13 without a radical qualification (which can be theologically permitted because the anologia fide) but so far you or anyone else has provided one. If we believe in a Reformed hermeuntic, both Romans 13 and even more immportantly 1 Peter 2:11-17
11 Beloved, I urge you as* aliens and exiles* to abstain from the desires of the flesh that wage war against the soul. 12 Conduct yourselves honorably among the Gentiles, so that, though they malign you as evildoers, they may see your honorable deeds and glorify God when he comes to judge.
13 For the Lord’s sake accept the authority of *every *human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, 14 or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that* by doing right you should silence* the ignorance of the foolish. 16 As servantsf of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil. 17 Honor everyone. Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

As aliens and exiles from the City of God living in the city of man, we have to be willing to suffer. After this exposition, practically speaking, the blessed Apostle Peter goes on to apply this from a general principle for believers to a specific case: ''18 Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. 19 For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. 20 If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps. (1 Pe 2:18–21 )

The massive holocost of 6 million innocent jews, a horribly racist system, a government that brainwashed kids, took private property, used slave labor (work camps), invaded countries without reason, under the authority of 1 man, that amound of horrible evil does not compare to what happened to our Lord Jesus Christ when He died on the cross. That was the most vile act in all of humanity to date. And if he told Peter to put the sword away when the Romans soldier under the authority of pilate under the authority of a 1 man dictator came to arrest him after being betrayed and said ''my kingdom is not of this world'' he told Bonhoeffer through the Scriptures that the murder of his Pilate or emperor or furer was wrong also.

---------- Post added at 11:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 PM ----------




P. F. Pugh said:


> You know, that's the odd thing: that's not how he's remembered. He's remembered as a martyr. His guards and fellow prisoners recalled his witness to them. He felt that plotting to assassinate Hitler was the best way that he could witness to Christ (and he struggled a long time to get to that conclusion---at one time he was a pacifist). In this case, standing for Biblical morality did mean standing against Nazism, standing against Hitler, and doing everything within one's power to bring him down. The more I study what the Nazis did and believed, the more I become convinced that Bonhoeffer was right and that his death was a witness to Christ.


by the liberal apostate churches (Anglican, ECLA, etc...) and the world. But Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. I do not believe Bonhoeffer properly exercised his roll as a minister or as a Christian.


----------



## Webservant (Feb 1, 2012)

Would the answer to this question be different depending on the _type_ of government? In the case of a monarchy, you are born as a subject of the monarch - and I think in that case, it would be illegal and sinful to assassinate said monarch. In the case of Germany, the Weimar Constitution guaranteed certain rights. Since Hitler did abrogate property, privacy, and other rights, then yes, it could be that it was appropriate for Bonhoeffer to attempt an assassination since to do otherwise would be to allow him, through inaction, to continue to act as he did. In the case of the United States, the Federal Government is run pursuant to a contract between it and the States (the Constitution). Power is vested in "We the People" and executed on our behalf by elected officials. The question in our case is, who's breaking the contract - the people for electing dishonest, ungodly men or those who give the electorate what they ask for?


----------



## rbcbob (Feb 1, 2012)

Loopie said:


> I probably have not read nearly as many sources as you have. Yet in all my studies in high school, college, and my master's degree in history, I never once came to understand that it was explicitly said that no state could leave the Union upon entering. I mean, if the issue WAS settled so clearly, then there really should not have been too much of a discussion throughout American history leading up the Civil War. I just don't see how it was so clearly solved at our nation's founding. Also, I would be happy to read any primary sources that you recommend.



*Sending via PM*


----------



## jogri17 (Feb 1, 2012)

Webservant said:


> Would the answer to this question be different depending on the type of government?


 No, for three reasons good sir. First we are adressing a specific person, with a specific calling, in a specific country, in a specific period of time. We are not talking specifically on issues of submission. This is a secondary matter.

Second, Hitler was not a illegtimate government from any perspective. It was an evil one. These things are not contradictory. Based upon the authority of Scripture we can say anything done by xyz government of any type is wrong, but that doesn't negate the fact that by nature government is not the people. People can never logically be self governing. They can give imput to various degrees even in the most liberal of democracies, but there has to be an enforcer and that enforcer is what we call government. And that if it stands to reason that people are by definition not the government (but the government represents the people in the best case of democracy), than no democracy has anyone but themselves to blame for evil actions. For example, any person who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 will be confronted some day by God about the fact that he appointed for Sandra Dea O'Conner who was the swingvote in keeping Roe v. Wade the law of the land when it was up for review by the Supreme Court when there were more pro-life canidates at the time who would have not voted for her. (I love stepping on toes sometimes). 

Finally, I would argue that Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 which I quoted above and call for unconditional submission are rooted in the theology of God's *Sovereignity* seen in Romans 8-9 and 1 Peter 1.1-10. Our submission to whatever govenment and participation in it must in a fundamental way reflect the same notion of sovereignity as we find in the ordo salutis and the historia salutis.


----------



## Miss Marple (Feb 1, 2012)

I am hesitant to enter this conversation as I am way out of my league. But I would like to say that Bonhoeffer is indeed remembered, in the secular as well as the Christian world, as a great hero and faithful Christian, not as a treasonist. Whether all on the board agree with that assessment or not - when people ask scornfully, "Where was the church?" Bonhoeffer and the White Rose society are usually mentioned. I am grateful for their self-sacrificing witness.


----------



## jogri17 (Feb 1, 2012)

Miss Marple said:


> "Where was the church?" Bonhoeffer and the White Rose society are usually mentioned. I am grateful for their self-sacrificing witness.



I understand the sentiment. I really do ma'am. But I would argue that Karl Barth was a better witness than Bonhoeffer for the Church. Barth wrote and preached against the Nazis untill he was forced with the decision of basically death or leaving Germany. He thought leaving Germany would be a better stuardship of his gifts (probably right... there is some good in those dogmatics). 

Ministers ought to be living not for the approval of the world, *nor even the church, or even other Christians!* They are fundamentally called to serve Jesus alone as His undershepherds.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 1, 2012)

Joseph,

I would contest not only your use of the term "treasonist" in reference to those few who were brave enough to stand up for the right, but I would also question your assertion that Hitler legitimately held power, since he declared himself as the sole leader. Just because everyone else is silenced or too afraid to oppose, this silence does not legitimize tyranny.

Also, I strongly oppose your underlined phrase "unconditional submission" in reference to Romans 13, for elsewhere in Acts we see that we ought to obey God rather than man and that the early church were regular law-breakers.


----------



## jogri17 (Feb 1, 2012)

Pergamum said:


> I would contest not only your use of the term "treasonist" in reference to those few who were brave enough to stand up for the right, but I would also question your assertion that Hitler legitimately held power, since he declared himself as the sole leader. Just because everyone else is silenced or too afraid to oppose, this silence does not legitimize tyranny.
> 
> Also, I strongly oppose your underlined phrase "unconditional submission" in reference to Romans 13, for elsewhere in Acts we see that we ought to obey God rather than man and that the early church were regular law-breakers.


1. Karl Barth opposed Hitler just as much as Bonhoeffer, yet one was willing to flee, one was willing to kill. To call Bonhoeffer a Martyr for the Christian faith is the greatest insult to true martyers like Stephen. They stood their ground and were willing to be killed and didn't try to kill the evil. Second the pharisees were not governing authorities. There leadership was bound to the temple given the Roman occupation. 

In any case, Hitler and his party were able to make the case to the general population and they were voted in and they slowly gained legal recognition. The german referendum of 1929 made the nazi power a legtimate party within the system. Hitler eventually became both chancelor and president through a legal act. I'm not saying that he didn't kill those who opposed him, nor that he was just a regular politician, nor anything of the sort. But I would contend in response you have an emotional reading of history and are confusing legality and morality. 
2. That is in the context of opposition to preaching the Gospel. That is the primary purpose of the Church. Bonhoeffer was not killed for preaching Christ but participating in the attempted assisnation of a political leader.

I'm not saying Christians, the Church, and Ministers were not obligated to oppose Hitler. ALL HUMANS IN GERMANY HAD AN OBLIGATION TO OPPPOSE HIM. But this does not mean that we can do anything we want as long as the ends are good or the intentions are good. Ministers are called to preach and teach. The Church is called to spread the Gospel. and Christians are called to be faithful in the world. When you are ordained, yes you are still a Christian, but you are set apart from other Christians in a real sense. By resorting to trying to kill a human being (without a trial by the way), he was acting as God and fundamentally that act was sin. 

I'm not saying that Hitler was a good chap and all. If I was a ordained theologian, I would have probably said ''well, if I must sin, might as well sin boldly'' and suicide bombed him. If I was in that situation, I would have went futher. 

But the question remains, that from the perspective of history was it a righteous act or sinful act and I dont know how you can justify assisination of a political leader inlight of the verses you mentioned or I quoted. WHen did the early church kill someone for sin? NO! we have something more powerful! They should have excommunicated him, (he was baptized catholic I think), and kept him away from the Lord's supper and fellowship and called him to repent. 

This tragic situation shows that without a doubt that this proves how bad the state of the church was and ought to be a lesson for us in remembering the importance of church membership and making sure that only those who can give a creditable profession of faith be accepted as full members. And that cultural christianity is deadly. The sollution to Nazi Germany wasn't bomb nor bullets, but the blood of a guy who was unjustly killed 2,000 years ago in Judea. God gave the just government to a country that merited it. I trust God's sovereignity. He is incharge of the rise and fall over nations.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 1, 2012)

I would assume that, if we must make distinctions, Bonhoeffer was opposing Hitler as a German citizen and not merely as a Lutheran pastor. Thus, his actions need not be limited to preaching and giving the sacraments only, especially in light of his involvement in the abwehr (sp?)...

This paragraph of yours below is so unsatisfying on a variety of levels:


> This tragic situation shows that without a doubt that this proves how bad the state of the church was and ought to be a lesson for us in remembering the importance of church membership and making sure that only those who can give a creditable profession of faith be accepted as full members. And that cultural christianity is deadly. The sollution to Nazi Germany wasn't bomb nor bullets, but the blood of a guy who was unjustly killed 2,000 years ago in Judea. God gave the just government to a country that merited it. I trust God's sovereignity. He is incharge of the rise and fall over nations.



Hitler was not a Christian and a credible church membership does not always safeguard a country against physical threats. The solution to Nazi Germany, once they become militant, WAS bombs and bullets because tyrants do not listen to reason. And while Christ forgives of sin, nations rise and fall all the time regardless of their religious persuasions. Finally, we cannot say that Germany deserved Hitler anymore than America or Canada deserves 10 Hitlers. I trust God's sovereignty also, and know that God ordains means. And passivity in the face of evil is often sin.

---------- Post added at 09:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 AM ----------

Also, Hitler's rise to power was far from clean and just. I am not sure we should argue that his was a legitimate government and therefore, sin to oppose, since he threatened and cheated his way into power often:

Democracy elected Hitler to power

How Hitler Became a Dictator

At the point of the "Enabling Act" in 1933 it appears that some sort of armed resistance might have been just in an effort to overthrow Hitler.


----------



## Theoretical (Feb 1, 2012)

Pergamum said:


> I would assume that, if we must make distinctions, Bonhoeffer was opposing Hitler as a German citizen and not merely as a Lutheran pastor. Thus, his actions need not be limited to preaching and giving the sacraments only, especially in light of his involvement in the abwehr (sp?)...
> 
> This paragraph of yours below is so unsatisfying on a variety of levels:
> 
> ...



One of the most disturbing aspects of the history of the resistance to the Third Reich is the fact that a large segment of the military was ready and willing to take over and oust Hitler if they got foreign support to do it, particularly from England, especially _before WWII_. Unlike in 1944, staging a coup in 1938 would probably have been successful and the military could have tried these Hitler and his top minions. The British response was basically a total lack of interest, and that policy continued throughout the war in terms of helping the German resistance.


----------



## PhilA (Feb 1, 2012)

Theoretical said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > I would assume that, if we must make distinctions, Bonhoeffer was opposing Hitler as a German citizen and not merely as a Lutheran pastor. Thus, his actions need not be limited to preaching and giving the sacraments only, especially in light of his involvement in the abwehr (sp?)...
> ...



There was some support for Hitler in Great Britain (and the USA for that matter) prior to the start of WW2. Hitler was seen as the sole resistance against the Communist threat. It should not be forgotten that the German people, swept up in patriotic nationalism, wanted to see the wrongs of WW1 corrected. They saw in Hitler a leader who could deliver and make their nation great.


----------



## mvdm (Feb 1, 2012)

jogri17 said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> > But that submission is not absolute.
> ...



Joseph, I cited Calvin's exposition of Daniel that our submission to magistrates is not absolute or unconditional. It is impossible to rightly read the book of Daniel as teaching otherwise.

Acts 5:29 clearly provides that same principle that we are to "obey God rather than man". 

Belgic Confession 36 confesses that same Biblical truth that our submission to the magistrate is subject to our higher obedience to the Word of God.

Brother, you really should reconsider the serious implications of your advocating that submission to the magistrate is "unconditional".


----------



## Philip (Feb 1, 2012)

jogri17 said:


> by the liberal apostate churches (Anglican, ECLA, etc...) and the world.



And by the true church.

I must simply point out what I said before: Hitler was one of those rare cases of an empire specifically set up on anti-Christian principles with a goal to destroying the Church from within. Underground church was only possible as part of an attempt to overthrow Hitler---because Nazism and Christianity could not coexist. 



jogri17 said:


> Second, Hitler was not a illegtimate government from any perspective.



Other than that of occupied Europe . . .



jogri17 said:


> Ministers ought to be living not for the approval of the world, nor even the church, or even other Christians! They are fundamentally called to serve Jesus alone as His undershepherds.



That sounds exactly like what Bonhoeffer would have said. That was part of his rationale and he maintained that he had been called to serve God in this unique way.



jogri17 said:


> That is in the context of opposition to preaching the Gospel. That is the primary purpose of the Church. Bonhoeffer was not killed for preaching Christ but participating in the attempted assisnation of a political leader.



And yet in so doing, he witnessed to Christ in an incredibly powerful way. Again, Nazism was a very different animal: the term "Crusade in Europe" to refer to the Allied war of liberation is very apt. Barth, much as I respect him, did not stand up to Hitler enough.

Again, ordinarily I would agree with your reasoning here, but Nazism was not ordinary. To simply treat this evil as a religious matter, to do nothing practical, that was collaboration.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Feb 1, 2012)

Joseph:

Submission to earthly governors--whether in family, state, or church--is never unqualified. This is evident from the kind of things cited by Mark VDM, and others, and is even suggested in Romans 13 itself. The passage is clearly not merely descriptive but prescriptive as well: not every ruler is what the passage here describes (a terror to evil and encourager of the good), which means that Romans 13 is not only teaching us submission but giving a basic description of legitimate rule (it is this to which we submit), whether the ruler is Christian or pagan.

It somewhat amazes me that people rush to remind us that when Paul wrote this Nero was emperor. Paul is laying down a general rule and could not permit a bad emperor (besides, this was early in his reign, around 56, before things got really bad) to negate general principles of government, even as bad elders or bad fathers do not negate the general rules of church and family. Furthermore, even if Paul would be critical of Nero, he would likely do it in a veiled way as did John in the Apocalypse. And, btw, was John failing to submit by saying what he did?

I find it quite surprising that Reformed people are promoting unqualified submission, and so, I believe, would our Reformed forefathers. Please do not link such sentiment to the doctrine of the spirituality of the church. That is not at all its implication and I will be publishing more on this as time goes on. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Feb 1, 2012)

Andres said:


> While my first inclination was to disagree with Joseph, I do think he's correct. If we justify Bonhoeffer's assassination attempt, then what's to say that pastor's (or other Christians) shouldn't take up arms against abortion doctors?



Andres, 
There is a complete difference between a war time Head of State who is a mass murderer and has made his intent known that the murder will continue while he is in power and a few thousand abortion doctors working independently. One is a tyrannical head engaged in a global war.

We use the legal system to stop atrocities by individuals against individuals. But when a head of state usurps his duty to be an exactor of God’s righteousness and instead unjustly declares war on his own people or a group therein the gloves come off. Can you not see the dichotomy between the two?

I urge you to reconsider your logic as its conclusion is nothing more than a sanction of self destructive tyranny.


----------



## PhilA (Feb 1, 2012)

Does anybody know what Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s actual role in the 20th July coup d’état plot was? 

I know that some 7,000 were arrested and just under 5,000 executed. I know he was an agent for ABWEHR. I always thought he was “guilty” by association as a member of ABWEHR (therefore hated by the SS) and his brother-in-law.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Feb 1, 2012)

Per the couple of books I have read, Bonhoeffer was not directly involved, but did have knowledge the coup d'etat was planned. His "role" was to reach out to his evangelical community contacts in the UK to transmit "back channel" information after the various attempts, such as either why they failed, or if successful, peace terms.


----------



## asc (Feb 1, 2012)

WIKI:

Dietrich Bonhoeffer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Double agent of Abwehr

Back in Germany, Bonhoeffer was further harassed by the Nazi authorities as he was forbidden to speak in public and was required to regularly report his activities to the police in 1940. In 1941, he was forbidden to print or to publish. In the meantime, Bonhoeffer – a pastor – joined the Abwehr (a German military intelligence organization) which was also the center of the anti-Hitler resistance. Bonhoeffer presumably knew about various 1943 plots against Hitler through Dohnanyi, who was actively involved in the planning. In the face of Nazi atrocities, the full scale of which Bonhoeffer learned through the Abwehr, he concluded that "the ultimate question for a responsible man to ask is not how he is to extricate himself heroically from the affair, but how the coming generation shall continue to live."[23] He did not justify his action but accepted that he was taking guilt upon himself as he wrote "when a man takes guilt upon himself in responsibility, he imputes his guilt to himself and no one else. He answers for it...Before other men he is justified by dire necessity; before himself he is acquitted by his conscience, but before God he hopes only for grace."[24] (In this connection, it is worthwhile to recall his 1932 sermon, in which he said: “the blood of martyrs might once again be demanded, but this blood, if we really have the courage and loyalty to shed it, will not be innocent, shining like that of the first witnesses for the faith. On our blood lies heavy guilt, the guilt of the unprofitable servant who is cast into outer darkness.”[25])
Under cover of the Abwehr, Bonhoeffer served as a courier for the German resistance movement to reveal its existence and intentions and, through his ecumenical contacts abroad, to secure possible peace terms with the Allies for a post-Hitler government. His visits to Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland were camouflaged as legitimate intelligence activities for the Abwehr. In May 1942, he met Anglican Bishop George Bell of Chichester, a member of the House of Lords and an ally of the Confessing Church, contacted by Bonhoeffer's exiled brother-in-law Leibhol; through him feelers were sent to British foreign minister Anthony Eden. However, the British government ignored these, as it had all other approaches from the German resistance.[26] Dohnanyi and Bonhoeffer were also involved in Abwehr operations to help German Jews escape to Switzerland. It was during this time that Bonhoeffer worked on Ethics and wrote letters to keep up the spirits of his former students. He intended Ethics as his magnum opus, but it remained unfinished when he was arrested.

Arrest

On April 6, 1943, Bonhoeffer and Dohnanyi were arrested not because of their conspiracy but because of long-standing rivalry between SS and Abwehr for intelligence fiefdom. One of the informers of Abwehr, Wilhelm Schmidhuber, was arrested by the Gestapo for involvement in a private currency affair. In the subsequent investigations the Gestapo uncovered Dohnanyi's operation in which 14 Jews were sent to Switzerland ostensibly as Abwehr agents and large sums in foreign currency were paid to them as compensation for confiscated properties. The Gestapo, which had been looking for information to discredit Abwehr, sensed that they had a corruption case against Dohnanyi and searched his office at Abwehr where they discovered notes revealing Bonhoeffer's foreign contacts and other documents related to the anti-Hitler conspiracy. One of them was a note that discussed plans for a journey by Bonhoeffer to Rome, where he would explain to church leaders why the assassination attempts on Hitler in March 1943 had failed.[27] Nevertheless, Bonhoeffer's involvement in assassination plots was not known by the Gestapo as Abwehr succeeded in explaining away the most damaging documents as official coded Military Intelligence materials.[citation needed] Dohnanyi and Bonhoeffer were, however, suspected of subverting Nazi policy toward Jews and misusing Abwehr for inappropriate purposes. Bonhoeffer was suspected of evading military call-up, using Abwehr to circumvent Gestapo injunction against public speaking and staying in Berlin, and using Abwehr to further Confessing Church works, amongst other charges."


----------



## PhilA (Feb 1, 2012)

Bishop George Bell met Bonhoeffer in Sweden in mid 1942 and Bell forwarded the knowledge of the plot together with the names of plot participants to the UK government. Bell sought to draw a distinction between the Nazis regime and the German people. 

It would appear that that the allies had agreed at Casablanca to wage war until unconditional German surrender. The Abwehr’s attempts at peace were as successful as Hess (1941) and Himmler (1944).


----------



## Pilgrim72 (Feb 1, 2012)

No, he wasn't wrong.


----------



## Theoretical (Feb 1, 2012)

PhilA said:


> Theoretical said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



Without question, that was also an important factor as to why there was not more resistance to Hitler. In hindsight, it's a real credit to those like Moltke who saw right through the regime from the start. About the British pro-German sentiment, this is a pretty good book about upper class pro-Hitler sentiment: http://www.amazon.com/Making-Friend...4237/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328127709&sr=8-1

---------- Post added at 02:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:22 PM ----------

Also, here's a tremendous documentary that talks about the various conscience-based resistance movements, including interviews with survivors: 

Amazon.com: The Restless Conscience: Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Hava Kohav Beller: Movies & TV


----------



## jogri17 (Feb 1, 2012)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Nazism was not ordinary





Alan D. Strange said:


> I find it quite surprising that Reformed people are promoting unqualified submission, and so, I believe, would our Reformed forefathers. Please do not link such sentiment to the doctrine of the spirituality of the church. That is not at all its implication and I will be publishing more on this as time goes on.



D.G. Hart is better on the doctrine of the Church than John Calvin, Theodore de Bèze, John Knox, and William Perkins. I guess I will lay my cards on the table here.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Feb 2, 2012)

Joseph:

The Reformed faith has never taught unqualified submission to state, church, or family. To do so is idolatry. All submission is qualified: wives to husbands, children to parents, parishoners to elders, citizens to magistrates. All their lawful commands are to be obeyed. But their commands that are clearly contrary to God's law are not to be obeyed. Romans 13 does not suggest otherwise. 

In fact, while WCF 20.4 calls for obedience to all lawful commands of lawful authorities, what you are suggesting, unqualified submission, is directly contrary to true Christian liberty, as in WCF 20.4--"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also."

No one who subscribes to the WCF believes in unqualified submission to church or state, for that would be contrary to God's Lordship, Christian liberty, and even reason.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 2, 2012)

It appears that there is something negative deserving to be said about Lutheran ecclesiology regarding it's ineffectiveness during Hitler's rise to power and beyond.


----------



## mvdm (Feb 2, 2012)

Joseph, so there would be no misunderstanding, I removed my prior post with the rofl emoticon. I made it in utter disbelief that one could place Hart--a non-theologian who advocates sub-Christian ideas at best--over Calvin, et. al. on the doctrine of the church. That was one of the most breathtaking statements I've ever read, so forgive my hasty reaction.

Brother, I'd encourage you follow the better lights of actual Reformed theologians whom the Lord has been pleased to bless with biblical understanding and wisdom. Also, please take to heart what Alan is saying in terms of idolatry. Surely you don't intend such with your insistence on "unconditional submission", but if you follow blind guides who are teaching you such odious doctrines, it does not bode well for a happy outcome.


----------



## steadfast7 (Feb 2, 2012)

I don't think that Joseph was arguing for unconditional submission in the sense that one should obey if the state commands something that is against scripture or conscience. Bonhoeffer's actions were far from questions of submission, though. They were active and premeditated attempts to destroy one's leader, and I don't see a clear example in Scripture that advocates that.


----------



## satz (Feb 2, 2012)

steadfast7 said:


> I don't think that Joseph was arguing for unconditional submission in the sense that one should obey if the state commands something that is against scripture or conscience. Bonhoeffer's actions were far from questions of submission, though. They were active and premeditated attempts to destroy one's leader, and I don't see a clear example in Scripture that advocates that.



Yup, I think this gets to the crux of the issue, and while I don't feel mature enough (or have enough historical knowledge) to weigh in gainfully on the question at hand, I respectfully think that appeals to the fact that we are to obey God rather than man are misplaced as far as trying to answer the OP. We can disobey sinful commands of a ruler without having to try to destroy the ruler himself. 

Again, I am not saying I think Bonhoeffer was wrong.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 2, 2012)

Bonhoeffer did not think up the plot to kill Hitler himself, but only supported what the government arm, the Abwehr, decided to do.


----------



## Philip (Feb 2, 2012)

steadfast7 said:


> They were active and premeditated attempts to destroy one's leader, and I don't see a clear example in Scripture that advocates that.



Dennis, as I said before, I think that in general you are right. However, with regard to the Nazis, they themselves made clear the fact that to follow one's conscience and doing the good that one could was to make oneself their enemy. A military coup was certainly warranted, and killing Hitler was, I think, necessary to do it. Again, this falls under the lesser magistrate. The reason why so many of the plots failed or failed to materialize is because people reasoned as you are doing: they did not have the stomach to fight evil. Evil prevailed because the good men had weak stomachs.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 3, 2012)

My thoughts:

I think this is a question of a Minister (a liberal one) in one Man's Government, getting distracted in the domestic affairs of another kingdom. He prioritized his role as a private citizen and public persona, over his Kingdom service. Perhaps he did not have a flock that needed him as shepherd, doing what he could to assist them as they shuddered and trembled walking through the valley of the shadow of death? But that begs the question: What else does such a Public Servant have to do, other than attending the marked sheep of the Master and calling those without a Shepherd to come in, and to make what difference he can between a _Volk_ of This World, and the Kingdom of Heaven?

Perhaps he should have dropped the "Rev.," before entering politics.

2Tim.2:4, 7 -- "No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him.... Think over what I say, and the Lord give you understanding...."


----------



## mvdm (Feb 3, 2012)

Contra_Mundum said:


> He prioritized his role as a private citizen and public persona, over his Kingdom service.



Your argument assumes the "Kingdom" is reduced to the visible church. But the Kingdom extends beyond the walls of the church.


----------



## Philip (Feb 3, 2012)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Perhaps he did not have a flock that needed him as shepherd, doing what he could to assist them as they shuddered and trembled walking through the valley of the shadow of death?



Actually this is correct---he was not allowed to preach at this time or pastor a church. He ran a seminary before it was shut down.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Minister (a liberal one)



He was as conservative as they got in the German Church of the day, frankly. He's liberal by conservative American evangelical standards, but not by German standards of his day.


----------



## rbcbob (Feb 3, 2012)

Contra_Mundum said:


> My thoughts:
> 
> I think this is a question of a Minister (a liberal one) in one Man's Government, getting distracted in the domestic affairs of another kingdom. He prioritized his role as a private citizen and public persona, over his Kingdom service. Perhaps he did not have a flock that needed him as shepherd, doing what he could to assist them as they shuddered and trembled walking through the valley of the shadow of death? But that begs the question: What else does such a Public Servant have to do, other than attending the marked sheep of the Master and calling those without a Shepherd to come in, and to make what difference he can between a _Volk_ of This World, and the Kingdom of Heaven?
> 
> ...


----------



## rbcbob (Feb 3, 2012)

Brethren the relevant biblical passages to the question of the OP have been discussed at some length. Both Paul (Romans 13) and Peter (1 Pet 2) give clear, apostolic, and inspired commands to the Church of Jesus Christ as to their duty to Caesar under God.

Whatever our personal politics, dispositions, and passions may be we must obey God rather than men, be those men politicians, princes, or pastors. For the New Testament sons of God living out their faith in the widest diversity of nations, government structures, customs and social standards We, the body of Christ in this fallen world have clear and unequivocal directives from our Savior and Lord. 

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.16 Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.17 Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men.18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. 20 Therefore "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head."21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom 12:14-21 NKJ)

It is apparent that the relevant passages being discussed on both sides are not effectively leading this lengthy debate to resolution.


----------



## rbcbob (Feb 3, 2012)

Finis


----------

