“Should the Church Kill?” KSG reflects…
In another thread KSG wrote:
…The topic of Hitler/Bonhoeffer interests me greatly. I started but haven’t completed reading a book called Hitler’s Cross by Erwin Lutzer. In it, he discusses how by and large, the German Church failed to recognize Hitler as a madman (if Hilter would have died prior to the war, Germany would have hailed him as one of their greatest heroes). And how in many ways the German Church was used by the Nazi regime to support it’s cause. They joined nationalism to spirituality, and the Church refused to seperate it. Separation of church and state - in my opinion - is not to keep the Church out of politics but for the Church to recognize that it has to steer clear of partisan politics.
In order to be a voice for right principles it must maintain an arms length relationship with any political viewpoints. Although I firmly believe that Christians need to be good citizens and participate in the democratic process.
On the topic of righteous killing (i.e. Bonhoeffer’s participation in a plot to kill Hitler) there were many individual Christians in Germany who assisted the Allies in destroying their own country by supplying them with information (you don’t need a gun to kill). And there were many Christian men who joined the forces opposed to the Nazi death machine. Those men (& women) killed in order to stop killing. So I would say that killing, while NEVER a good thing, can at times be a necessary thing…
What do you think? Should the Church participate in assassination plots and political/military ventures that ultimately result in death?
Should the Church be directly involved in things like assassinating dictators?Â
If so, do we take out murderers and psychopaths too? If so, are we able to justify bombing abortion clinics? Nelson Mandela used tactics early in his political career that some could color “terrorist.” He was obviously fighting for something good… is it justified?
Try to separate Americanism, patriotism, and Christianity itself. Where does Jesus put us?
Honestly not trying to lead here. Asking if we can wrestle together…
Comment by: David H
1 10/25/06 5:51 AM | Comment Link |If we are followers of Jesus — hence the name Christian — then I believe there is very little room for conjecture on these topics. We have very little to go on, but there isn’t a single thing that would remotely lead to justification of killing in the life or teachings of Christ.
That being said, were I faced with a situation where my family was directly threatened by someone who intended to do them immediate harm and I had a gun — I’m pretty sure I would act. Then I would pray for forgiveness.
The problem with extrapolating such self-defense to a national level is that wars very seldom start simply for self-defense. Most often, especially when large nations are involved, there are issues of national interests that equal or out-weigh those of “self-preservation.” Those issues of national interests are most often economic or influence based (i.e. money and power). It is worse than dangerous for the Church of Jesus to involve itself in such matters.
Finally, it is my long-held belief that citizenship in heaven has to take precedence (for Christians) over all other citizenships. If willing to knowingly compromise heavenly citizenship for national interests then a Christian is pretending that you can, in fact, serve two masters. The current conservative “Christian” insistence that the ends justify the means (whether those are a moral state, maintaining the pre-eminence of the US in world affairs, getting elected, etc.) serves only to bring the thoughtless into line behind those pursuing the age-old idols of money and power. The ends never justify the means, but the means can absolutely corrupt the ends.
Comment by: Helen
2 10/25/06 5:59 AM | Comment Link |Interesting…I went to Moody Church for 12 years = 12 years of Pastor Lutzer’s preaching.
One thing that just about everyone agrees on is that the German church ‘failed’ by (mostly) not opposing Hitler.
The irony is, if someone had assassinated Hitler before he’d done much harm, the assassin would have been treated as a criminal and no-one would have known that the assassin, by killing one man, saved millions of Jews and other people Hitler despised from death. Because we can’t see the future. (Or, maybe even if we could, we still couldn’t let people assassinate others on the basis of what they might do)
In general I think it’s best to err on the side of not killing. It’s so anti-life to take someone’s life.
Comment by: David H
3 10/25/06 6:51 AM | Comment Link |I stumbled once into a conversation where the people were discussing “if you could go back into time and kill one person, who would it be.” Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Osama Bin Laden (as well as one or two US presidents) came up in the conversation.
My response was: What makes anyone think that the forces of history could be diverted by killing one person? These men helped to shape their time, yes. However, they were also shaped by them. All of them have been welcomed by some (some by many) and many of them could point to “good” things they accomplished.
However, I added, if you had a time machine, wouldn’t it make more sense to go back and time and help that child who would grow into a monster? For some of those people it might have made all the difference to have something resembling a normal childhood.
But if you eliminate Hitler, what happens to the Germany left destitute and starving in the years leading up to WWII? Without Stalin and Mao, who would have stopped Hitler? Without Osama, where would the abandoned millions in the Arab world turn their ire?
Killing one person might not turn the tide of history anymore than one man with a toy shovel can affect ocean tides. But helping one person will directly benefit at least two.
Comment by: April Terry
4 10/25/06 8:41 AM | Comment Link |Good point, David H. Isn’t is possible that any totalitarian figurehead is likely nothing more than a reflection of society’s philosophies of the time? If Hitler had never been born, isn’t it possible that perhaps another man with the same philosophies, charisma, timing, and hatreds would have come forward? Isn’t it also possible that the real heinousness of the Hitler regime was that it was allowed by the greater society of Germany? Were those the actions of a single man or were they the actions of a nation who had come to hate a minority segment of their population?
No man is an island and Hitler certainly wasn’t. He had a lot of help and the fact that thousands of people stood in the streets yelling, “Heil, Hitler!” means to me that he had their hearts and their minds–not because he was Adolf Hitler, but because he said the things that they believed.
I have a hard time compartmentalizing some of the great Christians who have gone forward and murdered in the name of Jesus. To me, it denigrates their message and puts a blight on Christianity’s message of peace and love.
Comment by: Peter Walker
5 10/25/06 5:11 PM | Comment Link |I was talking with a good friend last night who has surprised me lately with some of his thinking. We both consider ourselves “recovering fundimentalists” but I sometimes find myself frustrated with his “still-too-traditional” beliefs (in my own narrow vision).
Nonetheless, last night he told me how he found himself debating with some classmates about welfare.
“It’s not the government’s job to take care of people - it’s the church’s job,” his classmates argued.
James argued back, “well if the church isn’t doing it then SOMEONE has to!”
James told me he was initially horrifed after saying it. Oh my gosh, I’m turning into Pete! he thought.
But he went on to say how he argued that in looking at politics and policy, we as Christians must always consider: “Can I imagine Jesus doing this? Saying this?”
Would Jesus say, “No, you can’t come into my country through open borders because it would reduce my quality of life?” Of course not!
So in this question of killing, can I imagine Jesus justifying assassinations, covert ops and espionage? Not really.
“I killed some bad men to save some good men,” Jesus said…
See? Doesn’t work.
I realize that’s not the only view, though. I like what David H. suggested and what Bonhoeffer said as well: essentially - I’m going to do this for what I believe to be the greater good, and I’m going to beg for forgiveness afterward, but it IS sin and I may be punished for it.
Still, I cannot see Jesus going to war or committing violence in the name of greater good.
I see Jesus laying down and dying, again and again… I see Jesus asking ALL OF US to do the same. Again and again and again. I don’t see how Christianity’s victory can be by the sword.
Comment by: KSG
6 10/26/06 10:05 AM | Comment Link |Can I suggest that we separate the “kingdoms of this world” from the “kingdom of God” within this discussion? What I mean is that I hear people suggesting that Christians need to be pacifists, but I don’t see that as an example given us (and I must add that a big part of my heritage is of Xian peoples who were persecuted for their faith & who were pacifists… Doukabour & Mennonite).
When it comes to our faith (Kingdom of God) then I agree with you all that as Xians we must be willing to be persecuted, hated, despised, etc. and to only offer Christ’s love in return (turn the other cheek).
But when it comes to Christians participating in the “kingdoms of this world” that the line becomes far more ambiguous. IMO the Bible doesn’t give a clear direction but instead allows individuals to ‘vote their conscience’ if you will. Or to say it another way, I believe that the grace that brought us into God’s kingdom is the same grace that allows us to participate in God’s Kingdom, and is also the same grace that allows us to live within the kingdoms of this world. This means that some Xians will participate in the governments and socio-political organizations of our day and not violate their consciences, and others will be unable to do so for the very same reasons, but they will still be Xians who hopefully are committed to living thier faith, and who aren’t just using Xianity as a covering.
This sounds like ‘Kingdom Now’ theology.
Comment by: David H
7 10/26/06 4:49 PM | Comment Link |KSG said:
Does this go to the issue of Christian citizenship? Take the issue of politics, should a Christian compromise a core principle (e.g. lying) in order to broker a deal that gets them some of what they want while at the same time giving another politician something that violates another core principle of the Christian (e.g. disenfranchising the poor)? If you don’t do those things, can you be an effective politician? If you do, can you be a good Christian? If asked to choose, where is your ultimate allegiance?
On the issue of war, many faiths contend that God expects us to follow our rightful leaders. But, going back to Hitler, that would mean that the German Christians were absolutely OK to join the Wermacht and attack Poland. Going further, if your leaders lie in order to begin a war, should Christians still participate? What if you don’t find out until after the shooting starts? Is it possible for there to be a war that isn’t at least partly due to the pursuit of selfish ends by all parties? If it is OK to kill on the say-so of your leaders, is it stil OK if they are lying to you as to why?
I don’t know that it is possible to be a Christian committed to living your faith in the world of American politics. I know there are people who try, but the core concept of politics (the pursuit of worldly power and prestige) seems un-Christian.
Perhaps the kingdoms of this world can’t survive following the example of Christ. But I’m not sure how that justifies a Christian not following that example while pursuing the interests of a kingdom of this world.
Comment by: Brent
8 10/28/06 1:10 AM | Comment Link |All this talk reminds me of some stuff I read not to long ago. C.S. Lewis wrote a couple chapters to the christians of England during wwii one titled “Why I’m not a Pacifist” Good reading if anyone wants to see a perpsective on killing, right or wrong, war, right or wrong, etc. They are in Weight of Glory.
I used to think a lot more pacifist a couple years ago but I’m just having to many problems with it. I don’t believe love is passive. I don’t believe Jesus was passive.
The thought is that if all the world could be converted to pacifist then we might all get along. But the realistic problem with that is if there is only one nation that is not passive it will defeat the rest with ease. Pacifist also tend to have a thought that they can change opposing ideas with charm or love or etc. I even felt this way also, that there persucution of me would change them. I question if that is true. It seems impossible in most situations.
I work with an ex-mennonite who had never seen anybody new brought into his old church unless from a womb or other mennonite churches. He said its like your born in this church or your not in it. He felt God wanted him to go to another church so they did. He said it has been the best thing for his family. God was speaking to him, it shows in the fruit. This is not all Mennonite churches i’m sure but I’ve talk to other and I here the same thing. Don’t hear me wrong I love them and I work with them a lot. But I do think Jesus went out into the streets and synoguas. He even told the parable about the wedding feast. And knocking over table in His temple isnt that passive.
Back to a point… If we as a nation play pacifist and are defeated by the enemies of our ideas of freedom won’t we be doing the whole world a greater injustice? By being a human our constitution says we are made to be free. Mabey its not who is right or wrong but which is better. being in a fallen creation can we ask for more than better? I look at america and other countries and I see we come out better in a lot of ways. Who supplies aid to tsunami victims, creates medicine for Hiv and Aids. and all the other good thing the people of this nation have done. I feel that our Ideas of freedom of thought and free enterprise have done lots of good.
One more thought.. If Jesus said hating someone is the same as murder. Then murder is the act of killing someone in hate. So is it wrong if someone kills someone else if they don’t hate them? Is killing wrong or murder? it almost seems as if Jesus was saying murder is and killing isn’t? Have we separated the Idea of killing and murder in our minds? Should we? I have more questions than answer.
“Weight of glory” has some interesting ideas hard to argue against. I recommend it… how ever that helps.. ha
Comment by: David H
9 10/30/06 6:06 PM | Comment Link |I’ve read Lewis’ thoughts on why he isn’t a pacifist and found them highly flawed. I love Lewis as a writer and theologian, but found that essay terribly dissapointing. He uses the just war philosophy and the belief that the allied powers were in the right and axis in the wrong. I dispute with aspects of even that simple premise, but absolutely can’t agree with him when that is extrapolated out to wars launched by legitimate authorities based on lies, misinformation, and national interests. Maybe WWII was a pure war, but there hasn’t been one since. BTW, Hitler was elected and Wermacht belt buckles bore the insignia “God on our side.” Who was the rest of the world to argue.
As for the good wrought by the U.S. around the world, I’m not sure what that has to do with Christianity — at least in this day in age. U.S. interests are the driving force behind U.S. policy and those have little to do with Jesus or the Christian God. I don’t argue that anyone should feel free to fight — and kill — for their country. But I’m not sure they should try and march behind the cross. It is very dangerous to confuse nationalism and Christian faith. The former puts a nation first, the latter makes Christ pre-eminent.
As for the issue of passivity, I agree that Christians are not called to that. But if my activism ends the life of another, I’m not sure how that helps them or me. Jesus challenged many people, but he didn’t kill anyone. He had the opportunity to call down an army to his aid, but instead choose to suffer and die.
Augustine and Aquinas argued that the cross was fine for Christ, but us regular people aren’t up to it. I disagree with those two also. The cross is supposed to be proof of the resurrection. That means suffering and death on earth can serve a greater purpose. If I believe in the cross I should not be afraid to die for its purposes. But I will always be concerned if someone asks me to kill for the cross.
Comment by: Peter Walker
10 10/30/06 6:26 PM | Comment Link |David, I’m right in line with you here. Except that I think Lewis was a wonderful writer and a brilliant PHILOSOPHER, but I think he was a pretty poor theologian.
One of his close friends and contemporaries, Dorothy Sayers, criticized him directly and publicly for his willingness to write about things “of which he had no experience or knowledge…” essentially, to pay the bills.
Even in a friendly jab, Sayers suggested Lewis had somewhat “prostituted” himself to pop-rhetorical-culture in his zealousness to answer any questions posed to him.
But back to WWII, it doesn’t matter if WWII was just or not. I believe it was most certainly just - by human standards. But the wisdom (and justice, I’d wager) of man is foolishness to God. And vice-versa.
Comment by: David_H
11 10/30/06 7:26 PM | Comment Link |Peter, I accept your corx on Lewis as a philosopher. I did a sun.school on Mere Christianity a year back and found myself disagreeing on many points (eg human moral standards as absolute proof of God).
Comment by: glass
12 11/1/06 2:27 AM | Comment Link |Bohnhoffer/Hitler doesn’t apply to whether or not “the Church” should kill. Bohnhoffer could justify it to himself, but also knew it was a sin to kill, and he was willing to accept the consequences for it. Martin Luther, Augustine, Mandela, C.S. Lewis, Hitler, Stalin, George Bush, and Mother Theresa are sinners. Humans definitely participate in sin. Maybe someday we’ll find out what God thinks about it. Or is it not cool in post-modern-time-warp-land to believe in an afterlife?
Comment by: David H
13 11/1/06 12:10 PM | Comment Link |glass,
I’ve read your post above through several times and, for the afterlife of me, can’t figure out what you are saying. I’m sure God has definite views about killing. I’m likewise sure that people sin (no matter how you want to define that term). However, I’m not sure what point you are attempting to make with those two statements. I have to decide now what I think about killing. As a member of a church and The Church I think it important NOW for their to be a corporate vision on whether it is GOOD or just humanly acceptable to kill in the name of God. Looking at events around the world right now (let’s forget the last 2,000 years of human history), what I think about killing other people (for whatever reason) can have a profound affect on how others see Jesus and the Christian God.
So let’s forget the whole label thing. I don’t know what post-modern means much less the beliefs that are apparently inherent in that label. Tell me clearly what you think.
Comment by: glass
14 11/1/06 1:24 PM | Comment Link |David, sorry i was unclear. I agree with you. Let me clarify. It’s not our job to ‘play God’ and decide whether or not Bohnhoffer did the right thing. that’s all i was saying with that. that’s between him and God.
I agree with you that the Church does have a responsibility to protect people from being killed to the best of our abilities.
The point I’m making is that killing is a sin regardless (TEN COMMANDMENTS), and if you think that God is calling you to kill, you had best be prepared to answer to Him for it, in this life, or otherwise. However, God often uses peoples’ sinful actions, and creates a positive outcome regardless. It may be a grey area as far as argument is concerned, but I’d rather err on the non murder side of things…
I Really want people to forget the whole label thing. i can’t wait till people get sick of labels. That’s my point!
Comment by: David H
15 11/1/06 2:11 PM | Comment Link |God does take sinful actions and use them for his purposes. But that is no justification for doing bad because God will turn it to good. As a Christian I risk nothing for myself by following such a course, but I risk the entire world to whom I am supposed to take the good news. What’s more, I am pretending to discern the purposes of God if I do something wrong because I know he will use it toward his proper ends. Jesus gave just a couple of fairly clear directions on how his followers should act. Anything outside of that is simply sin. If I do it I am forgiven, but I am never justified.
Comment by: Helen
16 11/1/06 2:26 PM | Comment Link |glass wrote:
Me too!!!
Comment by: KSG
17 11/1/06 2:31 PM | Comment Link |I’m going to label the two of you with a “I hate labels” tag.
Yeah! I finally have a neat & tidy box to put you in.
Comment by: Helen
18 11/1/06 4:43 PM | Comment Link |nooooo!!!!
Comment by: glass
19 11/1/06 5:29 PM | Comment Link |David H,
You spelled out in comment 15 what i was feebly trying to say, thanks man.
KSG, thanks for helping to point out the ridiculousness of putting people in a preconceived box, cause the only box I’ll fit in will be my coffin.
Comment by: David H
20 11/1/06 6:10 PM | Comment Link |glass, no need for thanks, it’s just a conversation. I’m glad we can communicate together.