Bonhoeffer: Discipleship and Revenge

Bonhoeffer’s chapter entitled Revenge focuses on the text of Matthew 5: 38-42, “An eye for an eye.”  Bonhoeffer (again) seems to speak out of both sides of his mouth in this chapter, talking one minute about the essential, unquestionable need for non-resistance in the face of sin; and about how this cannot be perceived as simply the absolute blueprint for life.  He refers to the Reformers position, which drew a distinction between private life and non-resistance, and public life or public office and the need to protect society.  Bonhoeffer questions this position, declaring that all of us at any time hold both public and private positions and drawing the line between them is not always simple; he appears to stand on the side of pacifism and absolute non-resistance.  However, later in the chapter he says that “If we took the precept of non-resistance as an ethical blueprint for general application, we should indeed be indulging in idealistic dreams: we should be dreaming of a utopia with laws which the world would never obey.  To make non-resistance a principle for secular life is to deny God, by undermining his gracious ordinance for the preservation of the world.”  Bonhoeffer appears to acknowledge that pure non-resistance, taken to the final extreme, would result in the annihilation of the world, good order and peace—the opposite of “fill the earth and subdue it.”  It would seem that Bonhoeffer’s train of thought is informed by his own tumultuous times and the real and difficult need to decide either to resist or tolerate the rising Nazi regime.

Bonhoeffer himself was labeled a pacifist by Theodor Heckel, the official in charge of the German Lutheran church which became the official German church under the Nazi’s.  Bonhoeffer spent time pastoring German-speaking churches in London, accused by leaders in the Confessing Lutheran church—which opposed Nazism and sought to retain orthodox Lutheran theology—of running away from Germany in her hour of need.  He declined an opportunity to study non-resistance under Gandhi, instead choosing to initiate an underground training facility for Lutheran pastors.  Shortly after the Gestapo closed this seminary and arrested the students, Bonhoeffer’s book “The Cost of Discipleship” was published.  Bonhoeffer subsequently traveled around Germany secretly training more Lutheran pastors and briefly spent time preaching and studying in the US.  He returned to Germany to join a German military intelligence agency as a double agent in an organization which facilitated communication among underground Lutheran churches, assisted German Jews to escape to Switzerland and ultimately took part in planning an assassination attempt on Hitler. Finally imprisoned for many months for his insubordinate crimes against the Nazi regime, Bonhoeffer was hanged as a conspirator only weeks before US forces liberated the prison camp.

Bonhoeffer’s life—his choices and actions as well as how he described his own conflicted thoughts and priorities—reveals one who desired to live out these principles of non-resistance, yet was deeply impacted by the scope and scale of evil represented by Nazi power.  In this chapter, Bonhoeffer states 

“…Jesus is no draughtsman of political blueprints, he is the one who vanquished evil through suffering.  It looked as though evil had triumphed on the cross, but the real victory belonged to Jesus.  And the cross is the only justification for the precept of non-violence, for it alone can kindle a faith in the victory over evil which will enable men to obey that precept.  And only such obedience is blessed with the promise that we shall be partakers of Christ’s victory as well as of his sufferings.  The passion of Christ is the victory of divine love over the powers of evil, and therefore it is the only supportable basis for Christian obedience….The cross is the only power in the world which proves that suffering love can avenge and vanquish evil.”

What is the correct, the Christian response in the face of evil?  Is it always non-resistance, the cheerful walking of two miles, the generous shedding of both cloak and tunic in response to the callous demands of enemies and adversaries?  It is tempting to ask “but where does that end?”, when the answer given by Christ and highlighted by Bonhoeffer is that the self-abnegating response to evil persecutions and demands ends only with complete annihilation of self.  Romans12: 9-17 echoes these sentiments, telling us that “Love must be sincere.  Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.  Be devoted to one another in brotherly love.  Honor one another above yourselves.  Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord.  Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer.  Share with God’s people who are in need.  Practice hospitality.  Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse….Do not repay anyone evil for evil.”

Despite Bonhoeffer’s objection in this chapter to the distinction between private and public roles, the line drawn by the Reformers, I believe that this is an appropriate distinction and one which supports the idea of vocation.  The separation made by the Reformers and the idea of vocation both make a distinction between public and private, how we serve others publically in our vocation and how we serve others—individually and more privately—in our personal lives.  Surely, my role as mother is both personal and vocational and so these realms will have near 100% overlap in terms of how I treat my children, with patience and long-suffering.  In contrast, someone in the role of teacher will establish order in the classroom and be intolerant of disruptions and disrespect; that person in a private role may be called to a different level of tolerance.  By extension, a police officer may respond swiftly and decisively to cut off abusive behaviors to protect citizens but respond very differently as a private Christian citizen.  

Even as I type this, it is very difficult to prescribe that private Christian response and establish black and white boundaries—when should anyone tolerate disrespect or abuse?  That is exactly what Jesus demands in this Matthew section—that we intentionally decline to resist an evil person, a person who strikes us or steals our belongings.  But what when that evil person is stealing the cloak of my neighbor—if I am a police officer, to I stand by and let that happen? What about that classroom bully striking a student—if I am a teacher, do I let that happen?   As a parent—if I fail to resist evil in my children, if I tolerate bullying and selfishness, am I not failing in my job as a parent?

If I had to draw a line, it would be the line between impact to private self and impact to the public good and my neighbor.  As much as the impact is to me personally, I am called to tolerate evil even unto death:  in Luke 9: 23ff, Jesus tells His disciples “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for Me will save it.”  My patience and longsuffering in the face of evil is an expression of my faith, the individual cross which I am called to bear daily.  But if the bulk of the impact of the force of evil falls upon my neighbor—and indeed by ignoring or “bearing” that evil would preserve me from pain or persecution—then the scales fall in the other direction and it is time to react and resist evil on behalf of the neighbor.  The choices that I make—if there is pain or suffering involved—should always be to bear the bulk of that suffering myself, to carry that cross for my neighbor.  Will resisting evil in this given situation result in only me being saved suffering or inconvenience—it is likely a cross I should chose to bear, a slap I should endure and a second mile I should cheerfully walk.  Will failing to resist evil in another situation result in preserving me from pain or persecution, but worsen the suffering of my neighbors—then this is an evil I should chose to resist, to protect my neighbor and share in that suffering.  

Bonhoeffer alludes to this when he declares that the cross of Christ is the only thing that can give faith and thereby inspire this kind of self-sacrifice.  And faith is always personal; I cannot believe for another person.  This call to self-sacrificing obedience is a personal call; it is something that no one but Christ can define or demand in my life.  I think this is reflective of the apparent schwaffling in Bonhoeffer’s writing—the impossibility of making absolute declarations of when to suffer, declarations that are true for all Christians at all times.  The statement is clear for all of us—“…I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.  And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one miles, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away the one who wants to borrow from you.”  (Matthew 5: 39-42)  Will evil always present in these ways, as striking of the cheek and lawsuits for clothing—probably not.  But can we expect undeserved violence, unfair lawsuits, theft and persecution?  Yes.  As a Christian I can expect to suffer just as Christ suffered—and while Christ was passionate about unfair and unkind treatment of others, He never demanded justice or kindness for Himself. 

Jesus says in John 15—part of His last session teaching and guiding His disciples—that “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated Me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own.  As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world.  That is why the world hates you.  Remember the words I spoke to you:  ‘No servant is greater than His master.’ If they persecuted me they will persecute you also.” (John 15: 18-20)  As followers of Christ, we should expect to suffer.  Revenge is motivated by a desire to preserve self, to re-attain personal possessions or status.  Revenge is motivated by selfishness.  The cross of Christ is one of absolute selflessness; this is the cross we are called to bear.  There is no room for revenge in the life of a Christian. 

1)      What forms do “evil” take in your life?  Consider the examples in the Matthew passage and the admonitions—turn the other cheek, walk the extra mile.  When have you experienced the need to demonstrate this kind of meekness and denial of self?  What was your response?

2)      Are there evils affecting those around you that you are choosing not to resist—either intentionally or because you have not intentionally considered it?  If our premise above is correct, that we should resist or not resist evil based upon which places more of the burden of harm upon us, should you be choosing differently?

3)      Jesus’ words recorded by Matthew and John clearly tell us to expect suffering, to expect persecution, to bear it as part of being a Christ-follower.  How well does this fit with your assumptions and expectations for being a Christian?  Do you need to re-craft your assumptions and expectations based upon Jesus’ words?

4)      Read John 15 through John 16: 16.  In John 15: 12, 13 we are told to be willing to die for other people out of love for them; in John 15: 18-21, we are told we will suffer for Jesus’ sake.  These are difficult prophetic words, difficult expectations.  But they are set within the context of specific promises—to remain in Christ and be strengthened by Him; to be empowered to bear much fruit; to receive the Holy Spirit, the Counselor to give us perseverance, insight and wisdom.  In total, how does this passage inform your understanding of Christian suffering on earth?