"The Cross Lost"

     Here is a short video of the "New Monastic" Christian author Shane Claiborne talking (somewhat erratically) about the concept of a just war:

     I find myself in agreement with much of what Shane says here, especially concerning the disconnect we have from the violence that the world suffers. But what I would like to draw attention to here is Shane's misreading of Bonhoeffer's theology.

     

     I will give Mr. Claiborne the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is not intentionally misreading Bonhoeffer, but this act of charity is not as generous as it may at first appear: I find only two other options: either Shane has never read Bonhoeffer's Ethics or else he has read it very poorly. 

     At first, all is well. Shane points out that Bonhoeffer did not justify his actions by any ad hoc argument for just war or necessary violence, in fact Bonhoeffer (as Shane correctly observes) saw his actions as condemnable and unjustifiable. But Shane removes this remark from its larger philosophical context and thus makes it sound as if Bonhoeffer was simply sinning because he had run out of options for doing good. Then Shane proceeds to condemn the action of Bonhoeffer based on an observation about its results: Hitler felt pretty damn good about surviving the assassination attempt and thus pursued his "mission" with renewed vigor.

     I think what Shane is suggesting here is that there is no place in God's story for violence, I assume that this is what Shane means when he says that " the cross lost". And by connecting Bonhoeffer's actions to Hitler's renewed sense of purpose, Shane draws a very interesting causal link between the the ethical warrant for our actions and the results of said actions. If I act in X way then I can expect Y result. It is specifically such a link that Bonhoeffer attacked in his Ethics and here I would like to offer a Bonhoefferian response to Shane's accusations.

     Bonhoeffer argued in his Ethics that: 

"Good, as what is responsible, is performed in ignorance of good and in the surrender to God of the deed which has become necessary and which is nevertheless, or for that very reason, free; for it is God who sees the heart, who weighs up the deed, and who directs the course of history." 

This quote is a concise summary of Bonhoeffer's argument: as Christians we do not possess any Kantian ethical warrant for our actions. If we understand Bonhoeffer's remark about his "sin" in light of this quote we can see that Bonhoeffer was not (as I think Shane is implying) condemning his own actions qua "the good". This would require Bonhoeffer to take simultaneously the position that he does not justify his action in reference to the good and that he condemns his action in light of said good. Thus it is easy to see why Shane is misunderstanding Bonhoeffer's remark, but what did Bonhoeffer mean to suggest by calling his action a sin? I think Bonhoeffer meant that his action was only justifiable based on a complete (read: big picture) understanding of history, a vantage point that only God can occupy. Bonhoeffer knew that he was breaking a commandment (thou shalt not kill), but in this Bonhoeffer had some precedence: David stole the temple bread when he was hungry, Rahab lied to the city guards and Jesus let his disciples gather food on the Sabbath because: "the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath." What Bonhoeffer here suggests is that thou shalt not kill was made for man and not the other way around.

     This line of argument reveals the latent ideology in Shane's pacifism:

“all ideological action carries its own justification within itself from the outset in its guiding principle”

Because Bonhoeffer's action transgresses the the guiding principle of the ideology of pacifism, Shane condemns it and feels quite justified in so doing.

     Against this position, Bonhoeffer would hold that there is no solid ground on which we can stake out our judgements and hurl them against our opponents. In Bonhoeffer's reading of the creation account, he proposes that such an attitude is actually the original sin of man: that we took upon ourselves the role of judge and thus made ourselves to be "like God" judging good and evil.

     The relationship between Christianity and violence is complex, and there is no possibility of treating it fairly in a blog post. No doubt, Shane is right to reject any easy theological alliance between Christianity and just war, but I feel confident that Shane has erroneously oversimplified their relationship in order give us an ethical imperative: thou shalt commit no violence. Such a stance is ludicrous in light of a measured biblical exegesis and suggests that Shane is more committed to a ideology of pacifism than to reading and understanding the complexities of the Biblical worldview. If your interests are in people who do the latter, then I suggest that you read some Bonhoeffer (or, you know, the Bible).

Brian

P.S. I would welcome all comments and criticisms. I like to talk as though I'm right all the time oftener I'm full of shit, so please, point it out when you smell it.