by Dr. R. H. Bryant
“A time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace” (Eccl. 3:8).
“From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force” (Matthew 11:12, ESV).
The Problem of Christian Violence
A recent meme, posted by a child advocate against sex-trafficking said this, “We are stepping into a world… When good men, will be forced to do bad things in the name of freedom” (Dempsey, 2020). Depending on the definitions of the terms used in that statement, it can be argued that this is not an ethical dilemma unique to our current situation but has been faced by all generations throughout history. From the act of punching bullies during childhood to stop them from terrorizing the playground to the American hero, Alvin York, killing Germans in WWI to “save lives,” the use of force can be equally complex and disconcerting – especially for Christians. The story of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Christian martyr during World War II, exemplifies this moral dilemma as he considered whether or not to participate in a plot to kill Adolf Hitler.
So, how does one justify murdering another human being, even Hitler, while being an evangelical, deeply thoughtful, dedicated Christian, and a pacifist to boot? How does one go from turning the other cheek, blessed are the peacemakers, and do not resist evil but overcome it with good to blowing up a building to eliminate Nazism in a perceived obedience to God? Would killing Hitler in his prime to avoid the murder of mass millions be a moral good? Is this an example of “good men being forced to do bad things” to defeat evil? So, are there occasions where the end does in fact justify the means? Are there times where two wrongs do in fact make right?
Born on February 4, 1906, he and his twin-sister was raised in the small university town of Tübingen by loving parents. His father was a reputable college professor of psychology and his mother a teacher. His pedigree consisted of artists, musicians, statesmen, and a famous grandfather-theologian, Karl August von Hase, whose textbook on the history of dogma continued to be used in seminaries at the time of young Dietrich’s seminary training. Clearly, the Bonhoeffer children were poised for success, prestige, and affluence throughout their lives.
Prior to the advent of Nazism, Bonhoeffer traveled a conventional, well-worn path toward the ministry. In 1923, he began his theological studies at Tübingen University, where he defended a brilliant and ground-breaking doctoral dissertation, Sanctorum Communio (On the Communion of the Saints). In his early ministry, he taught children at Grunewald parish church, and taught young men every Thursday evening in a reading and discussion group, most of whom would eventually die in war or concentration camps. Then in 1931, he was ordained at St. Matthias Church in Berlin.
Three most profound experiences undoubtedly framed his perspectives towards the Nazi takeover of the church in Germany that led to his opposition toward the tyrannical state.
The first was reading the newly published novel and subsequent movie, All Quiet on the Western Front. Next, was a trip to Rome at age 18. Later, a visit to America informed his views from the most unexpected sources.
The novel did much to shape his attitude toward the horrors of war. The trip to Rome shaped his understanding of the church transcending German Lutheran Protestantism. The last experience taught him how churches of marginalized African-Americans engage an oppressive- society, which undoubtedly contributed toward his perspective of the ostracized church and the plight of the Jewish people in Germany. During that same visit, he was indelibly influenced by a French pacifist and fellow-seminarian, Jean Lasserre, whose focus on the Beatitudes influenced his bent toward passivism and resulted in the eventual writing of his classic book, The Cost of Discipleship.
The experience with the oppressed church began in 1930 after he sailed to New York to begin a teaching fellowship at Union Theological Seminary. Tiring of the social gospel in the progressive churches, he wrote “In New York they preach about virtually everything; only one thing is not addressed, or is addressed so rarely that I have as yet been unable to hear it, namely, the gospel of Jesus Christ, the cross, sin and forgiveness, death and life” (Metaxas, 2010, p. 99). So, he pivoted his attention to the African-American churches, particularly Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem, in response to an invitation by his good friend and fellow seminarian, Frank Fisher.
The fertile ground of privation and suffering yielded vibrant and well-grounded expressions of Christianity. He said, “… in general I’m increasingly discovering greater religious power and originality in Negroes” (Metaxas, 2010, p. 105). To immerse himself in this culture and learn all he could, he lived among African-Americans while touring Washington, D. C. and eventually observed their conditions through a broad swath in the South.
As a concert pianist and lover of music, Bonhoeffer was mesmerized by all kinds of music emanating from the black community, particularly the spirituals. So much so, that he took recordings back to Germany to educate young seminarians in his home country.
As Bonhoeffer was being shaped, his beloved homeland was being transformed into a veritable hell-hole. In 1931, Hitler was installed as Chancellor and soon became president three years later at the death of the highly respected Paul von Hindenburg. The Nazis consolidated power, installed Ludwig Müller as the official representative of the Protestant churches as well as the Reich Bishop of the first-ever national church of Germany. Almost all of the leaders of the German Lutheran Church fell under the spell of a restored nationalism that promised to remove the guilt and shame of WWI and the Weimer Republic imposed on the proud German people. As a result, they became willing dupes.
In 1933, Pope Pius XI signed a Concordant with Hitler promising that the Catholic church would not interfere with the Third Reich in exchange for assurances that they would not be attacked. Of course, Hitler had no intention of honoring that agreement any more than any other. Before that same year was out, he afflicted the Catholic church with death by a thousand cuts.
Pope Pius XI responded in a typically weak response by feckless leaders who fear exerting actual force against evil that might violate some imaginary moral code. He fires off a missive, “With Burning Anxiety,” protesting Hitler’s infractions of their earlier agreement. This, of course, had no effect.
Contrary to this tepid response. Bonhoeffer was one of the few Christian leaders that was clear-eyed about the dangers of Nazism and was not afraid to act in opposition. It cannot be argued that Bonhoeffer’s forcible opposition to the Nazi state exploded after their deplorable acts became unconscionable. He was one of the first to actively oppose Hitler and Nazism. Two-days after Hitler was made Chancellor, he delivered a radio address attacking Nazism and was summarily cut off the air in mid-address.
In 1938, to further Hitler’s control over the church, all German pastors were ordered to take an oath of allegiance to him in recognition of his 50th birthday. Again, almost all pastors pledged at least feigned if not enthusiastic allegiance to der Führer.
Lest we be overly critical of the sheepish church leadership, it must be noted that they suffered from several generations of religious humanism in their theological training – like Schleiermacher’s higher-criticism and Adolf von Harnack’s liberalism. From the Chair of Theology at Berlin University, considered the mountaintop of theological discourse, state- appointed theologians led virtually all pastors down the same primrose path of humanistic preparation for the ministry. Their theological systems twisted Christianity into pretzel-like contortions of the same philosophical idealism that had been acculturated throughout Germany by the likes of Hegel, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, and Heidegger. There were only a precious handful of academics with the scholarly weight and reputation necessary to push back against the ethos of humanistic nationalism – Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer being foremost at the time.
With Protestant churches being the biggest threat to Nazism, their leaders were manipulated, shamed, co-opted, bullied into submission, and eventually subsumed by the state. As expected, their flock by-and-large followed them into the abyss. As a result, a maniacal evil was unleashed on the world.
In September of 1935, the Nuremberg Laws were passed, canceling citizenship for German Jews. On January 1, 1938 all Jewish-owned businesses were liquidated by order of Hermann Göring. On November 9 of that same year, there was a nation-wide organized riot called Kristallnacht that brought the destruction of nearly 300 synagogues, the looting of 7,500 Jewish-owned shops, and the arrest of over 30,000 Jewish men. By September 1941, a decree was issued by the Nazi high command that required all German Jews to wear a yellow star stitched to their clothing. Then in October of ‘41, the first trains rolled out from the station and took Jews from Berlin to the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Two years later, on May 19, the German minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, declared that Germany was Judenfrei (free of Jews).
Horrific genocides spread to all undesirables throughout Nazi controlled lands – the physically and mentally impaired, other “inferior” races, resisters, Poles, Czechs, and others. Red-hot smoke-stacks burned around-the-clock at Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Majdanek, and Auschwitz-Birkenau.
But God preserved a small remnant in Germany who would not bow their knee to the state. In 1934, the Barmen Declaration was fashioned primarily by Karl Barth and adopted by representatives from the Lutheran, Reformed, United Churches, free synods, church assemblies, and parish organizations in Barmen, Germany (Cochrane, 1962). Those who signed were later referred to as the, “Confessing Church.” Although not expressly said, the declaration insisted that Christ, not the Führer, is the head of the church.1
In July of 1940, to avoid being forced to fight on the front lines or shot, Dietrich’s brother-in-law, Hans von Dohnanyi, managed to convince the Reich that Bonhoeffer would be best suited to serve in the Abwehr, military intelligence. With his ecumenical ties, he would be able to serve the regime with counter-intelligence. Yet as providence would have it, he was then able to convey the Nazi’s malevolent intents to his contacts abroad and messages of support for the resistance back to his compatriots.
Bonhoeffer was intimately involved in the formulation of the Confessing Church, to include serving as director of the seminary at Finkewalde. But alas, they would not escape Nazi persecution any more than any other strata of German society.
In December 1935, Himmler declared all examinations for the Confessing Church invalid, all training invalid, and all participants liable to arrest. In July 1936, the president of the Confessing Church, Martin Niemöller, was arrested. In September 1937, the seminary at Finkenwalde was closed by the Gestapo. November that same year, pastors and former Finkenwalde students were arrested and beaten to death at Buchenwald.
This growing danger from Nazi persecution was accompanied by many acts of bravery and deception by Bonhoeffer to resist the tyranny of the state. In February of 1938, he made his initial contact with members of the German Resistance. In September he wrote Life Together. In 1941, he made two trips to Switzerland on behalf of the Resistance. In 1942, he visited Norway to spread the news of Nazi atrocities. In May during a trip to Sweden, he met with Bishop John Bell who was a member of British Parliament and close confidant of Winston Churchill. This was also done on behalf of the Resistance.
His active role in the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler began in 1940 where Dohnanyi, friend and biographer Ebhard Bethge, Hans Gisevius, Hans Oster, and Bonhoeffer discussed this at his home. His primary role was to carefully convey to his contacts in the outside world that a group of high level officials were plotting a military coup and it would soon be implemented. Hopefully, this would assuage foreign powers from attacking Germany and costing countless thousands of lives.
To protect other believers should the conspiracy go wrong, Bonhoeffer eventually severed all ties with the Confessing Church. He was in the heart of the conspiracy, lending support to those who were more directly involved, like his brother Klaus and brother-in-law Dohnany.
Through a series of events, the first attempt to put a plan in action was not until 1943. Conspirators were to plant a bomb in Hitler’s plane in Smolensk. Unfortunately, the mechanism did not work. The next attempt was in March in Berlin, where Hitler, Himmler, and Göring were all at the same place. This time it was to be a suicide mission, but Hitler suddenly left the location before detonation (Metaxas, 2010, p. 430). Later, July 20, 1944, Klaus von Stauffenberg made another failed assassination attempt at Rastenburg, East Prussia.
All the while, as Bonhoeffer was surreptitiously involved in the conspiracy to kill Hitler and replace him with a military coup, he continued his pastoral duties apart from aligning with the Confessional Church. He would write until the last months of his life, but the last book he published in his lifetime was Das Gebetbook der Bibel (The Prayerbook of the Bible) in 1940. It was a devotional commentary on the Psalms. This infuriated the Nazi brass as it legitimized the Jewish race as God’s people. As a result, he was officially banned from publishing books thereafter.
As a python squeezes its victim, Nazi persecution grew more intense and closer to affecting Bonhoeffer personally. In 1936, his authorization to teach at Berlin University was revoked. In 1938, his sister Sabine and her Jewish husband Gerhard Leibholz and their two daughters escaped to England. In 1940, he was forbidden to speak in public and required to report regularly to the police. A year later, he was banned from printing or publishing. In April 5, 1943, he was arrested and imprisoned at Tegel Prison in Berlin. In July of that year, he was intensely interrogated in prison. In October 1944, he was moved to the Gestapo prison at Prinz- Albrecht-Strasse in Berlin. On February 7, 1945, he was moved to Buchenwald, then moved again to Regensburg on April 3. Five days later he was moved to the Flossenbürg concentration camp during the night. The next day, April 9, Bonhoeffer was executed at Flossenbürg together with other key figures of the resistance.
The camp doctor at Flossenbürg, H. Fischer-Hüllstrung, wrote of Bonhoeffer’s execution, “He . . . said a short prayer and then climbed the steps to the gallows, brave and composed. His death ensued after a few seconds. In the almost fifty years that I worked as a doctor, I have hardly ever seen a man die so entirely submissive to the will of God”(Metaxas, 2010, p. 608).
Virtue in Violence
As a person examines violence as a concept, virtue and violence seem to be antithetical. If something is violent it is not virtuous and visa versa. Generations of Americans conditioned to idolize human autonomy, egalitarianism, and grace to the exclusion of almost any other aspect of theology often view any idea of God that would sanction force by one group over another as inherently evil.
Contrary to 21st century demure, the Bible is filled with violence. So, when a person reads where Jesus may not only approve of violence but calls for the use of it, like in Matthew 11:12, we are either startled or blithely read past it with a shrug of the shoulders, “Well it must not really mean that.” Yet, this is but one of a host of scriptures that not only exemplifies violence, but sanctions it.
In our culture, it is difficult to divorce any form of aggression toward another human being as being anything other than morally wrong. Exerting force on the unwilling is perceived as bullying. Forcing someone to act against his or her will has all kinds of felony criminal ramifications – kidnapping, enslavement, unlawful imprisonment, et al. So, it is extremely difficult for us to see any virtue in violence.
Today, we use the term most often to refer to domestic violence. So, we associate it with extreme physical or verbal abuse. There is a tenge of immorality associated and a certain out-of-control aspect that creates havoc to those who experience it. Some may go even further and envision demonstrations of power that are devastating and indiscriminate, like nuclear bombs. Whether someone thinks in terms of a lack of morality or indiscriminate overwhelming power, they have not clearly grasped the kingdom of God’s brand of violence.
In the West, we drink violence like water. Through all manner of media, a steady diet of macabre images dull the senses over time. Diminished affection and cool detachment make us emotionally impotent when hearing about violence in the Semitic world. What should startle and disgust us, we yawn with a detached indifference.
Without belaboring the uses of the Greek word biazo during the time of Jesus, the common vernacular of the day always referred to some kind of force being exerted. It was used in connotations of goodness, oppress wrongdoing, and freedom by the likes of Thucydides, Josephus, Plutarch, and Philo. They used it broadly to mean to “forcibly enter into something” (Bauer et al., 1957, p. 140). The inspired use in Matthew 11 as well as other narratives, proverbs, and other literary devices referring to the kingdom, reveal that kingdom violence enforces God’s rule. So, notions of some out-of-control, malevolent force needs to be fully dispensed with when referring to this kind of violence.
Yet in the Biblical narratives, not only do we read accounts of people deemed wicked who force violence upon both the good and bad, but people declared righteous executing violence against both the good and bad. Just a cursory skimming of the texts show Cain murdering Abel (Genesis 4), Dinah raped (Gen. 34), an entire army drowned (Exodus 14), religious leaders who slaughtered brothers, friends, and neighbors (Exodus 32), multiple accounts of genocide to include human sacrifice and dismemberment of a concubine (Judges 1- 12, 19), and David stealing another man’s wife and arranging his death (II Sam. 11:14-15). As violence drips from every account, some events are sanctioned by God while others condemned.
Some condemnations of violence are not addressed toward specific events, but the general tenor altogether. God condemns those who “drink the wine of violence,” “have an appetite for violence,” fill “the towns with violence,” “employ violence,” and “fill their master’s house with violence” (Prov. 4:17, 13:2; Hab. 2:17; Hos. 4:2; Zeph. 1:9). The explanation as to why early in human history that God eradicated the entire human race, except Noah and his family was because of corruption and “the earth was filled with violence” (Gen. 6:11). Moreover, the Psalmist affirms that the “one who loves violence His soul hates” (Psalms 11:5). Not only does God hate their ways, He hates them! Keil and Delitzsch (1980/1892) notes of this passage, “He hates him with all the energy of His perfectly and essentially holy nature” (p. 189).
By asserting that the kingdom suffers violence, Matthew is not pointing to those who aggressively pursue it as the ones to whom the kingdom yields. The text refers to John the Baptist and Jesus as the agents who are ushering in the kingdom (Matt. 11:12). The word “violence” can be read in the passive or active-middle voices because the word is the same, biazetai, meaning either “the kingdom is brought forward powerfully [violently]” or “the kingdom itself comes forward powerfully [violently]” (Lenski, 1961, p. 437). The ESV, NAS, NIV, and KJV translators all chose the passive voice as the more correct one. But either way, it speaks of an invasion of a heavenly royal order that is causing violent upheaval toward all opposition toward God’s rightful rule. The same root word was used in Acts 2:2, as the disciples were praying in the upper room and came the sound of a violent (biaias) wind that filled all the house. When the Holy Spirit comes in power, kingdom violence (i.e. “force”) occurs.
Both John the Baptist and Jesus announced the dropping of a plumb-line that would mark a clear discontinuity between a previous age and the new manner in which God’s sovereignty would now be employed and understood. Along with this fundamental paradigm shift came too many acts of violence to be chronicled in the Bible itself, much less a brief essay (John 21:25). Snapshots include John the Baptist beheading (Mark 6), John’s brother James murdered (Acts 12:2), Judas’ hanging himself (Matthew 27; Acts 1), and the most horrific torture in human history – Jesus crucified (Mark 16).
With the ushering in of this kingdom, demons were cast out (ekballo − hurled or thrown out, not politely excused), illnesses upended, death overthrown, powerful rulers opposed, the poor fed, and weak strengthened. As his disciples continued the work, their antagonists levied charges against them that they had “turned the world upside down” (Acts17:6). This kingdom brought overpowering force to dark powers, miraculous force to the natural order, and forces of redemption and judgment on human beings. Kingdom violence.
Jesus never envisioned a lovefest where all of humanity holds hands and sings, “We are the world….” He revealed that his worldview was fundamentally kingdoms in conflict when he said, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34-36). The line of demarcation widened with comments like, “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you… I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you” (Jn. 15:18-19). Furthermore, you are blessed when they hate you (Lu. 6:22).
When we think of Jesus, violence is probably the last adjective we’d attribute to him. Those of us raised on hymnology sang, “Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, Look upon a little child…” Yet, he casts the oracular “woe” (i.e., curses) on the religious leaders and spoke derogatory names directly at them – “hypocrites,” “fools,” “son of hell,” “whitewashed tombs,” “brood of vipers,” and “murderers” (Matt. 23).
We like to vilify the leaders of the day who opposed Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah and adopt a “serves them right” attitude. To cultivate a little empathy and humility, consider this. Those being disparaged were someone’s child and/or a child’s parent. They were conditioned by their culture and probably had some appealing character-traits as well as failings. They may have been enjoyable at parties, had a sense of humor, and cared for their circle of friends. They were mere humans being called, “a son of hell.”
Yet, Jesus was not unfairly tarnishing their reputations. He was telling the harsh, unvarnished truth about what lurked in their hearts, minds, and behavior. He rightly hurled invectives directly at them – truth-telling is a kind of force.
While on earth, Jesus not only exerted force upon dark powers and the natural order, but human beings. Most notably, he turned over tables of money changers, and whipped them out of the temple (John 2:13-16). This is not the behavior we expect from the refined, genteel metro-male in which we like to portray him. As C. S. Lewis portrayed, Jesus was not a tamed animal like a dog, but a wildly powerful lion that cannot be tamed (Lewis, 2001).
As one turns to the apostle John’s account in Revelations 19, it is startling to see him riding a white horse, “judging and waging war.” His eyes are “like a blazing fire” and his robe “dipped in blood.” If that were not enough of a terrifying picture, “from his mouth proceeds a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations.” He “tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.” And on his robe and thigh are written “King of kings and Lord of lords.” The One indisputable potentate. An overwhelming force imposed upon a hostile world- order, not subjected to the whims, opinions, or aspirations of fallen humanity. Violence.
The upside-downed ethics of the kingdom outlined by Jesus to his followers upended the morality of the day. Over and over he referred to the moral code of the Judaizers, then replaced it with laws of His kingdom. Disciples were not to hate the world back, not even their enemies (Matt. 5:43). They were not to “resist an evil person,” but “turn the other [cheek]”should they be slapped (Matthew 5:39).
Still, allegiance to the kingdom was quite different. In comparing the most cherished filial relationships to following Christ, it should be as though the disciple “hate” them (Lu. 14:26). Likewise, they should have that same contempt for their own souls by contrast. If they do not, they “cannot” be his disciple. In effect, these were non-negotiable terms for citizenship in this new order – the total abandonment of all allegiance to the old world-order. A violent overthrow of social norms and conventional wisdom.
Furthermore, he tells his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords (Lu. 22:36). Before you imagine the hum of spinning swords from wild-eyed John-Brown-type vigilantes who are charging on snorting horses and beheading enemies of Christ, consider the context.
I cannot infer that Jesus was being metaphorical, referring to a spiritual sword, like that of some commentators. Contrary to Pope Boniface VIII’s bull, Unam Sanctam, there is no indication in the text itself that it symbolizes temporal and spiritual authority of the church. Neither can I claim that Jesus was affirming the basic human right to self-defense. Nor, can I assert that Jesus was deferring to their fear as a human weakness, much like allowing for divorce because of hardness of heart (Mk. 10:5). Although that speculation may reconcile the text with other passages that indicate non-violent responses to hostility, nothing actually in the text suggests any of these.
What is clear is that Jesus’ entourage is headed into hostile territory at the Mount of Olives. Jesus knew it quite well as he prayed in anguish and made note that “He was numbered with transgressors” in the next verse (Lu. 22:37). In Jesus’ conflicting-kingdoms motif, he was aware that his hour had come and Satanic forces were going to be unleashed. He was going to be subjected to these dark forces for a season. If the extent of his kenosis before the final Passion precluded him from knowing all of the ramifications of this hour, by telling them to “buy swords” he may have wanted to protect the disciples from being possible collateral damage caused by the free moral agency of wicked men.
Conjecture aside, though, it is important to note that when Peter uses a sword to protect Jesus, he is told to put it away. Also, Jesus immediately healed the soldier’s ear. Further, he said, “Those who use the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:51-52). So, it cannot be inferred by this brief side-note to the narrative that he was endorsing arbitrary use of weaponry.
It is well-documented that both during and after the accounts in the Bible, all of the apostles were horrifically tortured and/or murdered. Their followers were stoned, tortured, torn to pieces by animals, murdered, and left destitute in exile. They were doused in oil, hung on spikes, and lit on fire to serve as human candles for Nero’s parties. Tyrants were driven to madness at the ushering in of Christ’s kingdom.
It is clear that neither Jesus nor the apostles thought of the world as reluctant friends who agree to observe a mutually agreed upon truce and moral framework in the interest of being civilized. They portray it as being diametrically opposed, pitted totally against the interest of Christ and his kingdom.
Their worldview attested that the believer is being thrust into a kingdom conflagration of cosmic proportions. It is not restricted to a spiritual realm, as they were neither Gnostics nor Manicheans. There are no demilitarized zones, no safe-havens. It encompasses all of reality, all that exists. It is a life or death, no holds barred war.
Throughout Luke’s account in Acts, violent forces continue after Christ’s ascension. The cowardly were emboldened. Christian leaders were arrested multiple times and then supernaturally released by angels or other miraculous acts. Both civic and religious rulers were boldly rebuked, opposed, and disobeyed. Multiplied thousands were liberated from unbelief and granted saving faith. Ananias and Sapphira immediately died for lying to the Holy Spirit. Hundreds if not thousands of sick were healed. Demons, “crying out with a loud voice” were expelled (Acts 8:7). Dead persons were raised to life. Christians saw visions of the risen Christ upon martyrdom. The overwhelming force of the kingdom through the power of the Holy Spirit continued to upend the old world order and enforce the titular rights of King Jesus. Violence.
Further, endorsements of various kinds toward the use of violence are employed by the apostles of Christ. Paul called Elymas a “son of the devil” and “enemy of all righteousness” (Acts 13:10). Subsequently, the man was struck blind when trying to refrain a proconsul from believing the gospel. Paul wished his opponents castrated (Galatians 5). He called a category of persons as “evil seducers” (II Tim. 3:13-17).
Paul boldly told Governor Felix that he will be judged by God (Acts 2:25). King Herod immediately was struck by an angel because he did not give glory to God, was eaten by worms, and died (Acts 12:23). Kingdoms in conflict… duality… justice… violence.
Jesus assumed all authority after his Passion in both heaven and earth (Matt. 28). In turn, he gave incredible authority to his church, entrusting them with the “keys of the kingdom” such that whatever they bind or loose on earth is bound or loosed in the heavens (Matt. 18). In concert with the church’s authority to bind and loose things on earth, Paul excommunicates someone and turns him “over to Satan” to destroy his flesh (I Cor. 7; Matt. 16:19). This is not a mere disfellowship like someone being removed from the Kiwanis Club. It was an unleashing of dark powers that are normally prevented from ravaging those in right fellowship with Christ and His church.
Although Paul clearly states that “we wrestle not against flesh and blood,” he is not erstwhile taking humanity or the material world off the table. He notes that “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men…” (Rom. 1:18). This is a far cry from Bill Bright’s Four Spiritual Laws, “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” It is more akin to “God is angry at you and is actively opposing all of the bad things you do.” Conflict. Violence.
Moreover, Paul chastises believers for their lack of judgment regarding the affairs of the church when they will be authorized and commissioned to “judge the world” (I Cor. 6:2). If this conflict did not include human beings, how would the Ephesians 6:12 admonition make any sense?
It seems more in keeping with other passages that Paul is not saying we are not in conflict with fallen human beings at all. It seems to indicate that he is pointing to spiritual forces that animate them as the ultimate source of the conflict. In effect, as believers aspire to align with the Holy Spirit, these enemies of Christ confederate with cosmic evil forces.
Though prominent in the records, Paul was not alone. In describing people who reject reason, Peter stated, “They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed…” (II Peter 2:12). Jude also compares them to “unreasoning animals,” “clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead,uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever” (Jude 10, 12-13). All the while, these despicable people were cavorting with genuine believers.
These are hardly kind comments about others with whom we may disagree. Beyond harsh rhetoric, the apostolic admonition was to take care to not follow them since they are headed for certain destruction, build up yourselves, pray in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, have mercy on doubters, deliver others by “snatching them” out of the fire (II Peter 3:17; Jude 20-23). “Snatch” them. A biblical use for exercising force to safeguard believers.
In trying to understand the migration in Bonhoeffer’s theology that led him to attempting to assassinate a tyrant, one must understand his view of Biblical ethics. This can be found primarily in three of his works, Cost of Discipleship, Ethics, and Letters from Prison.
According to Bonhoeffer, righteousness was not determined by a stand-alone list of principles to which both God and man must subscribe. God determines what and who is righteous or wicked. There is no code of chivalry or manners to which the believer must submit. Christ is the sine qua non of all goodness. There is no real goodness outside of Him to which He must adhere. He need not observe goodness, he is goodness and there is no real goodness outside of him. Something is right because he says it is and nothing more. All imaginary abstractions are futile attempts to create a humanistic moral code. It is an attempt to remove God as the Ultimate Lawgiver.
Bonhoeffer embraced the kingdoms in conflict worldview. For him, if warfare is not occurring, the believer has ceded the ground to the enemy and agreed to a détente with the powers of darkness. At the same time, he was the foremost Christian ethicist of his generation. He elevated the ethics of the Bible above all else; be “not … pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable” (I Tim. 3:3). We are to “malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration” (Titus 3:2). Those who practice things, like “… enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions… will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:19-21).
Still, assassinating Hitler was a no-brainer when it came to Bonhoeffer. There was no ambiguity or moral crisis. He was a highly educated man and understood the complexity of issues that needed to be unknotted.
For him, in the normal course of human affairs a Christian has the duty to observe all of those high moral values to which must be cherished. However, when dealing with abject and unrepentant evil that actively opposes God’s word, they are to be opposed with all vigor and dispatch.
Theology of Force
Bonhoeffer was acutely aware of the theology that had been shaped by the church for almost 2,000 years. Much scholarship had been conducted to chronicle the martyrdom of saints.
What has not been widely chronicled is the force exacted by the early church to protect itself. None other than the most august of early theologians than Augustine himself formulated a theology of Just War. It was further developed by the pre-eminent Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas. Two seminal works in the 17th century spilled out from England across the European continent that challenged the divine right of kings and put them on notice that state authority only extended to what was sanctioned by God in His Word – George Buchannen’s De Jure Apud Scotos, and Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex (Buchanan, 1689; Rutherford, 1644). Any exercise of rulership beyond that sanctioned by the Bible was rebellion against God and tyranny. In addition, the winds of democracy were blowing across the continent, sweeping aside the notions that monarchs and oligarchs had unrestrained power to do what they want.
Bonhoeffer was acutely aware that Just War theology had been an ethical standard for warfare for almost two-thousand years. Not only had it been subscribed to by Catholics, but framed by protestants as well. The Westminster Confession of Faith, John Calvin, Martin Luther, and Francois Turrettini would have already been codified and widely known (Assembly, 1981/1855, 23:2, WLC Q. 136; Calvin, 1970, Bk. 4, Sec. 11-12; Luther, 2002/1528; Turrettini, 1992/1685, Top. 11, Q. 17). Since that time, this has further been re-framed by top Reformed and Evangelical theologians (Dabney, 1972, Lect. 33, Q7; Hodge, 2014, Pt. 3, Ch. 19, Sec. 10; Murray, 1957, pp. 178-179).
Yet before sabre rattlers clank their swords, consider that Augustine lived through the ransacking of Rome by the Visigoths about fifteen years prior to completing The City of God where they pillaged, burned, and stole everything of value in Rome. He was acutely aware of the carnage of war and yet still lamented that a callous view of war was itself unjust and could not predicate starting one. He wrote, “For it is the wrongdoing of the opposing party which compels the wise man to wage just wars; and this wrong-doing, even though it gave rise to no war, would still be a matter of grief to man because it is man’s wrong-doing. Let everyone, then, who thinks with pain on all these great evils, so horrible, so ruthless, acknowledge that this is misery. And if any one either endures or thinks of them without mental pain, this is a more miserable plight still, for he thinks himself happy because he has lost human feeling” (Augustine, 1985, Ch. 7, para. last).
In effect, the Just War theory holds to eight propositions. This foundation has been developed over centuries. To be a Just War, Augustine states, “A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly” (Augustine, 419, p. 550). The summation of the theory is as follows:
- The cause and intention of a war must be just. The Westminster divines in the Large Catechism wrote that taking lives of others was a violation of the 6th commandment except in instances of “public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense” (WLC, Q. 136). Charles Hodge asserted, “It is conceded that wars undertaken to gratify the ambition, cupidity, or resentment of rulers or people, are unchristian and wicked. It is also conceded that the vast majority of the wars which have desolated the world have been unjustifiable in the sight of God and man. Nevertheless it does not follow from this that war in all cases is to be condemned” (Hodge, 2014, Bk. 3, Ch. 19, Sec. 10 ). He then goes on to list those exceptions that would warrant a just war. Augustine wrote, “The desire for harming, the cruelty of revenge, the restless and implacable mind, the savageness of revolting, the lust for dominating, and similar things – these are what are justly blamed in wars” (Augustine, 400, Ch. 74). Aquinaswrote, “… it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil” (Aquinas, 2012, Bk II, Sec. 2, Q. 40, A. 1).
- The war must have limited objectives that are just in the eyes of God. This includes protecting the innocent who are threatened or restoring order in the society. Wars of conquest or wars to “spread democracy” are thus unjust (Augustine, 1985, Ch. 10)
- There must be a right to intervene with violence. “In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary… a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault” (Aquinas, 2012, Bk II, Sec. 2, Q. 40, A. 1).
- There must be a declaration of war by lawful authorities. Aquinas wrote, “…it makes a great difference by which causes and under which authorities men undertake the wars that must be waged. The natural order, which is suited to the peace of mortal things, requires that the authority and deliberation for undertaking war be under the control of a leader, and also that, in the executing of military commands, soldiers serve peace and the common well-being. In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged …” (Aquinas, 2012, Bk II, Sec. 2, Q. 40, A. 1).
- War is the last resort. Even if a nation has a just cause and a right to intervene, it must not engage in warfare unless it is the last resort. An appeal must first be made to right before recourse is made to might.
- A war is just only if it is entered into with a probability of success. Not all just causes can be successfully prosecuted. It is unjust to ask for vain sacrifice.
- A just war is one where the cost that is to be incurred is not thought to be a greater evil than that which is to be remedied.
- The means of a just war must be both discriminative and proportional. A just war is one which carefully distinguishes civilians from combatants. The violence used must only be sufficient to restore the peace that has been destroyed by the aggressor.
Aquinas wrote, “Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists … it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense” (Aquinas, 2012, Bk. II, Sec. 2, Q. 31, A. 3).
Of course, Bonhoeffer was not waging war with a foreign adversary at the behest of legitimate state authority. He was in effect, waging war against the very tyranny of the state to which he was a citizen.
He knew quite well that the church suffered martyrdom by tyrants in the past and ultimately prevailed. He was also aware of ample examples where non-violent resistance had triumphed over tyrants. At the same time, he would have known of the many examples where Christians did not triumph through passive resistance, but lost their children and grandchildren to a heretical worldview at the point of a sword. The most imminent example was just to the East, in communist Russia.
As you may imagine, a host of questions are involved in determining whether an act of violence is morally acceptable to God. If someone slaps my face because I am a Christian, it is fairly clear that Jesus enjoins us to offer the other. However, if someone is beating me for sheer sadistic pleasure, regardless of my faith-claim, does it still apply? What if they are injuring me to the point that my family is at risk? Is it ethical for me to resist in order to protect the well-being of others? If I have the power to prevent others from being tormented or killed and I do not exercise it, have I pleased God?
Consider the aggressors themselves. Like Bonhoeffer, it seems like an easy decision to kill Hitler in his mania. Pull the trigger now and ask for forgiveness later, if warranted.
However, what about situations that are not so clear? What if the assailant believes like today’s cultural Marxists, that logic and reason is a part of the Western patriarchy and should be rejected? What if they have been duped into this sinister faith through socialization. If so, isn’t trying to reason with them a fool’s errand – casting pearls before swine? Would it be God’s will, if effective, to treat them as a parent would a petulant child? What if by exerting force you were keeping them from a greater judgment and protecting those who would inevitably be harmed by them?
What if they are socio-paths? What if they have a mental injury to their frontal cortex as to turn them from a mild-mannered person to a raging and dangerous person? Is it not right and just to exert force to inhibit them from acting out nefarious intents? Wouldn’t it be similar to tying down a heroin addict while he is going through withdrawals?
20th century Christian apologetics has used logic as its stock-and-trade. Those methods were forged in a modernistic world, but it effectiveness increasingly diminishes as postmodernism becomes more prominent.
Clearly, it has little to no effect on those aligned with cultural Marxism. The pagans burning down cities, shouting down patrons, accosting the elderly on the streets, and shooting police officers are not going to engage in an intellectual thrust and parry.
Yet, because of the Inquisitions and other abuses by the church, protestants in particular are very averse to anything that smatters of ecclesiastical power. If history has taught us anything, church and state relations are fraught with dangers. As such, there has not developed a theology, much less an apologetic method, for the use of force.
A well-worn axiom of evangelicalism is, “You cannot force anyone to believe.” One only needs to look at the conversions under Constantine to see that those kinds of conversions do not end well.
At the same time, the Bible conveys that the church’s power is distinct and separate from that of the state. It is more powerful than all of the weaponry of the modern state. It exercises the power of God, within the confines of that authorized by Jesus Christ, through the agency of the Holy Spirit.
When this is framed in this manner, it is natural for Christians to revert into a pietist mode, where all of this is occurring in human affections and beliefs. By our constant socialization of “separation of church and state” to mean that religion is separate from the marketplace of ideas, secular pursuits, and civil government, we hermetically seal it from our rightful place as ambassadors for Christ.
When Paul, in II Corinthians 5:20, was calling us to serve as his ambassadors, he was not referring to a 21st century idea of ambassadorship. During his day, the legati were Roman ambassadors sent into a foreign land after they had been conquered. It was their job to declare the terms of conquest and secure obedience to Rome.
In effect, he is commissioning us as ambassadors of His kingdom, which has conquered the rulers of this world. Our message is clear, “We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (II Cor. 5:20). He is King of kings, Lord of lords – here are the terms of His conquest.
The Bible also spells out that earthly powers are given to reward the good and punish evildoers (Romans 13:4). As such, it loses its legitimacy in exercising power once it transgresses those restraints. It is now in opposition to God’s will as opposed to being obedient to it. On the other hand, their appointment is by God otherwise they would not have that authority in the first place. So we should honor them as they are doing their legitimately appointed duties. Resistance to that authority should not be done for light or transient reasons.
Applications from Bonhoeffer Regarding Tyrannical Political Movements
It is popular today to say, WWJD – What Would Jesus Do. Since our dear brother, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, went through a common dilemma that many of us may face soon, it may be instructive to ask WWBD – What Would Bonhoeffer Do, if he was living in a time of cultural Marxism?
There is a statement that is universally true, and applies to the current situation. It is this, “There is a genocidal enemy who has declared war and used weapons to annihilate both combatants and innocents alike.”
I chose those words advisedly. They are not hyperbole. It is a statement of fact – without bias, opinion, or social construct. It could be truthfully stated at any point of recorded human history, by any tribe, tongue, nation, or people-group. So long as a person does not suffer from impaired faculties, regardless of political or philosophical persuasions, they will acknowledge the veracity of this statement. However, it does demonstrate how language can be weaponized and altered when placed within the broader context of worldview. Still, it warrants pause and deep reflection to till the fallowed mind of the jaded or beguiled.
A genocidal enemy declared war and used weapons to annihilate both combatants and innocents alike.
The truth-value of what seems to be a universally accepted statement of raw fact is predicated upon the events to which it refers, what the observer brings to the reading of it, and the frame of reference applied to it. For example, historic Marxists agree with that statement, but attribute the offense to the bourgeoisie (ruling class). Cultural-Marxists view the statement as true by virtue that white American males used weapons against indigenous peoples and annihilated both combatants and innocents alike. On the other hand, traditionalists would not apply truth-value to the cultural-Marxists’ interpretation regarding those events. They would claim that white American males were neither “genocidal” nor annihilated “innocents.” Instead, they would affirm the statement as true as referring to other points in history. Marxists declared war on their enemies and used weapons to annihilate combatants and innocents alike.
Dying American generations have witnessed millions of tortured, enslaved, and murdered human beings under the specter of Marxism. Throughout the twentieth century, flickering TV images dimly glimmered in darkened homes and ink-stained fingers strummed through daily newspapers. Indelibly imprinted on those generations’ psyches were the putrid stench of decaying flesh, body counts, and human misery. No avatars. No special effects. Real, reality. The kind that shoots a searing pain up your arm when touching fire. The kind that happens whether you imagine it or not.
Unfettered expressions of Marxism have never resulted in a kinder, gentler version. Like receding waves that leave debris in their wake, each new movement predicted success by virtue of their own moral and intellectual superiority – Bolsheviks, Leninists, Stalinists, Trotskyites, Maoists, Frankfurts, and so forth. But ironically, each iteration resulted in more oppression than what they promised to eradicate. Both those who actively resisted along with disinterested bystanders were forced to bow the knee or become exterminated. They were either imprisoned or killed. This is not metaphorical, but quite literal – lifeless rotting bodies on the ground. Several generations saw this first-hand. Real, reality.
It is reasonable to infer the grieving mother whose hoarsened voice wailed at the mass grave where her husband was dumped could not have imagined this outcome when it all started. After all, it was one of her Marxist family members, friends, or neighbors who likely put a bullet through his head and dumped him like a piece of garbage. It was one who said they wanted equality, brotherhood, and freedom from oppression.
Moreover, it does not require much imagination to conclude it could have been anyone’s grandparent, parent, uncle or aunt. Left to Marxists’ devices, it is not too much of a stretch to infer it could be anyone reading this essay, their spouse, children, or grandchildren.
Cultural-Marxism is the new aberration bubbling out of the Snow Witch’s cauldron that also promises equality, fraternity, and freedom from oppression. Yet, no data in the annals of human history leads a person to believe it will result any differently than its predecessors.
Do not be deceived, nothing satiates their ravenous appetite for power. Nothing less than an auto da fe to all the icons of Western civilization will do, especially those of the Christian church and other religious communities. Their bugles are already playing the Degüello. No quarters. No exceptions. Real, reality.
If you think this is fanciful, take them at their own words and actions. In 1997, Nicholas Humphrey gave the Amnesty Lecture at Oxford and claimed that society has an obligation and “should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible… than we should allow parents to knock their children’s teeth out or lock them in a dungeon” (Hitchens, 2007).
Consider the invectives regularly spewed toward Christians by leftists. Most Christians who dare to refute the leftist mantra have been desensitized by the constant harangue of racist, sexist, homophobe, xenophobe, and misogynist. On November 5, 2017, a gunman walked into First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas and opened fire with a semiautomatic rifle, killing 26 people and wounding 20. In the aftermath, the political left responded with jeers and insults when Paul Ryan, then Speaker of the House, tweeted a call to prayer.
Examples of Bible-believing Christians being labeled as deplorables, hicks, rubes, are too many to chronicle. One example on June 23, 2020, Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King called for statues of Jesus Christ be torn down. On July 16, 2020 a statue of Jesus Christ as the Good Shepherd in the courtyard of Kendale Lakes Catholic Church was toppled and beheaded by an alleged BLM protester. This was on the heels of an incident in an Orlando Catholic church where the perpetrator drove a minivan through the front door set it ablaze.
Knowing the heinous activities of Russian Marxists who burned 100,000 churches, arrested 130,000 Russian Orthodox priests and executed 95,000 of them, the atheist-leftist Bill Maher makes no reference to those in his own philosophical camp, but vilifies Christians as dangerous “irrationalists” who “steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken” (Maher & Charles, 2008).
Yet, despite serious attempts by Marxists worldwide to showcase a single model of success to this theory, they have yet to show a single one. Twice-failed presidential candidate, Bernie Saunders, often hailed European socialism as the sole exception. However, close examination refutes his claim. Instead, it shows capitalist economies with large and costly social programs, not full-throated socialism.
Despite the progressive-lefts’ attempts to divorce socialism from Marxism, there is no clear line of demarcation between the two. The starting point for both ideologies is some form of dialectical materialism. Both claim the ultimate evil is oppression; and, the source of all human maladies is an oppressor class. Both prescribe the overthrow of those in power as redemption. Both reject individualism and embrace collectivism. Both assume the highest good is to achieve egalitarianism. Both assume an achievable utopian state. In the final analysis, they are distinctions without a difference. The term, socialism is at least dependent, correlational, or subsumed by Marxism or visa versa, depending on the context. One may distinguish one’s fingers from the hand, but in the end they are all the same body.
These new cultural-Marxists are not neoliberals or Keynesian economists for which the western-world has become so comfortable. This social theory goes by many names. They are using terms like post-postmodernism, post-millennialism, trans-idealism, performatism, metamodernism, alt-postmodernists, Critical Race Theorists (CRT), metaphysical idealists, and a host of others. The less ideologically inclined may better recognize them as progressives, statists, globalists, leftists, the resistance, Black Lives Matter (BLM), Antifa, or one of many other splinter groups.
They are the rotten fruit of an aging postmodernism. Like their progenitors, they rebel against the trite and shallow features of Western technocracy and all streams whose headwaters can be traced back to the Enlightenment. They rage against postmodern idealism as a petulant child to its parent. They indict both capitalistic and collectivist solutions to global problems as mere enervations of the previous generations’ modern and postmodern cultures. At the same time, their Marxist collectivism is shrouded by clever buzzwords – woke, intersectionality, transformation, hegemony, white privilege, systemic racism, social justice, micro-aggressions, and the like.
Cultural-Marxism has cobbled together a daunting cadre of professions and interest groups that could even terrify the stout of heart, much less the timid. The casual observer will easily identify its fingerprint on almost every aspect of American life – government, academia, media, arts, technology, commerce, et al. The nation’s glitterati are no longer covertly stowing this contagion in cavernous enclaves, like faculty lounges or think tanks, but have unleashed it into the streets like the bulls of Pamplona. Those who do not run for their lives are being run over.
Fortunately, this intimidation factor is somewhat mitigated by studies that conclude such people-movements are not monolithic like the Marxists would have everyone believe. Their own cherished playbook, Rules for Radicals, asserts that “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have” (Alinsky, 1989, p. 139). Looking more behind the mask, examiners will note early participants in these movements are swept up in the enthusiasm and aspire for acceptance, but only have an enigmatic understanding of the ideology. Then, like shoaling fish, they swim in the protective current of the masses while subscribing only to certain beliefs and experiencing various levels of acculturation (Kioupkiolis & Katsambekis, 2016).
In this school of fish, at least five wobbly postmodern pillars prop up cultural-Marxism. 1) Reality is a collection of perceptions derived from simulacra, or images that simulate what is real but only approximate what actually exists (Baudrillard, 1994). 2) Consciousness of the “self” as the subject (actor) is an illusion (Heidegger, 1962; Nietzsche, 2004). 3) Knowledge (epistemology) is a social construct . 4) Language is semantically self-referential and culturally derived (Derrida, 1997). 5) All meta-narratives (worldviews) are linguistic combinations and collisions among innumerable heterogenous language games derived from culture (Lyotard, 1993; Wittgenstein, 1968). Overarching all of these pillars are two large revulsions to all things drawn from Western civilization, Enlightenment and Christianity.
The cultural-Marxists co-opt these pillars in a way that reinforce whatever oppression- oppressed paradigm they wish to advance. For example, consider how Critical Race Theorists (CRT) accentuate the oppression framework by undermining the founding documents of America:
1) The Founders were white male slave-owners who were acculturated in an Enlightenment meta-narrative, which they enshrined in documents to create a hegemony that would perpetually subjugate women and people of color. Their view was not reality, but a culturally derived amalgam of linguistic symbols. It carries no more truth-value than a shopping list at Walmart. Freedom from oppression will only be accomplished when this hegemony is rejected, destroyed, and replaced by one that ensures an egalitarian state for humankind.
2) The illusion of the individual was a by-product of Western acculturation and perpetuates oppression. It is reflective of a view of reality that is dualist rather than a semantic network of images and signs that can only approximate what exists. To free oppressed people of color, the myth of the individual and all accompanying dualisms must be rejected and replaced by a collective consciousness. It is not freedom of the individual, but freedom of the racial group that will overcome and sustain freedom from oppression. It is not racial prejudices of individuals, but systems that perpetuate the oppressive hegemony that are the problem.
3) Since all knowledge is culturally derived, the claim by the Founders to have knowledge of truth that transcends their culture only perpetuates the hegemony that oppresses people of color. For modern day conservatives to elevate the Constitution is to perpetuate the oppression by reinforcing their hegemony, and are thus racists.
4) Because language is self-referential and socially acquired, CRT deconstructs any historical document to accentuate the inherent lack of unified meaning and discontinuity of ideas, cull out any trace of meta-narrative, then reconstruct by way of “the new” (Vattimo, 1988). In other words, they legitimize what has been historically referred to as eisegesis – reading into the text.So to free the oppressed groups that the hegemony in those documents were intended to suppress, the documents must be deconstructed by removing mythological meta-narrative and re-interpreted by the groups they were intended to oppress.So building on these foundationless assumptions, the CRT assert the Founding documents cannot be applied to people outside slave-owning American white males of the 18th century. It is rife with multiple interpretations. It is legitimate to sit in judgment using current culturally derived progressive values to impose on the text.That is the reason progressives continue to nominate and confirm constructivist judges/justices. In their view, the Constitution is a malleable ever-changing document. So CRT imposes the racial oppression-oppressed narrative by reframing the historical 3/5 argument for Americans of African descent to support their worldview.
5) All meta-narratives are linguistic combinations and collisions among innumerable heterogenous language games derived from culture. It follows then, that there are no self-evident truths that transcend the white, male 18th century mindset contained in the Constitution. So, the CRT’s worldview is seen through the prism of racial oppression. Every aspect of thought is filtered through this prism.
As one turns a diamond and sees varied colors, so various interest groups shine different oppression-oppressor frameworks, but it is the same ideology – Marxism. Whether one is talking about feminism, LGBQT+, racism, xenophobia, marginalized religions, or whatever else, they hold to the same postmodern underpinnings and make the same arguments with the same justifications.
These demonstrate that a text without a context is a pretext. The context, based upon a person’s worldview, serves as an interpretive grid to what appears as raw facts. Even the belief that worldviews serve as interpretive grids comes from assumptions found in a particular global perspective on reality, or what postmoderns refer to as a “meta-narrative.”
Generally, philosophers now concede that the starting point for all truth-claims is necessarily tautological, meaning circular. As such, the conclusion for this foundational belief is not derived from any premises. One such example is the foundational postmodern belief, “all meta-narratives originate from culture.” There can be no premise to warrant that as aconclusion. It is basic, the starting point for a host of other beliefs that are based upon that assumption.
It is in the insidious nature of rejecting reason, ontological being, unified and sentient self, and associated episteme that makes traditional apologetics designed for 20th century modernism by-and-large ineffectual. For instance, the appeals for a national conversation about race by the CRT isn’t about race at all. It is about power. Every fact, statistic, study, and documentation will go through the prism of the cultural-Marxist worldview, get redefined or reinterpreted, then made to fit within the cultural-Marxism framework. Since they view reason as mere cultural baggage from an exhausted residue of a bygone worldview, it will not provide any common ground upon which to pursue what Francis Schaeffer called, “true, truth” (Schaeffer, 1968).
What Now Should We Do Regarding Cultural Marxists?
Immediately when considering what to do with cultural-Marxists, I resort to my evangelical slogans – love the Marxist hate the Marxism. After all, God is love. Those who love are of God.” Isn’t that right?
In cases where an avowed enemy has declared and acted in accordance with a view of annihilating the Christian faith, believers, and families, this seems like too tepid a response. Protestantism has a long and distinguished history of resisting oppressive authority. One might rightly argue that it was in fact oppression by ungodly authority that necessitated the movement in the first place.
The Scottish and English, in particular, made great academic strides in this field. De Jure Regni apud Scotos Dialogus, A Dialogue on the Law of Kingship among the Scots, by George Buchanan was the fountainhead of a cascade of works that led to the elimination of the notion of “divine rights of kings.”
The next landmark work was by Rev. Samuel Rutherford writing Lex Rex or The Law and King: A Dispute for the Just Prerogative of King and People. This work, drenched in scripture, lays out the case that all rulers were to be subject to the laws of God. Any supposed king, ruler, who failed to do so lost his [or her] moral authority to exercise rule. This paved the way for a path for the obedient to oppose the crown.
Protestant leaders like Johnathan Mathew who preached from Psalm 74:1,8 and applied it to the Repeal of the Stamp-Act. Jacob Duché preached from Galatians 5:1 on, “The Duty of Standing Fast in Our Liberties.” Samuel Langdon preached on Isaiah 1:26, “Government Corrupted by Vice.” William Smith preached from Joshua 22:22 on “The Crisis of American Affairs.” The list is full of evangelical pastors who provided the moral framework for the War for Independence – John Joachim Zubly, John Hurt, William Gordon, Nathaniel Whitaker, Oliver Hart, Samuel Stillman, David Tappan, John Rodgers, and George Duffield among others. Those preached sermons against the tyranny of George III and provided theological weight to what constituted governance by God. On occasion, after the sermons, some would grab their muskets and lead their flock to wage battle. This resulted in freedom, affluence, and spread of Christianity throughout the country and world.
So, what must we do with the Cultural Marxists? Taking a page from Bonhoeffer, we should…
- Think through a Biblical theology on the use of force and use it to deconstruct those power-centers who are hostile to the rightful rule of King Jesus.
- Exercise Biblical church discipline. Not mere disassociation, but exercise the powers given to the church to bind the rebellious and loose things on earth that comport with the will of God as revealed in the Scripture through the Holy Spirit. Those who are unrepentant, give them over to Satan in order to restore them to community with God and the church.
- Return our children to an educational system that reflects the Christian faith and values. If it cannot be done in public schools, then in Christian schools, the church, or home.
- By asserting Christ’s Word as the highest law that supersedes all other obligations by thechurch, extricate all entanglements between the church and state.
- Develop associations with other Christian churches beyond the restrictions ofdenominations who have a vested interest in securing religious freedom, something like the Barmen Declaration. In turn, use this as a platform to “push back” against state over-reach.
- Take a page from Martin Luther King. Non-violent resistance. Overcome evil with good. Overcome hate with love.
1 In section 8.09, the declaration charges the “Reich Church” with “errors” that are “devastating” and breaking the unity of the German Evangelical Church. Sec. 8.11 attests that Jesus Christ is the “one Word of God” [not the Fuhrer] which the church is to hear and obey. Sec. 8.12 calls for the rejection by any church “could and would have to acknowledge as a source” any “events and powers, figures and truths” other than those of the one Word of God. 8.15 they rejected the “false doctrine” that any areas of life “would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords – areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him.”
Sources
Alinsky, S. D. (1989). Rules for radicals: A practical primer for realistic radicals. Vintage.
Aquinas, T. (2012). Summa theologica. Authentic Media Inc.
Assembly, W. (1981/1855). The Westminster confession of faith. Free Presbyterian Publications. Augustine. (400). Contra Faustum (Vol. XXII). New Advent.
Augustine. (1985). The city of God: On Christian doctrine. Franklin Library.
Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. University of Michigan Press.
Bauer, W., Arndt, W. F., & Gingrich, F. W. (1957). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. University of Chicago Press.
Buchanan, G. (1689). De jure regni apud Scotos. Or, A dialogue, concerning the due priviledge of government in the kingdom of Scotland. Printed for R. Baldwin.
Calvin, J. (1970). Institutes of the Christian religion (F. L. Battles, Trans.). The Westminster Press. Cochrane, A. C. (1962). The church’s confession under Hitler. Westminster Press.
Dabney, R. L. (1972). Lectures in systematic theology. Zondervan.
Derrida, J. (1997). Of grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). John Hopkins University Press.
Goldman, A. I. (1999). Epistemology and postmodern resistance. Knowledge in a social world, 3-40. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. Harper.
Hitchens, C. (2007). God is not great: How religion poisons everything. Twelve.
Hodge, C. (2014). Systematic theology. Ravenio Books.
Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (1980/1892). Commentary on the Old Testament (Vol. 5). Eerdmans.
Kioupkiolis, A., & Katsambekis, G. (2016). Radical democracy and collective movements today: The biopolitics of the multitude versus the hegemony of the people. Routledge.
Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of St Matthew’ Gospel (Vol. 1). Augsburg Publishing House.
Lewis, C. S. (2001). Mere christianity. Zondervan.
Luther, M. (2002/1528). On war against the Turk. http://www.lutherdansk.dk/On%20war%20against%20Islamic%20reign%20of%20terror/On%20 war%20against%20Islamic%20reign%20of%20terror1.htm
Lyotard, J.-F. (1993). The postmodern explained: correspondence, 1982-1985. U of Minnesota Press.
Maher, B., & Charles, L. (2008). Religulous. Lionsgate.
Metaxas, E. (2010). Bonhoeffer: Pastor, martyr, prophet, spy. Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Murray, J. (1957). Principles of conduct: aspects of biblical ethics. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Nietzsche, F. W. (2004). Ecce homo: How one becomes what one is (T. Wayne, Trans.). Algora Publishing.
Rutherford, S. (1644). Lex, Rex. Sprinkle Publications.
Schaeffer, F. A. (1968). The God who is there; speaking historic Christianity into the twentieth century. Inter-varsity Press.
Turrettini, F. (1992/1685). Institutes of elenctic theology. Puritan & Reformed Publishers.
Vattimo, G. (1988). The end of modernity: Nihilism and hermeneutics in post-modern culture.
Wittgenstein, L. (1968). Philosophical investigations (3d ed.). Macmillan.
(Photo by Wissen911 – Bettina Rott: Wilhelm Rott, 1908–1967: Lebenszeugnis, Pro Business Verlag, 2008, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=52692413)
