Bonhoeffer's Pacifism

Bonhoeffer offers several thoughts on this passage.

First, Bonhoeffer suggests that Jesus is reframing the Old Testament’s retribution principle. He writes, “The right way to requite evil, according to Jesus, is not to resist it” (141). Bonhoeffer argues that evil expends all of its energy only when people refuse to participate in evil or respond to it with violence. If we respond to violence with violence, we only perpetuate it.

Second, Bonhoeffer makes a distinction between Israel and the Church. Israel was simultaneously a religious community and a nation. By contrast, the Church is not a national entity in Bonhoeffer’s opinion.

Third, a pacifist response to evil does not mean one acts as if evil does not exist. Instead, you call it evil and trust the God will ensure justice is measured out. As Bonhoeffer notes, God has ordained secular government to function as a check on evil in the world. He writes, “To make non-resistance a principle for secular life is to deny God, by undermining his gracious ordinance for the preservation of the world.” (144)

Fourth, the only reason we can pursue a path of non-resistance is Jesus’s example on the cross. Jesus modeled non-resistance by surrendering his life to death. Rather than lead a political revolution or command the angels to his defense, Christ did not resist the evil done to him.

I must admit that I find Bonhoeffer’s treatment of this passage challenging and objectionable.

On the one hand, there is an increasing resurgence in militaristic language in Christianity. It is supported by appealing to other passages of scripture. I find it worrisome and wonder if those espousing it have fully grappled with the significance of Jesus’s teaching in this passage. Bonhoeffer is undeniably correct to emphasize our need to obey Christ’s command here.

At the same time, Bonhoeffer’s own life seemed to run into some issues with the idea of total non-resistance. He was eventually arrested for his role in the attempted assassination of Adolf Hitler. By that point in his life, he had resolutely decided an act of violence was the correct and righteous path. I’m no Bonhoeffer scholar, but this decision clearly contradicts some of what he writes in this chapter. It seems that he decided that some evil must be met with force.

Here are my rough thoughts in the moment:

• Jesus’s teaching here seems primarily focused on individual offense and honor. To follow Jesus’s teaching on this subject, means that we cannot engage in violent resistance to evil for the sake of our personal protection or dignity.
• The Christian’s default status should be set to non-violence. We should look for any opportunity to extinguish evil by allowing it to exert its energy on ourselves. We do this for God’s glory.
• This passage raises serious questions about Christians’ participation in the military, but it does not resolve them. Jesus’s teaching is squarely in the world of individual ethics. His examples address issues that a person may face in his or her daily life. It does not directly dictate how a government should act or how a person should think of service in his or her country, especially when it is mandated.
• This passage does not clearly explain how we should think of non-violence when evil is perpetrated against innocent people. It would appear that Bonhoeffer ultimately resolved that violence could be used to stop atrocities like those committed by the Nazis. C.S. Lewis argued that the disciples would not interpret Jesus’s command to “turn the other cheek” as a command to ignore violence committed against a vulnerable person.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the idea of pacifism in Christianity. Click here to let me know.