Methodists make Bonhoeffer a martyr
The United Methodist New Service published this story last week noting that at General Conference almost two months ago German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer was named the first official martyr to be recognized by the denomination.
Of course we all know Bonhoeffer’s now near legendary story. It is arbitrarily lifted by academics in ethics courses as the quintessential example of the justified use of teleological violence. Bonhoeffer participated in the German resistance movement against Nazism during WWII and was involved in a foiled plot to assassinate Hitler. He was imprisoned and later executed just a mere three weeks before the liberation of Berlin.
Quite a story. Quite a noble story. And before I get into this let me be as clear as possible: I highly respect Bohoeffer actions, his witness, and his contribution to the kingdom. In fact, were someone to ask me to name a handful of theologians/practitioners that have influenced me and my thought, Bonhoeffer would likely be up there at the top.
However, I have mixed feelings about this. For two main reasons.
First, as with any “saint” who is posthumously canonized (unofficially or not) for a single particular event or action, the rest of their life, thought, and witness is forgotten and altogether ignored. They get immortalized. They get a holiday, a day in which we remember one, single, isolated thing they did outside the narrative of their life and context. We celebrate them in a myopic sense to appease, I suspect, our guilt for not living up to their standard, forgetting that they too were mere mortals. And screwed up mortals at that. In the meantime we forget (or repress) everything else they ever did.
For example, about 6 months ago we celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. day. We remembered and commemorated everything that King did to further the civil rights movement, we speak of him as a true martyr and a true witness for justice and peace; indeed he was. But curiously, we never seem to get around to commemorating the later King; that is, the King who opposed the Vietnam war railed against economic inequality. In fact, I would venture to say that most people don’t even know that King was more than just a civil rights activist or that he even had a position on the war and the economy.
See what I mean?
Bonhoeffer as been no different. He is praised in Christian ethics textbooks as being the perfect example to solidify a particular ethical argument and mainline denominations elevate to the status of being a martyr based solely on his opposition to Hitler. And like I said, that is noble. But what the whole Bonhoeffer? What about his teaching on cheap grace that could never be more relevant now in the age of the mega-church and rampant consumeristic theo-capitalism. Even further, what about his thoughts on a “religionless Christianity” that could be no more influential than now, in our increasingly postmodern, dare I say post-theist, context.
So I’m hesitant for that reason. Because we tend to limit and narrow people (who incidentally aren’t around anymore to defend themselves) to one cause or action among the many that took place within the span of their life. It’s like focusing solely on the fact that Jesus died on a cross. It misses the point.
My second reason has to do with Bonhoffer’s action itself. Like I mentioned, justified violence theorists love to lift up Bonhoeffer as an example of an instance in which avoiding violence could be considered immoral. I’m not interested in taking up that debate here though it is an edifying debate worth having. For the record, I’m neither a pacifist or a just violence theorist and depending on which day you ask me and what mood I happen to be in, I may answer one way or the other. I reserve the right to not have my mind made up on that matter.
But in this particular instance I think the pacifists have a point. Bonhoeffer never said that he was making a moral decision by choosing to be involved in the plot. In fact, he asked that God forgive him for those actions. In retrospect we could talk about whether Bonhoeffer was being moral or immoral, but again that’s not what I want to talk about. The problem is we tend to take these “saints” and universalize their actions outside of their context. To take it a step further, after we universalize we project their argument and action we project onto our context(s) making whatever we want “orthodox,” “ethical,” or “moral.” It almost like the biblical literalist who uses certain proof texts to justify a certain argument. We have “proof-saints” that we use to justify certain ethical positions and we pay no particular attention to the cultural and contextual nuances. Bonhoeffer was most certainly not a just war theorist and yet persons (likely the same persons who canonize him) use his example to solidify and pad their just war stance.
To that effect, I wonder what Bonhoeffer — who was otherwise a stringent pacifist – might think were he to learn of his case being used in ethical textbooks to strengthen and further reinforce a pro-violence, and, most times, a pro-war stance; further I wonder what Bonhoeffer might think were he to learn of his being martyrized because this particular isolated event.
Again, I honor and respect Bonhoeffer’s decision and action. Further, as a Christian and a United Methodist I will recognize him as a “saint.” But I will do so cautiously if not reluctantly.
Let us never forget that our “saints” were saints for much more than our pet causes and the extravangant, dramatic actions for which we canonize them.
Posts
Email