Amy, you have put into writing what I have often thought. Christians are called suffer with Christ (Romans 8:17, I Peter 4:1, 13). The early church writer, Justin Martyr, sums up the attitude Christians should hold toward those powers that threaten them in his First Apology to the Roman Emperor:
'And everywhere we, more readily than all men, endeavour to pay to those appointed by you the taxes both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Him; for at that time some came to Him and asked Him, if one ought to pay tribute to Cæsar; and He answered, "Tell Me, whose image does the coin bear?" And they said, "Cæsar's." And again He answered them, "Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and to God the things that are God's." Whence to God alone we render worship, but in other things we gladly serve you, acknowledging you as kings and rulers of men, and praying that with your kingly power you be found to possess also sound judgment. But if you pay no regard to our prayers and frank explanations, we shall suffer no loss, since we believe (or rather, indeed, are persuaded) that every man will suffer punishment in eternal fire according to the merit of his deed, and will render account according to the power he has received from God, as Christ intimated when He said, "To whom God has given more, of him shall more be required." Luke 12:48'
With all due respect (you are an excellent writer), I think this deeply misrepresents the issues at hand. Bonhoeffer was clearly not opposed to power, but the use of power for evil, as you yourself mention. What is participating in an attempted coup d'état against one's own government but a use of political power, rather than its renunciation?
The only people who have consistently held to the renunciation of political power are radical anabaptists. To renounce power is to refuse to vote, sit on juries, run for office, serve in the military, police or civil service, and to refuse all forms of active resistance against anyone. If that is what you are arguing for, grand, it is a reasonable position. Arguably, it was the position of much of the early church. If not, then one has to deal with the difficulties of engaging in actual politics.
My own opinion is that the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms means a separation between our political and personal life. In politics, the common, temporal good is sought. In our personal lives, we pronounce the supremacy of the Spiritual good. The powers that be are not bound by the Golden Rule, which applies to individuals. They are bound by Romans 13 "But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." The state is not part of the Kingdom of God, and thus is not bound by its laws, but by the laws of nature, discernible by reason. This is why pious and honorable Christian rulers like Alfred the great and John the steadfast were willing to use force against the enemies of the commonwealth. There is no obligation for a Christian magistrate to pay the Danegeld because the gospel says "Turn the other Cheek."
First of all, thank you for taking the time not only to read the article, but to engage with it at length. I greatly appreciate that. Second, I believe that some of the things you mentioned could have been addressed more thoroughly in a longer article (Indeed, entire books have been written on the subject!), but I try to keep things a bit briefer here. What I had intended to be one article had already ballooned into four. That would not excuse gross mischaracterizations on my part, but it does perhaps explain a certain lack of nuance. Now, as to your point, here is what I would say. Earthly power in and of itself is not evil, and it must be wielded by some to prevent complete anarchy and chaos. However, no human being can wield earthly power in an entirely pure manner. Righteous persons can wield it in a more righteous manner than others, and it is to humanity's benefit that righteous persons should hold such positions. However, it is impossible for any human being to go a day without sinning, and the sins of those with power tend to be larger in their impact. This is not an argument against ever exercising power, but it is an argument against the presumption that one can wield it as an agent of righteousness presiding over a pure kingdom of God. The true kingdom of God is upheld by the Word and power of Jesus Christ, not our actions here. It is also an argument against putting one's ultimate trust in any earthly government. And because human beings naturally struggle to trust God, the temptations of earthly power are great, even for Christians. Moreover, the Christian should never cling to power as something to be grasped, but should follow the example of Jesus Christ and, if it be God's will, surrender that power at the appropriate time. We must not be too quick to let ourselves off the hook from following Christ's directives in the Sermon on the Mount.
Amy, you have put into writing what I have often thought. Christians are called suffer with Christ (Romans 8:17, I Peter 4:1, 13). The early church writer, Justin Martyr, sums up the attitude Christians should hold toward those powers that threaten them in his First Apology to the Roman Emperor:
'And everywhere we, more readily than all men, endeavour to pay to those appointed by you the taxes both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Him; for at that time some came to Him and asked Him, if one ought to pay tribute to Cæsar; and He answered, "Tell Me, whose image does the coin bear?" And they said, "Cæsar's." And again He answered them, "Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and to God the things that are God's." Whence to God alone we render worship, but in other things we gladly serve you, acknowledging you as kings and rulers of men, and praying that with your kingly power you be found to possess also sound judgment. But if you pay no regard to our prayers and frank explanations, we shall suffer no loss, since we believe (or rather, indeed, are persuaded) that every man will suffer punishment in eternal fire according to the merit of his deed, and will render account according to the power he has received from God, as Christ intimated when He said, "To whom God has given more, of him shall more be required." Luke 12:48'
Thanks for reading and sharing!
With all due respect (you are an excellent writer), I think this deeply misrepresents the issues at hand. Bonhoeffer was clearly not opposed to power, but the use of power for evil, as you yourself mention. What is participating in an attempted coup d'état against one's own government but a use of political power, rather than its renunciation?
The only people who have consistently held to the renunciation of political power are radical anabaptists. To renounce power is to refuse to vote, sit on juries, run for office, serve in the military, police or civil service, and to refuse all forms of active resistance against anyone. If that is what you are arguing for, grand, it is a reasonable position. Arguably, it was the position of much of the early church. If not, then one has to deal with the difficulties of engaging in actual politics.
My own opinion is that the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms means a separation between our political and personal life. In politics, the common, temporal good is sought. In our personal lives, we pronounce the supremacy of the Spiritual good. The powers that be are not bound by the Golden Rule, which applies to individuals. They are bound by Romans 13 "But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." The state is not part of the Kingdom of God, and thus is not bound by its laws, but by the laws of nature, discernible by reason. This is why pious and honorable Christian rulers like Alfred the great and John the steadfast were willing to use force against the enemies of the commonwealth. There is no obligation for a Christian magistrate to pay the Danegeld because the gospel says "Turn the other Cheek."
First of all, thank you for taking the time not only to read the article, but to engage with it at length. I greatly appreciate that. Second, I believe that some of the things you mentioned could have been addressed more thoroughly in a longer article (Indeed, entire books have been written on the subject!), but I try to keep things a bit briefer here. What I had intended to be one article had already ballooned into four. That would not excuse gross mischaracterizations on my part, but it does perhaps explain a certain lack of nuance. Now, as to your point, here is what I would say. Earthly power in and of itself is not evil, and it must be wielded by some to prevent complete anarchy and chaos. However, no human being can wield earthly power in an entirely pure manner. Righteous persons can wield it in a more righteous manner than others, and it is to humanity's benefit that righteous persons should hold such positions. However, it is impossible for any human being to go a day without sinning, and the sins of those with power tend to be larger in their impact. This is not an argument against ever exercising power, but it is an argument against the presumption that one can wield it as an agent of righteousness presiding over a pure kingdom of God. The true kingdom of God is upheld by the Word and power of Jesus Christ, not our actions here. It is also an argument against putting one's ultimate trust in any earthly government. And because human beings naturally struggle to trust God, the temptations of earthly power are great, even for Christians. Moreover, the Christian should never cling to power as something to be grasped, but should follow the example of Jesus Christ and, if it be God's will, surrender that power at the appropriate time. We must not be too quick to let ourselves off the hook from following Christ's directives in the Sermon on the Mount.