Good question, Jared. I have to admit that my initial reaction to hearing Pat's statement was to cringe. But then I listened to the entirety of his statement and I doesn't sound that different from when Ari Fleischer said the American government would save a lot of money by using one bullet to kill Osama or Saddam (I can't remember which one).

You make a good point when you compare Chavez to Hitler. And you muddy the moral waters by reminding us of Bonhoeffer's role against Hitler.

So I'm still working it out, but maybe the answer is what Robertson said isn't so wrong after all. How many of us have had similar thoughts and just never said them out loud?

It's not wrong if God told him to say it.

It is wrong if He didn't.

Of course since he's a civillian I am pretty sure that he'd be protected from assassination by the Geneva Convention, right? That still has meaning in the US right?

Is a leader of a country technically a civilian? I mean, our President is considered Commander in Chief of our military...so in that capacity it seems to me he's not a civilian...?

This is a really interesting post, by the way.

Scott, are you being sarcastic? I can't tell.
If you are, um, can you not be?

I have tried to respond to the "Bonhoeffer maneuver" in a recent conversation on a completely different topic than this: Eric Rudolph (Bonhoefferian hero or lunatic?). Speaking off the cuff as a civilian, as a "what if?" meditation, around the dining room table or in a coffee shop, Robertson's remarks are defensible as free speech and thought. But for a minister of the gospel to advocate the assassination of another human being is beyond the pale in the absence of: (1) a breakdown of law and order and/or the wheels of the state crushing innocents (e.g., genocide); (2) a legitimate exercise of self-defense; (3) abdicating the ethical responsibility to carry out the act oneself (he wants others to do it). Let me just make one remark on the contrast between Bonhoeffer and Robertson regarding this third point. Bonhoeffer was willing to participate himself in the plot to assassinate Hitler. Whether or not history judges his actions ethical, we can at least say this much: he never tried to shirk his responsibility for it, even by trying to rationalize it to others or himself as moral behavior. He was willing to accept the condemnation and punishment of the state for the sake of his neighbor. As an act of faith, I think it is comparable to Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham's act is completely indefensible on any human ethical account. But he was willing to break every law, every standard of decency, in all likelihood become a pariah in the eyes of his wife, his family, and his community, in faithful obedience to God's absurd (from our view) demand. Bonhoeffer was willing to accept the kind of responsibility that Paul expresses in Rom 9:3. Robertson's pronouncement is just cynical and reflects a preference that his state enjoy an autonomy in the human sphere that only the kingdom of God has a claim on.

"Why is what Pat Robertson said wrong?"

Because Chavez is not what Robertson says he is.

Chavez is a socialist, yes. But he is a democratically elected one in a more or less functioning democratic government. He is doing stupid, unpopular, and grossly unconstitutional things, but he is not carrying out crimes against humanity. He has not made war against the United States. I cannot see any reason to invade Venezuela, as Robertson seems to think we are likely to do.

Joel, that's interesting and well put, but my next question would be: Why is it okay for Joel Hunter to provide a spiritual rationale for justifying Bonhoeffer's actions but not okay for Pat Robertson to provide the same or similar spiritual rationale for justifying someone in Bonhoeffer's situation taking action against Chavez?
You seem to be saying Robertson is wrong because he's not "in the situation" as Bonhoeffer was in Hitler's. But I don't see Robertson saying he himself should do the killing, only that someone should.
---

Jonathan, valid point, although I think there are people in Venezuela who would argue with you about human rights violations and crimes against humanity.

We may never know who started the shooting at Miraflores during the two-day but short-lived overthrow of Chavez four years ago.

"Scott, are you being sarcastic? I can't tell.
If you are, um, can you not be?"

When I said it would be OK if God told him to do it that was not sarcasm. God ordered the wholesale killing of men, women, and children more than once in the Bible and as a Christian I have to accept that (not easy). So if God said "Pat I want you to say that our country should assassinate Chavez." then Pat would be morally obligated to do so.

If God didn't tell him to say that (as I expect is the case) then no it isn't OK since it would in fact be inciting the murder of a civilian by our military which would be against the Geneva convention as I understand it and against God's laws as I understand them.

A nation's leader is not a combat soldier, so BWS I would guess, and it's jsut a guuess as I'm no expert, that our president is considered to be a civilian in spite if being the CIC.

So in essence I don't believe that assassinating Chavez is right (no matter how satisfying it would be) and it was wrong for Robertson to even suggest it.

Scott, so was Hitler a civilian, and if not, why did you express support for Bonhoeffer's conspiracy?

I understand the civilian distinction, but is it really preferable in your mind that an army kill hundreds, if not thousands, of young men fighting under a criminal leader's orders than to save those lives by just killing the criminal leader?
In other words, if by your definition Hitler was a civilian, why was it preferable to kill thousands of young German men because they were not civilians?

---

I guess what I'm hearing mainly, from everyone, is that Robertson's idea wasn't wrong per se, just that it's wrong as applied to Chavez, because he is not a Hitler-level criminal. Chavez doesn't deserve it, in other words.

So... would it have been okay for a minister to call for the assassination of Hitler?
Or, not to have called for it, but to have actually planned it, as Bonhoeffer did?

I don't think I supported Bonhoeffer's conspiracy. If politicians want to off other politicians and ignore the rules that a bunch of societies came together on and agreed would be the rules of the game then that's their prerogative. They just need to remember that there are consequences.

For a man of God to decide who should live or die based on their own definition of who is worthy to live is wrong. Nowhere does God give us the power to say who lives and who dies. None of us are innocent and none of us can stand in the dock and send down a death sentece (at least not with God's blessing).

Besides, if you killed Hitler who's to say that Goebbels or one of the other Nazi big wigs wouldn't have stood up and used Hitler as a martyr for the glory of the Reich?

Robertson's idea was not only wrong as applied to Chavez, but wrong period. Bonhoffer was also wrong in my opinion.

This is really interesting and very difficult.

If God is sovreign doesn't He have in power whome He wants? If that is the case, is it proper for us to kill whom He wants in power, or is it a willing act of God to change whom He wants in power?

One of the things that comes to mind regarding Mr. Robertson is that what is in a man's heart is what comes out of his mouth. God looks at the heart.

I'm totally ignorant regading this politician in South America.

I don't think I supported Bonhoeffer's conspiracy.

Sorry, Scott. Someone in another thread recently said they were against war but would have supported something like Bonhoeffer's plans because it bypassed war, and I thought it was you. My bad.
---

So, Anti-War Person Who Said Bonhoeffer's Plan Was Okay -- if you're reading this -- can you explain why?
---

For a man of God to decide who should live or die based on their own definition of who is worthy to live is wrong.

What if they used the Bible's definition?

What did Paul mean when he said the governing authorities have the right to rule by the sword?

Brian, that's an interesting point but it does seem to suggest a logical constraint on "action" that won't hold.
If I'm sick, that means it's God's will. So does that mean I shouldn't take medicine to not be sick any more?
It's a silly analogy, but I think a fair one.

"Sorry, Scott"

No sweat. Sometimes I say stuff and it comes out all wrong. ;-) Wanted to make sure that hadn't happened again.

Yeah, I know, and that is why this is so interesting and so very difficult.

Does God excercise His sovreignty to the individual level?

I do know of at least one circumstance in the Bible, unfortunately I know not where, in which God wanted a prophet to meet with a leader and it would have been similar to one of us going to Osama and leading him to belief in the Lord Jesus Christ.

When is it right to second guess God? Is it right to second guess God?

Wow, this was not clean to begin with, but it's gotten messy in a hurry.

I don't have time to defend all this exegetically, but . . .

Around the Reformation, the doctrine of the "lesser magistrate" was developed-- this, as against the divine right of kings theory, which essentially held the king absolute in his authority. Calvin defended the view that individuals do not have the right to revolt against those in authority (that is, to take them down; passive resistance such as hiding Jews from Nazis would be something else). But the civil ruler is a minister, and lower civil rulers of various sorts are also ministers with an obligation to God to serve faithfully. Those lower-level rulers, or "lesser magistrates," can lawfully fight against those above who have abused their authority.

This comes in because Bonhoeffer was a person who associated with a conspiracy to kill Hitler that was orchestrated by those who were in the government, but in lower positions than Hitler. So had Bonhoeffer taken it upon himself to kill Hitler, that would be seen as unjustified. Since he was participating in a conspiracy already at work in the government, that was arguably within the bounds of acceptable overt resistance.

I should mention that later writers such as John Knox and Samuel Rutherford went further than Calvin, arguing for the individual right to resist tyranny directly.

Now, when you get into the Robertson turf, things get very strange. Robertson is not part of the government. He is a citizen. But he is also, in the perverse way that only America can beget, a spokesman for the evangelical church. I certainly don't think the church has any role in calling for an assassination, because that is not the tool assigned to the church.

As to the situation itself, I don't know much about the facts, but I'm not sure that it matters much, because I don't take it that there is any serious allegation that he is taking direct action against the U.S., but rather that some of his policies indirectly affect us.

Since he is a civil authority in another country, I just don't think we have jurisdiction to go over there and enact punishment for how he's conducting his job, just like I don't think the governor of Texas would have any business sending a group of state troopers or guardsmen to Massachusetts to stop them from performing gay marriages (and you could expand that to any particular topic). It's just an issue of: what are you, as a ruler, entrusted with? If you're only entrusted with governing a particular area, then you can't go beyond that. That's a principle the Bible recognizes in various places, but it's not subject to easy prooftexting.

"What if they used the Bible's definition?

What did Paul mean when he said the governing authorities have the right to rule by the sword?"

Romans 13:2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

It reads tp me like he is talking about enforcing laws and possibly waging war, not so much about assassinating rulers. And it still wouldn't be a pastor's duty, but rather a civil servant's.

"What if they used the Bible's definition?

What did Paul mean when he said the governing authorities have the right to rule by the sword?"

Romans 13:2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

It reads tp me like he is talking about enforcing laws and possibly waging war, not so much about assassinating rulers. And it still wouldn't be a pastor's duty, but rather a civil servant's.

My first double tap.

Wow, this was not clean to begin with, but it's gotten messy in a hurry. I don't have time to defend all this exegetically, but . . .

Around the Reformation, the doctrine of the "lesser magistrate" was developed-- this, as against the divine right of kings theory, which essentially held the king absolute in his authority. Calvin defended the view that individuals do not have the right to revolt against those in authority (that is, to take them down; passive resistance such as hiding Jews from Nazis would be something else). But the civil ruler is a minister, and lower civil rulers of various sorts are also ministers with an obligation to God to serve faithfully. Those lower-level rulers, or "lesser magistrates," can lawfully fight against those above who have abused their authority.

This comes in because Bonhoeffer was a person who associated with a conspiracy to kill Hitler that was orchestrated by those who were in the government, but in lower positions than Hitler. So had Bonhoeffer taken it
upon himself to kill Hitler, that would be seen as unjustified. Since he was participating in a conspiracy already at work in the government, that was arguably within the bounds of acceptable overt resistance.

I should mention that later writers such as John Knox and Samuel Rutherford went further than Calvin, arguing for the individual right to resist tyranny directly.

Now, when you get into the Robertson turf, things get very strange. Robertson is not part of the government. He is a citizen. But he is also, in the perverse way that only America can beget, a spokesman for the evangelical church. I certainly don't think the church has any role in
calling for an assassination, because that is not the tool assigned to the church.

As to the situation itself, I don't know much about the facts, but I'm not sure that it matters much, because I don't take it that there is any serious allegation that he is taking direct action against the U.S., but rather that
some of his policies indirectly affect us.

Since he is a civil authority in another country, I just don't think we have jurisdiction to go over there and enact punishment for how he's conducting his job, just like I don't think the governor of Texas would have any
business sending a group of state troopers or guardsmen to Massachusetts to stop them from performing gay marriages (and you could expand that to any particular topic). It's just an issue of: what are you, as a ruler, entrusted with? If you're only entrusted with governing a particular area, then you can't go beyond that. That's a principle the Bible recognizes in various places, but it's not subject to easy prooftexting.

Oops, I thought it didn't post the first time. Oh well.

Scott, I agree with what you last said. It is the responsibility of the civil ruler to execute justice.

I would take the assassination of a corrupt ruler to be the application of that responsibility. But that power is limited. The governor of Texas could, I think rightly, order the assassination of the President if he were to order the execution of innocent civilians, such as Hitler did. That action by the president would implicate the authority of the governor to protect his citizens. That is what would trigger his authority to act.

It is the responsibility of the civil ruler to execute justice.

Right. This was my point about how we can't generalize the Sermon on the Mount into universal pacificism. If Jesus was saying essentially "You can't ever use force" then it means what the absolute pacifist says it does. But if it doesn't, then it opens "turn the other cheek" up for exceptions.

I think just wars, protecting one's life, and protecting the lives of others are valid exceptions "turn the other cheek."

I agree, and so I think that if assassinating a ruler is done as an application of just war, then it is fine.

I don't think the US taking out Chavez would qualify.

But don't we have a responsibility to honor a pact that our country signed? Isn't that part of Romans 13:2?

A little further clarification. We are only talking about the US intervening, not about Venezuelans acting.

If it is true that Chavez uses his power to kill those who work against him, or commits similar acts, then it would likely be justified for Venezuelan lesser magistrates to interpose themselves between Chavez and the people, thereby resisting his tyrannical rule.

But the Bible repeatedly recognizes that you can't do the right thing if it's not your job. That's why we scream and holler when Hillary talks about it taking a village. It is not the civil ruler's job to raise my kids. In the same way, it's not the Texas governor's job to remedy injustice in Venezuela, and it's not any more the President's job just because he leads the whole country.

Sometimes we get confused about this stuff (we being conservatives) when it comes to issues like war, while we are sensitive to it when it comes to church and family. Just because I'm a dad doesn't mean I get to take over if Shrode is a lousy father. That's also true of governments. I have to have concurrent or overlapping authority, not just similar authority within a different territory.

Why is it okay for Joel Hunter to provide a spiritual rationale for justifying Bonhoeffer's actions but not okay for Pat Robertson to provide the same or similar spiritual rationale for justifying someone in Bonhoeffer's situation taking action against Chavez?

Um, because I'm right and Robertson's wrong?

Seriously, we cannot extract a universal moral imperative for assassinating heads of state from Scripture or tradition. We can't do it from a secular ethical theory, either. I think what it requires is committed, thorough knowledge of the historical and human realities in a given situation seen under and responded to with biblical wisdom. I'm not saying that I have that to give you a knockdown argument why Chavez doesn't meet the Metric for All Human Evil (Hitler/Nazism), but what little I do know gives me no indication that such drastic and irreversible action could be justified in this case. I think I can defend that view (weakly no doubt) biblically. As for Robertson, you tell me if he's provided (implicitly) a "spiritual rationale" for his claims. What I hear is outright secular geopolitical calculation and outlook, which is why I called it cynical.

You seem to be saying Robertson is wrong because he's not "in the situation" as Bonhoeffer was in Hitler's.

Yes, that's part of why I think Robertson's claims are illegitimate and irresponsible. Now if he has evidence of a Venezualan "final solution" or some such monstrous crime against God-created humanity, then by all means, let's hear it. Otherwise, for the love of Pete, shut up.

But I don't see Robertson saying he himself should do the killing, only that someone should.

Which is why what he is saying is unethical. Yes, I want other men and women to police my streets and town. I want a military to protect our freedom and institutions of government. I do not want ministers of the gospel to tell the police and the military what they ought to do unless they have good reason to hold the state authorities responsible for allowing law and order to break down (either too much or too little) and preach judgment to them on that score. Robertson is not acting like a minister of the gospel. He's acting like a Kissinger wannabe. If he wants to go beyond his gospel mandate to advocate and work for such a cause, then yes, I think he should be willing to do the dirty work himself.

Sorry Jared, when I said "shut up," I was referring to Robertson, not you. I reread that line and I see that it's ambiguous. Love you. Having a hard time saying the same of Robertson right now. :-)

Scott, if you were asking me, I was basically analyzing the situation without reference to any international treaty or convention. I would agree that we should not act in violation of treaties to which we are a party, although I suggest as a sovereign state we would have the right to give notice and withdraw prior to acting.

"He's acting like a Kissinger wannabe."

That may be what bothered me most. Half of Robertson's extended quotation was about oil and economics. He was describing what he saw as the strategic interests of the United States, not making any sort of human rights argument. And whatever Chavez may have done, his overthrow could result in much worse.

By the way, I believe that a government can abdicate its God-given authority entirely, and that Bonhoeffer was justified. But that's because things couldn't possibly have gotten worse after Hitler's assassination.

Why is it okay for Joel Hunter to provide a spiritual rationale for justifying Bonhoeffer's actions but not okay for Pat Robertson to provide the same or similar spiritual rationale for justifying someone in Bonhoeffer's situation taking action against Chavez?

I'm not sure about Joel Hunter and the spiritual rationale...

but...

Bonhoeffer was German...Robertson is not Venezuelan.

Bonhoeffer was fighting for the freedom of his own country...Robertson is not.

Bonhoeffer put his own life on the line...Robertson is calling from afar.

Bonhoeffer was working toward religious freedom...Robertson (from the quotes that I've seen) is not.

Bonhoeffer said, "When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die." Bonhoeffer was hung in a German prison camp.

Is this the hill Pat Robertson is willing to die on?

I don't know about spiritual differences, but there are a lot of differences.

Not really asking anyone in particular. And we certainly have the right to withdraw but that would be a bad idea.

-----------------------------------------------------

Jonathan, saying that things couldn't have gotten worse after Hitler's assassination isn't necessarilly true.

No, Scott, nothing is inevitable. But when a government commits 15 million murders of its own within a half a decade, not counting war deaths, it would be difficult for any replacement to match that. In any case, that is not government within the definition of the Bible.

Ellen, that particular statement of mine wasn't trying to compare Robertson to Bonhoeffer. It was trying to compare Robertson to Joel Hunter.
I was trying to ask why it's okay for Joel to say Bonhoeffer was right to conspire against Hitler but not for Robertson to say others should conspire against Chavez.
Joel answered the question nicely, but it's not my understanding that Robertson was saying he should be able to assassinate Chavez, only that someone should.

Whether Chavez deserves it or not and whether the U.S. should be in the business of assassinating world leaders or not seem to be the right questions. All of the commenters seem to be answering them well.

Oh, and Joel, I knew you didn't mean for me to shut up. But thanks for clarifying! ;-)

The United States is not the "government in charge" of Chavez. Thus, Romans 13 does not apply should we choose to use the sword against him. If we do, then we only prove that we're "the biggest bully on the block!"

Hitler's generals would have continued to prosecute the war; Bonhoeffer's attempt was in 1943, as I recall. Without Hitler, Germany might have won the war.

I'm not so certain there has ever been a "just war." Maybe WWII - but even then, the things we did to Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were unjustified in terms of "just war" theory.

---

Now, if God says, "go kill him" that's one thing. But, there's something I've learned over the years: The Holy Spirit does not have Multiple Personality Disorder. So when the book says (inspired by the Holy Spirit), "Do not kill" and Jesus says, "do not kill" the Holy Spirit will never tell us, "go kill that man." If He were to say such, it would be clear that God is not unified. But God is one, and God never contradicts himself.

Therefore - by their fruits you shall know them. Murder is a fruit of the flesh, not of the Spirit. Robertson's words are foul, and he should repent of them immediately.

"Hitler's generals would have continued to prosecute the war; Bonhoeffer's attempt was in 1943, as I recall. Without Hitler, Germany might have won the war."

As I understand it, a central part of the plan Bonhoeffer was working on involved negotiations to end the war. (The Allies weren't keen on a conditional peace, though.) Several German generals were involved in the plan precisely because they were not happy about the war. In any case, the Final Solution was definitely Hitler's own idea, and the health of the regime was based first on Hitler's personal charisma.

Says Pat in his official "clarification:"
The brilliant Protestant theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who lived under the hellish conditions of Nazi Germany, is reported to have said:

“If I see a madman driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders, then I can’t, as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe and then comfort the wounded and bury the dead. I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver.”

On the strength of this reasoning, Bonhoeffer decided to lend his support to those in Germany who had joined together in an attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler. Bonhoeffer was imprisoned and killed by the Nazis, but his example deserves our respect and consideration today.

There are many who disagree with my comments, and I respect their opinions. There are others who think that stopping a dictator is the appropriate course of action. In any event, the incredible publicity surrounding my remarks has focused our government’s attention on a growing problem which has been largely ignored.

Your honor, the prosecution rests.

I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver.

What Robertson is doing is more like shouting from the curb, "Somebody stop that driver!"

On the strength of this reasoning, Bonhoeffer decided to lend his support to those in Germany who had joined together in an attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler. Bonhoeffer was imprisoned and killed by the Nazis, but his example deserves our respect and consideration today.

I asked before - is this the hill that Robertson is willing to die on? Because Bonhoeffer was willing to die - and did die.

If Robertson was in Venezuela, putting himself into the thick of it - actually lending support to the oppressed, he'd have a point.

A question for Roger in Fresno, is your Fresno in Calif? If so, shoot me an email

I haven't read Calvin's "lesser magistrates" thing, and I'm wondering where that distinction is made in Scripture. Nevertheless, as this might apply to America the people are the lesser magistrates - are we not?

But all of that is beside the point as has well been pointed out. Robertson is not Venezuelan and his comments - when seen in context - were clearly centered on economic interests. I've yet to see the Scriptural support for basing any decision primarily on economics. Robertson has shown how deeply American culture and politics has invaded the church. He also, as someone else pointed out, showed what is in his heart.