Question:  Dear Mr. Albrecht,

            I very much appreciate your ministry and am hoping you can help me clarify a Christian ethics issue with a good, solid explanation and Scripture to back it up.

            Basically it is this: Dedrick Bonhoeffer, the Christian martyr of Nazi Germany during WWII, said that if you saw a madman in a car racing toward a crowd of people you would be justified in using any means necessary (including killing the madman) in order to stop him from murdering many innocent people.  I agree with Bonhoeffer’s reasoning.  However, I would disagree that this argument/analogy justified killing (or murdering) an abortion doctor to prevent him or her from murdering many innocent unborn babies.  What do you think?  Can you help answer this challenge with good reasoning and Scripture?

            Grant

Answer:  Hello Grant,

            While I have read Dietrich Bonhoeffer, it was some time ago—during postgraduate study.  I am not familiar with the citation you ascribe to him.  I have his “Letters and Papers from Prison”, “Ethics” and “The Cost of Discipleship”.

            Whether Bonhoeffer said this or not, let’s consider the issue you present--the taking of one human’s life to save the lives of others.

            First, we should realize that the practice of introducing a relatively far-fetched example, as opposed to an everyday example, a “what would you do if” is an apples and oranges comparison.  Christian ethics and values are not played out in the arena of once in a lifetime, spur-of-the-moment decisions.  They are played out in the common issues that are before us on a daily basis.  We cannot and should not compare the exception, the “what if” with the ordinary and normal and thus try to inform the rule—the normal operating procedures of our lives.

            This was a favorite tactic in the unbiblical work, “Situation Ethics” by Joseph Fletcher.  Fletcher’s work, now about 50 years old if memory serves, paved the way for much of the politically correct, “there are no absolutes except the one absolute which affirms that there are no absolutes” culture in which we now live.

            Thus, in the example you note, whether Bonhoeffer said it or not, we would have to ask many questions before accepting it:

1. How often would we ever find ourselves in such a situation?  Do we know a layman (excluding those whose careers are in law enforcement, security and the armed forced) who has ever been faced with such a situation? 

2. How would we determine that the man was in fact going to kill innocents? Would we have enough information, or would we be jumping to a conclusion?  For example, we might happen upon a scene where a movie is being filmed.  We might not notice cameras, lights, etc.  We simply see the scene you describe.  We would jump to the conclusion that a stunt driver was going to take the lives of innocents who in reality are movie extras.  We would kill him.  Who would the madman be then?

3. To take your specific question into account, how would we know the identity of the man driving the car and those in the crowd?  What if the man in the car was someone who was intent upon stopping innocent lives being taken and the crowd was a convention of abortion doctors?  It is my understanding that some would then cheer the act because killing many abortion doctors would save innocent lives.  Some may actually decide that the driver is a “Christian martyr”.

            The dilemma you present is a straw man, a Hobson’s choice—it appears to be a choice but in fact is not.

            Generally the Bible supports a “just war”.  A “just war” is the idea that aggression, conflict and fighting leading to bloodshed is justifiable if it prevents a greater evil.  Romans 13 is part of the background as there are civil authorities into whose hands God has placed responsibility for decisions that involve the government and constituted authority.  But in your example we are talking about a citizen, a layperson who is not deputized by the authorities that exist.  Over against such examples and behaviors are laws that prevent lynch mobs and individuals taking the law into their own hands.  Those laws must exist to protect the innocent and to allow due process of law.   Those laws, according to the Bible, are laws Christians are “under”—laws to which we should be in submission.

            The larger question still may be, “Well, would such an act be justified by God even if a government might decide against taking the law into our own hands?”  Again, Romans 13 states that Christians should not take the law into their own hands.

            Just war (argued and debated by historic Christians such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, and later Luther, among others) includes the ideas that:

1. A war or “defensive action” needs to be entered into for a morally legitimate purpose.  That would include punitive responses designed to judge evil actions, whether nationally or individually.

2. Lethal force is only justified if waged, in a war, against soldiers and the military, not civilians. 

3. Just wars must bring about a peaceful solution.

4. Just wars must be engaged in by duly constituted authorities, not individuals,

private groups, lynch mobs, etc.

            Given this background, we would be naïve (and perhaps dumb, stupid and wrong!) to conclude the man who might kill someone, appearing to drive a car into a crowd of innocents would be justified in his actions.  Further, there is absolutely no biblical warrant for anyone, Christian or non-Christian, to take the law into their own hands and kill an abortion doctor—justifying themselves with the thought that they are saving unborn human lives.  Those opposed to “abortion doctors” may feel that abortion doctors are playing God, but the fact is that they themselves—if they presume to murder someone—are playing God.

            Hope this helps.

            In Christ,

            Greg Albrecht