Scholars To Scatter

Question 1

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Answer 1

Argument:
Ethical action requires bold, responsible steps despite uncertainty
of God’s will.

Point:
Human systems (reason, conscience) fail; only faith-guided action matters.

Example:
Joined plot to kill Hitler, trusting God’s forgiveness.

Challenge:
Conflicts with Matthew 5:39 (pacifism) and Romans 13 (obedience to rulers).

Support:
Neo-Orthodox view—Bible is a living encounter, not rigid rules.

Question 2

Karl Barth

Answer 2

Argument:
Rejects natural law; human reason is too corrupted by sin to know God’s will.

Point:
Bible is revelation, not human ethics. Wrote Barmen Declaration against Nazis.

Example:
Bonhoeffer’s seminary meditated on Scripture, not theological commentaries.

Challenge:
Aquinas argues reason retains integrity post-Fall.
Support: Barth’s view protects against idolatry (e.g., Nazi misuse of “God”).

Question 3

Aquinas

Answer 3

Argument:
Natural law reveals God’s will; civil disobedience is justified if laws oppose divine/human good.

Point:
Reason (though imperfect) inclines toward good (synderesis).

Example:
Cites Acts 5:29 (“Obey God rather than men”).

Challenge:
Barth/Bonhoeffer say reason is too corrupted by sin.
Support: Provides clearer ethical limits than Bonhoeffer’s subjectivity.

Question 4

Quakers

Answer 4

Argument:
Absolute pacifism reflects Jesus’ teachings (e.g., turning the other cheek).

Point:
Violence always contradicts Christian love.

Example:
Historic refusal to participate in war.

Challenge:
Bonhoeffer—non-violence fails against evils like Nazism.
Support: Gandhi/MLK proved pacifism can work.

Question 5

Secularists

Answer 5

Argument:
Church and state must be separate; religion is unnecessary for morality.

Point:
“Long peace” shows secular democracies thrive without religion.

Example:
Nazi Germany’s state-controlled church proves religion’s danger.

Challenge:
Hauerwas—secularism creates moral void exploitable by authoritarians.

Support: Liberal democracies protect rights without theological claims.

Question 6

Stanley Hauerwas

Answer 6

Argument:
Church must resist secular pragmatism to prevent tyranny.

Point:
Truth (not tolerance) guards against nihilism.

Example:
Cites Bonhoeffer’s resistance as model.

Challenge:
Secularists argue democracy already checks power.

Support:
Nietzschean “void” shows risks of losing religious meaning.

Question 7

Nietzsche

Answer 7

Argument:
“God is dead”—Christianity created nihilistic void; humans must self-author values.

Point:
Religion undermines human confidence.

Example:
Calls Christianity a “bloodsucking parasite.”

Challenge:
Bonhoeffer’s “religionless Christianity” adapts faith for secular age.

Support:
Secularism’s rise validates his critique.

Question 8

Mark 8:34

Answer 8

(Take up your cross) → Supports costly grace.

Question 9

Matthew 5:39

Answer 9

(Turn the other cheek) → Challenges Bonhoeffer’s violence.

Question 10

Romans 13:1-7

Answer 10

(Obey rulers) → Challenges civil disobedience.

Question 11

Luke 22:36

Answer 11

(Buy a sword) → Ambiguous; used to debate armed resistance.