Bonhoeffer's Dichotomy

A concise remark is to be viewed about the treatment of Bonhoeffer’s perspectives on the dichotomy, wherein ‘church,’ on the one hand, and ‘state,’ on the other hand. Governments have the latitude to make decisions on behalf of the people, because people generally do not make the best decisions for themselves. The purpose of government, in its truest form, is to maintain systematic balance and to sustain the welfare of society. Therefore, when government forfeits the dignity and identity found within its constitutional foundation, it acquires the attributes of the oppressor. This leads to unethical practices, injustices and the moral decay of society. Therefore, when the government ceases to be “...of the people, by the people, for the people...”
Herein, Bonhoeffer notes that “the term ‘state’ means an ordered community; government is the power which creates and maintains order.” Thus, it is logical to state that Bonhoeffer more unmistakably differentiates the two aspects in the following way. The author claims that “the term ‘government’ does not […] imply any particular form of society or […] state.” From this point of view, it likewise takes after that the legitimacy and ethics of a specific type of government may be generally relevant dramatically. Accordingly, Trump’s rule of the government might be invalid and unethical in specific places and times, as on account of Bonhoeffer’s suggestion for the arrangement of Germany, which had followed the final stages of the war. Herein, a tyrant government made a great contribution to the run of law. Thus, it is evident that a blatant disregard for the rule of law took
This may mirror, to a particular extent, specific thankfulness for Brunner’s qualification amongst creation and conservation orders, in spite of the fact that that refinement is dismissed as unhelpful during the year of 1933. In any case, Bonhoeffer has a tendency to compose government as a concept, which “finds already existing […] two mandates through which God the Creator exercises creative power and upon which government must rely.” Thus, oppositely to both Hitler and Trump’s unethical practices of governing, “government itself cannot produce life or values […] [as it] maintains what is created in the order that was given to the creation by God’s commission.” Therefore, the unethical approach to the state/government as well as church ruling is evident in both Hitler and Trump’s leadership. In case of Trump, the obstruction of justice is