Edgework

In my previous essay, I reflected on the similarities of the moves toward authoritarianism in Germany in the 1930s to that happening in the United States of America today. I drew heavily on Eric Metaxas’ book, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy, (2010). I will use the same book as a source to reflect on Bonhoeffer’s ideas about the role of the church in times when authoritarianism is ascendant.

One striking difference in these two contexts is the fact that the Lutheran Church was in every respect a state church, whereas in the USA all churches are officially free churches; that is to say non-aligned with the government. As a state church, the Lutheran church had, since the time of Martin Luther, been thoroughly embedded in the German state which until the end of WWI had been a monarchy. But following the war the Lutheran church was relating to a new, democratic partner that was still trying to find a way for the German penchant for “law and order” to take root in a chaotic democratic process.

When Adolf Hitler arrived on the scene with a promise to restore German pride along with law and order the church welcomed him as the savior who would restore what had been lost when the monarchy fell. And it was determined to do it part as it always had done under Kings and Princes. It was only as Hitler began demanding personal loyalty without question and promoting his anti-semitic agenda that some elements within the church began to resist. On the other hand, some so-called “German Christians” actively worked within the church to align it with Hitler’s Aryan vision for the nation.

Diedrich Bonhoeffer was perhaps the most outspoken German academic and pastor who took umbrage to this movement in the church to support Hitler and his agenda. He was instrumental in establishing the “Confessing Church” which tried to distance itself from Hitler. But this alternative church was still financially dependent on the state, a fact Hitler was able to use repeatedly to suppress its influence. This frustrated Bonhoeffer to no end because he was envisioning a church totally free of state control. In the end, he was somewhat pessimistic about his “free church” vision. He stated at one point, “The separation of church and state does not result in the church continuing to apply itself to its own task; it is no guarantee against secularization” (341).

That thought takes us, then, to the present situation in the USA were constitutionally we have a separation between church and state. That official stance, however, has not precluded at least one segment of the American church from finding itself embedded in the state. It is clear for all to see that, in large part, the evangelical church in America is in fact the de-facto state church, at least for the Trump administration. Like it was in Germany, that relationship is reciprocal. Trump needs the evangelicals to maintain his hold on power, and the evangelicals need Trump to enact their right wing agenda, much of which has little to do with the way of Jesus.

Evangelicals in America today are tempted to think of themselves as being successful because of their privileged position within the Trump world. In his book, Ethics, Bonhoeffer wrote that, “The figure of the Crucified invalidates all thought which takes success for its standard.” Metaxas reflects further on Bonhoeffer’s idea of success: “God was interested not in success, but in obedience. If one obeyed God and was willing to suffer defeat and whatever else came one’s way, God would show a kind of success that the world couldn’t imagine. But this was the narrow path, and few would take it” (363). From my perspective, American evangelicals would do well to be wary of the heady “success” they have experienced hand-in-hand with Trump.

Bonhoeffer felt that the church had three specific mandates with relation to the state (153).

First, “The church must continually ask the state whether its actions can be justified as legitimate actions of the state.”

This stance toward the state does not allow the church to be embedded in the state. It must be free both to affirm and to critique what the state is up to. That is part of the problem in the present American situation. The silence from evangelicals and their leaders is deafening, especially when the state is using the mantra of “law and order” to promote agenda that is contrary to human decency, respect, human rights and dignity – let alone the way of Jesus. I would suggest it is the church’s responsibility to also hold the state to account on the issue of justice for all, not just for a privileged few.

Second, “The church has an obligation to the victims of any ordering of society, even if they do not belong to the Christian community.”

Because the church represents Jesus Christ, it must always be on the lookout for and defend any persons who suffer because of unfair state laws or practices. In the present context that means defending the rights of all people of color, varying religions, sexual orientation, etc. In its attempt to make America “Christian” again, evangelicals are tempted overlook this mandate.

Third, “At some point the church must take direct action against the state to stop it from perpetuating evil. It is not just to bandage the victims under the wheel, but to put a spoke in the wheel itself.”

Some would argue that the Bible gives no license for this kind of civil disobedience. However, especially in a democratic society, I believe people of faith must do everything they can, short of acting violently, to protect the welfare of those who suffer because of state action or inaction. In my opinion, Christian faithfulness requires working within established structures to bring positive change. And when that does not work, civil disobedience is demanded. “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

Modern evangelical should learn some lessons from Bonhoeffer.