These past few weeks I’ve been doing an online study of selected passages from Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Letters from Prison. It’s been a fun experience to go back and look at one of my favorite writers and theologians, as well as someone I feel pretty comfortable recommending as a model of Christian faith. In case you aren’t familiar with him, he was a German Lutheran pastor and theologian in the 1930’s and 1940’s. He taught for a while at Union Seminary in New York City, and decided to go back to Germany with the rise of Hitler. He could have stayed out the war, but he felt his Christian calling was not to avoid the cross of discipleship, but embrace it. I’m not sure I would have been as bold.
When he got to Germany he joined the Abwehr – German military intelligence. It gave him clearance to travel to gain secrets about the Allies, while also working as a sort of double-agent. He ended up joining a plot to kill Hitler, and when he was found out, was sent to the Tegel prison in Berlin. He stayed there 18 months before being quietly transferred to an SS camp, where he was interrogated, tortured, and, eventually, hung naked with piano wire a couple months before the war ended.
All this sacrifice has put a credibility behind his writings that most theologians don’t have. But there’s one part of him that is getting renewed attention these days, from an unlikely source: American fundamentalists.
When Bonhoeffer was in New York, there was a theological movement at the time in mainline churches called “liberalism”. Nowadays we call it “classical liberalism” because it isn’t the same as today. The word means different things. But back then it was about how we could build the kingdom of God here on earth through social programs and science, and that doctrine and beliefs were largely unimportant. What mattered was the social outcomes. This was a reaction to the “quietism” of so much of American Christianity then that taught, basically, forget about the world and prepare yourself for heaven. Actions have reactions.
What Bonhoeffer found disillusioned him on classical liberalism, as he felt it didn’t address the issues of discipleship and personal responsibility for one’s faith. But this is not to say he was a quietist, or against churches taking social stands. Here’s just one quote
“Things do exist that are worth standing up for without compromise. To me it seems that peace and social justice are such things, as is Christ himself.”
He was not a social conservative, he just had issues with this particular brand of liberal Christianity.
Fast-forward to the early 2000’s, and suddenly you see his name being trumpeted by American Christian fundamentalists as one of their own. He’s now the doctrinal evangelical who died resisting the weak-kneed liberals who wouldn’t stand up to Hitler. So many things are wrong here, but most people wouldn’t catch them. In Germany, the Protestant “Lutheran” church actually calls itself the Evangelische Kirche. They don’t use the word “Lutheran”. In fact, our own doctrinal book, the Book of Concord, says “These are the writings of the Evangelical churches”. Lutheran was a nickname.
To conflate Dietrich Bonhoeffer with the modern evangelical movement, and all its literalism and politics, is simply wrong. He was anything but. Today he would go to a mainline Lutheran church, talk about “social justice” and “systemic injustice” along with the individual’s call to discipleship. He would in no way support the evolution-denying or science-denying politics of today’s evangelicals. But you have to dig a little to find that.
His earlier books, the Cost of Discipleship and Ethics have a heavy focus on the individual and the personal cost of being a follower of Jesus. They don’t delve as much into systemic and social things. It’s in his later writings, where he’s sitting in prison, with lots of time on his hands, that he starts to really rethink a lot of the Christian faith. It isn’t that he loses faith, even seeing WW2, it’s just that he gets disillusioned with how faith did not lead to action where it mattered. And so he begins to wonder if maybe the “religion” of his time – the practices, theology, unwritten belief systems, need to get jettisoned to get back to following Jesus. This is what he calls “religionless Christianity”, and this is what I’ve been exploring in the video series.
And yet, even here, his words got spun. You have fundamentalists talking about how they’re getting rid of “religion” to get “back to the heart”. And when pressed what that means, it’s something along the lines of: traditions, denominations, liturgy, robes, communion, written prayers – anything that might resemble Catholicism. They’re going to just sing and pray and listen to a sermon, and that’s “getting rid of religion”. The problem was, Bonhoeffer’s exploration of religionless Christianity has nothing to do with liturgy or bishops or robes, and everything to do with questions like:
How can you talk about the cross if people are not believing in sin?
Why is so much of “religion” just focused on life after death, instead of this world?
What do we have to say that adds Christ to the world of experience and science, instead of saying that God is either not working in the world, or only is there to answer the questions we can’t (the God of the gaps)?
Is it ethical to encourage people to have an existential crisis so that you can solve it?
What does it mean to talk about redemption if the world doesn’t think they need to be saved?
These are questions driven by the rise of secularism, science, atheism, philosophy. Nothing about robes or hymns or weekly communion. Nothing about Jesus “in your heart”. Much more deep.
Where I find the questions the most convicting and engaging for me center around the idea of finding God in the world, and not in what’s after or beyond. If God is only the answer to questions we can’t answer, the more science answers the less room there is for God. And in a world that could care less about hell and heaven, do we have something to say about life now?
There’s this common phrase I hear among my fellow wilderness-hiking-types that they don’t need to go to church because “nature is my church” and “I find God in nature/mountain/stream/rainbow/sunset”. I have spent a lot of time in nature, and while I feel that I can better connect with God there, because there is more beauty and less distractions, I have not found God. I missed the community, the Word, the communion, the songs. Just me and nature eventually got kind of lonely.
Ragged Top Mountain, in Ironwood Forest National Monument.
But I see where they’re coming from, and because of Bonhoeffer I understand it better. They’re not denying that God exists, or that there is more to life than the physical world, or that there is transcendent experience. They’re just placing it IN THE WORLD. Church, they believe, is all about after death and outside of experience. They want a richer experience of God IN NATURE, not a God who tells you to destroy it because it’s all going to hell in the rapture anyways. They want to find God now, not just after death. And they want more life now, not a deprived life now in order to prepare for the good one later.
With that, I can’t disagree.
But our music, our hymns, so much of what we do is not geared towards finding God IN the pleasure and beauty today. If anything, pious Christianity has viewed pleasure as the first step on a slippery slope to debauchery and hell. Better to hold it all in. And if you listen to the songs about after I die, they go on and on about the “far side of Jordan”, but nothing about the near side of my life.
It's made me rethink how we can talk about God with no reference to heaven and hell, afterlife, punishment. It’s made me rethink how to talk about Jesus as someone to find IN the experience of the world, not as an escape from it.
Jesus being tempted to rule the world by The Tester
And how do we do that, and keep Jesus distinctly Jesus, and not fall into “God is in everything, so everything is God” sort of mushy-ness? Bonhoeffer suggests going back to the Old Testament, where no one believed in hell or an afterlife, and where Jesus, he believes, considers that of minor importance (though he does believe in resurrection). The message is there, the way is there, but it will involve some re-experiencing the world around you.
My thoughts meander, but let me bring it all back. This Lent our theme is “wilderness”. You can take that a couple ways. One is that it’s a place of emptiness, disorientation, deprivation. In those places, like Jesus, we can hear the Spirit more clearly because of our lack of distractions. The other way is to look at the wilderness as a place of rich experience, peace, harmony, and presence of mind – a place where God is MORE present, and deprivation is less. In both cases, we can go on our journeys away from the endless to-do lists that kill any experience of holiness and transcendence, that separate us from daily experience of God.
We’ll explore this theme in our mid-week services through the use of meditation, conversation, and contemplation of visual art. God will be present in both the non-seeing, and in the rich visuals. The sermons on Sunday will emphacize this two-sided journey, and, I hope, we will all have a new perspective on faith as followers of Jesus in this world.
Peace,
Pastor Lars