Charles Marsh on the “Bonhoeffer Delusions” of Eric Metaxas

a6441-marshAs some of you know, evangelical writer and culture warrior Eric Metaxas has invoked 20th-century German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer to buttress his argument that evangelical Christians should vote for Donald Trump in November.

Metaxas is not the only Bonhoeffer biographer out there.  Charles Marsh of the University of Virginia has also recently published a biography of Bonhoeffer.  Over at Religion & Politics Marsh has responded to Metaxas’s use of the German theologian in the debates over how evangelicals should vote.  Here is a taste:

WHAT MIGHT BONHOEFFER make of his “Moment” in American politics? Born in 1906 into a prodigiously humanist family, Dietrich Bonhoeffer had rarely discussed politics in his university years; when he had, it was mostly in response to his brothers, who, radicalized by the Great War, never missed an opportunity to butt heads concerning the finer points of the Weimar government or the morality of its democratic reforms. A university friend complained of Bonhoeffer’s inclination to escape into ethereal regions of “comprehensive” ideas and thus “avoid the murk and mists of boiling-hot politics.” Indeed, during Bonhoeffer’s postdoctoral year at Union Theological Seminary in New York City, there is not even mention in his notes or letters of what was the lead item in the Times on the day of his arrival: “Fascists Make Big Gains in Germany.”

This changed during that transformative year in America. Between August 1930 in May 1931 Bonhoeffer would journey into new regions of experience: into the tenement buildings of New York, into the Harlem Renaissance, into the Deep South weeks after the Scottsboro Boys went to trial, into a six-month immersion in the black church in Abyssinian Baptist in Harlem. He spent time with the National Women’s Trade Union League and the Workers Education Bureau of America; he wrote notes on the labor movement, poverty, homelessness, crime, and the social mission of the churches. He met with officials from the American Civil Liberties Union, the nation’s premier defender of civil liberties, which after its founding in 1920 had focused heavily on the rights of conscientious objectors and on the protection of resident aliens from deportation. After returning to Berlin, he told his older brother that Germany needed an ACLU of its own. And in the spring of 1931, Bonhoeffer took a road trip through the heart of the Jim Crow South, after which he wrote that he had heard the Gospel preached in “the church of the outcasts of America.” In these unfamiliar regions, among a nearly forgotten generation of American radicals and reformers, Bonhoeffer found the courage to reexamine every aspect of his vocation as theologian and pastor and to embark upon what he would call “the turning from the phraseological to the real.” No other thinker in the modern era crosses quite so many boundaries while yet remaining exuberantly—and one must always add—generously Christian. This is why his story has attracted both liberals and evangelicals, Catholics and Protestants, Christians and Jews, church-goers and secularists alike, people of all faiths. What all admire is Bonhoeffer’s indisputably authentic witness to the dignity of life.

In the end, Metaxas’s Bonhoeffer resembles no one so much as Metaxas.

Read the rest here.

2 thoughts on “Charles Marsh on the “Bonhoeffer Delusions” of Eric Metaxas

  1. I tend to think that Bonhoeffer would see religious liberty and human dignity as more than being anti-abortion (which, funny enough, is never mentioned in the Bible) and bigotry against gays.

    Based on his associations with workers groups and minorities, Bonhoeffer almost certainly would be in favor of fair treatment of workers, equality of minorities and a non-militaristic foreign policy.

    Whatever derision has been heaped upon James Dobson by liberals, and I doubt many even know enough about the fundamentalist world to pay attention, it is not nearly enough. He’s been responsible for fomenting against anti-discrimination in so many forms, always by spreading damnable lies. Years ago, it was that if some anti-discrimination bills were passed, it would force churches to hire youth pastors with AIDS, and then there was the “gay marriage will ruin the economy and health care system” and electing Obama will lead to apocalyptic levels of economic and social collapse. No matter how demonstrably wrong he is, his tune never changes.


  2. What all admire is Bonhoeffer’s indisputably authentic witness to the dignity of life.

    Then how can one possibly vote for Hillary Clinton, who not only supports abortion “rights,” but favors repealing the Hyde Amendment, which would but the US government in the business of actively financing abortions?

    Charles Marsh may be a wonderful scholar but his moral reasoning is nonexistent, and his hijacking of the term “dignity of life” here is sophistic and offensive. Dr. James Dobson is an object of derision among the leftist elite, but many or most Christians don’t need a PhD or even a GED to understand the moral argument that “Mr. Trump promises to support religious liberty and the dignity of the unborn. Mrs. Clinton promises she will not.”

    The rest is academic gamesmanship, which serves only to trivialize the grave issues at stake.


Comments are closed.