Eberhard Bethge on American Christianity
Halden Doerge presents us with a passage from John DeGruchy’s biography of Eberhard Bethge, the biographer and close friend of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The passage recounts Bethge’s feelings after his visit to Jerry Falwell’s church.
Staying in Lynchburg, the headquarters of the Moral Majority leader Jerry Falwell, also provided an opportunity for them [the Bethges] to experience the heartbeat of American fundamentalism. The Bethges were particularly bothered by what they experienced when they visited Falwell’s church because so much that was referred to as ‘American Christianity’ reminded them of aspects of the German Christianity of the 1930s. Eberhard later wrote,As we entered the foyer, an usher stepped forward and gave me two badges to fasten to my lapel: the on on the left said, Jesus First and on the right, one with an American flag…I could not help but think myself in Germany in 1933…Of course, ‘Jesus First’, but and American Jesus! And so to the long history of faith and its executors another chapter is being added of a mixed image of Christ, of another syncretism on the American model, undisturbed by and knowledge of that centuries-long and sad history.
Bethge added some remarks that have an uncanny contemporary ring to them:
The disturbing fact is this new element, the battle for a ‘Christian nation’ against humanism. The flag has always been in the churches, but now it has come to represent the new threat of binding the political structure to an ideology, which models a whole new educational system, and a new kind of representation in Washington, and a newly interpreted Constitution.
For Bethge, who had a great love for the United States and the democratic vision of its Founding Fathers, and who enjoyed visiting there, these signs were disturbing. He could only hope that they would not develop along the lines he feared they might.
(John W. de Gruchy, Daring, Trusting Spirit: Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Friend Eberhard Bethge [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005], 200-201.)
Halden’s remarks on the passage are right on, and relevant in light of discussions about American Christian nationalism that are taking place here and at Vox Nova.
Unfortunately, I fear that Bethge’s fears for America have begun to be realized. In an age of nationalism and uncritical patriotism in the churches in America we must all ask ourselves how close we are to becoming no different than the German Christians of Bonhoeffer’s and Bethge’s day. May God have mercy on us and forgive us and give us the strength to speak the truth to powers and embody the life of the kingdom of God though it send us to the cross or the gallows.
Mr.Eberhard Bethge should first learn that our founding fathers had NO VISION of democracy ,but instead formed a Republic that was destroyed when Lincoln invaded America in 1861! Like most common people He assumes that this illegal U.S. govt. of today is what was fought for when the colonist of America rebeled against England in 1776! He has only shown his ignorance of history!
1. Dan (from the 1st comment):
I’m intrigued by your suggestion that the government begun in America was simply not a democracy, and that the kind of government operative today is “illegal.” Sweeping claims, though that doesn’t mean they’re wrong, of course.
Can you, without too much trouble, explain what you mean by “democracy”, or at least point me/us to some literature whose vision you endorse? I’m simply not a political theorist, so I may just be completely ignorant, but I’m unfamiliar with anyone who argues that the US government never was or intended to be “democratic.”
Also I wanted to mention that it is the biographer’s (de Gruchy’s) words about Bethge’s love for the US and its original “democratic vision”, not the words of Bethge himself.
2. I think it’s interesting that Bethge sees a new kind of symbolism emerging with flags in congregations, one that is much more dangerous than what their presence in congregations “used to” mean.
It would be an interesting exercise for us anti-nationalists to think about whether there are appropriate usages of such symbols in worship, or at least to hear that defended from a post-Nazi German perspective.
Scott—Dan is not entirely wrong, though lamentably so. The American Republic was founded for the interests of a white, property-holding elite. Recall that many of the Founders were slaveholders, and that they denied the vote to women. The Senate was constructed in such a way that only wealthy property holders could be elected—by state legislatures, no less. (Direct election of Senators is an early 20th-century achievement.) When folks like Dan characterize Lincoln as an “invader,” they’re waving the bloody flag of “states’ rights” and other Johnny-Reb notions.
Indeed, Dan sounds like a neo-Confederate, and quite possibly a Rushdoony-Reconstructionist type who thinks that the antebellum South is the model of “Christian civilization.” Falwell, I might add, was a fan of Rushdoony’s, and was an early and vocal opponent of the civil rights movement.
Very enjoyable blog. I may be wrong, but in many parts of the country (such as here in California), the growth of blind patriotism linked with religion seems to have slowed or even stopped. Here’s hoping, at any rate.
Michael (or anyone else)...in relation to the issue of nationalism, and the nationalism of Catholics in particular, I find myself recently wondering…how many Catholics have died, the last hundred years (or one thousand), at the hands of…fellow Catholics of a different nationality? I would guess the number must be tens of millions.
Just one example…(Catholic) Nazis did not only murder Jews; they also murdered Roma/Gypsies, the majority of whom were Catholics (at least according to Yehuda Bauer). I am personally finding it more and more difficult to accept the concept of nationalism. Or am I missing something?
BTW…wonderful blog/web site, Michael.
Bill – That’s encouraging!
Dom – Thanks!
I am personally finding it more and more difficult to accept the concept of nationalism.
You mean you have a problem understanding how Catholics can be nationalistic? Or you find it difficult to accept that nationalism is really a problem? Pretty sure you mean the former.