In Christian zeal or patriotic fervor, biblical wisdom must lead us to balance and not to trust a secular government if it contradicts God’s Word. Even the state is accountable to God, who will judge and bless.

A series reviewing a century of attempts for religion to impact politics in America

Along the way, we ask: Where mistakes were made that we do not wish to repeat?

2. The Good German? Barmen or Thielicke

During the 1930s, America’s main challenge was to staunch the bleeding of the Depression and begin some kind of recovery. Local churches did their fair share of caring for the poor, but the magnitude of the problem swamped the resources of individual churches; moreover, denominations were unprepared as well. The seeds of a burgeoning federal social apparatus were sown.

While the American federal government began a historic expansion, denominations (inherently aggregate associations) offered little resistance to centralizing trajectories. Even if quiet and little noticed, there was hardly any religious pushback to these consolidating moves. In fact, the mainline denominations showed themselves to be early allies for collectivist programs. With the excesses of the Roaring 20s viewed as contributing to the subsequent trauma of the Depression, the aftermath made it difficult to champion an earlier capitalism or individualism.

Between the World Wars, American Fundamentalism gathered steam, but this was initially a small movement and widely shamed at first. The Scopes trial gave Fundamentalism a bad name, evangelical parachurch ministries had not yet begun, the number of megachurches could be counted on one hand, and today’s largest Protestant denomination (the Southern Baptist Convention) was small and typically regional. As a result, there was very little political theology in America prior to World War 2.

However, while America was recovering from her great Depression, other powers began to recover—and re-arm—aggressively. By 1930, Mussolini was in power in Italy (at that time, more powerful than Hitler), Hitler’s rise was seen in Germany (if not elsewhere), and Japan was becoming a power. Silently, Russia and China were beginning their regional dominance. Islam was an undetected force, and the oil-rich Middle Eastern states were decades from their ascent.

In terms of ethical theology, there were two major issues: antisemitism and racism. The Third Reich appropriated both of those, prohibiting a theological critique from Western Europe. In America, there was a latent antisemitism, although it was normally expressed without fatalities as in the German concentration camps. In America, most European immigrants (Italians, Irish, Germans, Poles) were either assimilated routinely, or the immigration percentages were tiny (Hispanic, Muslim). The largest racial discrimination was against descendants of slaves. Support or criticism of that fell out largely along geographical lines, with Northern Christians being outspoken sooner in their calls for racial equality than most Southern churches.

In terms of political theology, there was one major nexus of conceptualization: whether or not to support unethical or atheistic regimes. The rapid rise of Soviet and Chinese communism in the East—neither congruent with Christianity—along with the ascent of Fascism in Italy stifled resistance to inhumane regimes. Churches in America did not have to grapple with this. As a result, critiques of socialism developed slowly here. In other regions, socialism became largely acceptable and theological objection to statism was slow to develop.

Sadly, there were few critiques of Leviathan from evangelicals at the time, except from an occasional dispensationalist. However, some who were affected by Naziism early rose to object to that oppressive government, which pioneered statist control over many areas of life. Several stalwart German theologians provided memorable content to resist over-centralization.

Barth, Brunner, Bonhoeffer, and Barmen

The twentieth century saw a resurfacing of political theology, mainly in the latter half. At the outset of this final century of the second millennium, nearly two decades of peace led some to believe that peace would reign. However, World War 1 began to challenge that optimism. The real impetus for theological reconsideration came upon the heels of World War 2. Adolph Hitler became the cause celebre which led to a thorough theological reformulation in matters of state. The rise of National Socialism in Hitler’s Germany was a manifestation of the maximalist state, a leviathan of grotesque proportions. Simultaneously, the Soviet socialists were oppressing millions in the pursuit of their atheistic political incarnation. Italian fascism under Mussolini completed the unholy triumvirate of hellish political configurations. In each of these, the organized church was largely ill-equipped and unprepared. In Italy, the Roman Catholic Church did little to stem the advance of Fascism; in Russia, the Orthodox Church was intimidated into non-resistance; and in Europe, Protestants fared no better in their resistance to Hitler.

A few examples of bravery and theological astuteness, nevertheless, were counter valent to these humanistic monsters. In German speaking churches, two neo-orthodox theologians—Karl Barth (1886-1968) and Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945)—became notorious for their resistance to the Hitlerian leviathan. Karl Barth and others were instrumental in drafting and approving the Barmen Declaration (1934). Adopted by the Confessing Church (as opposed to the established state-church of Germany), the Theological Declaration of Barmen asserted that it would not bow to the idolatry of state, nor condone undue patriotism. Disclaimer: While we do not commend his theological formulations, and we may admire his clear thinking on this one area, Barth and others confessed in 1934:

We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God’s revelation.…We reject the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords.…We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions.…We reject the false doctrine, as though the state, over and beyond its special commission, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life (emphasis added in bold), thus fulfilling the Church’s vocation as well. We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, over and beyond its special commission, should and could appropriate the characteristics, the tasks, and the dignity of the state, thus itself becoming an organ of the state.…We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans.

This confession clearly sought to restrain the National Socialist movement from encroaching on the domain of the church. Barth directly addressed a theology of the state in several of his writings, and normally he was adroit at resisting the usurpation of the maximalist state.

In 1928, Barth set forth a number of propositions about the role of the state, the church, and the relationship between these two powers. He began by urging caution: “This is the thing which in every Christian act we cannot consider too much…before the venture is made to initiate it in the name of Christianity. This is what has also to be considered in relation to the constant concern for true Christian politics if we start Christian unions or newspapers, or…an Evangelical bank.”^[1] He continued to commend Christian involvement in politics: “We cannot leave the arena. But it is fit that we should make only very circumspect use of the Christian flag in this arena, for at every smallest step we take the danger is very great that we shall at least compromise severely the Christian name, and, in any case, Christ will triumph in spite of our Christian flagwaving and not by means of it.”^[2]

Read More