Letter to the American Church

Letter to the American Church Plot Summary

Introduction

At an impossibly crucial inflection point, the American Church faces a stark choice: learn from the failures of German Christians in the 1930s or repeat their catastrophic mistakes. The parallels between these two eras are unavoidable and grim, revealing a similar pattern of institutional silence in the face of mounting evil. What made the German Church fail so spectacularly, and how is the American Church following the same dangerous path? This warning is not merely historical analysis but a prophetic call to action. When religious institutions become paralyzed by fear, theological confusion, or misplaced priorities, they cease functioning as true witnesses to truth. The central question becomes whether faith communities will recognize their moment in history and rise to meet it with courage and clarity. The gravity of this responsibility cannot be overstated - if the American Church fails as the German Church did, the consequences may prove even more devastating for humanity. At stake is not merely institutional relevance but the witness of truth itself in an age increasingly hostile to it.

Chapter 1: The Paralysis of Religious Institutions in Crisis Times

Churches throughout history have often found themselves at critical junctures where their response - or lack thereof - shaped not only their own future but the moral trajectory of entire societies. When religious institutions become paralyzed during moments of moral crisis, the consequences extend far beyond their congregations. This paralysis manifests not as complete inaction but as a retreat into religious activity divorced from moral responsibility. The German Church of the 1930s exemplifies this pattern with haunting clarity. As Hitler rose to power, most church leaders responded not with prophetic resistance but with theological rationalizations for their inaction. Rather than recognizing the profound evil unfolding before them, they retreated into familiar religious routines and rituals. Sermons continued, hymns were sung, while outside their sanctuaries, the foundations of civilization crumbled. A similar paralysis threatens American religious institutions today. Many churches have receded from public engagement, shrinking backward into what they mistakenly consider a proper "religious" sphere. This retreat represents not spiritual wisdom but moral abdication. The mistake lies in artificially separating faith from public responsibility - as though religious conviction could be compartmentalized away from civic duty. What drives this institutional paralysis? First, fear disguised as prudence - the concern that speaking out might cost attendance, donations, or social standing. Second, theological confusion that mistakes political neutrality for spiritual purity. Third, a misunderstanding of evangelism that prioritizes institutional growth over moral witness. And finally, a pietistic focus on personal virtue that neglects collective responsibility. The consequences of such paralysis extend beyond the church walls. When religious institutions fail to exercise their prophetic voice, evil advances unchallenged. The judgment that fell upon the German Church came not as divine punishment but as the natural consequence of their failure to be what God called them to be. Their churches continued functioning as religious institutions while failing to function as the Church in its truest sense. Overcoming this paralysis requires discerning the difference between religious activity and faithful witness. When churches focus merely on attendance metrics, building programs, and noncontroversial sermons while ignoring the moral crises of their time, they have ceased being the Church regardless of their institutional vitality. True religious vitality manifests not in comfortable services but in costly discipleship.

Chapter 2: Bonhoeffer's Prophetic Voice: Speaking Truth to Power

Dietrich Bonhoeffer emerged as a prophetic voice within the German Church precisely when clear moral vision was most desperately needed. Born into a prominent academic family, his theological brilliance was evident from an early age, completing his doctoral dissertation at just twenty-one. Yet what distinguished Bonhoeffer was not merely intellectual prowess but the courage to speak unwelcome truths when most religious leaders remained silent. On November 6, 1932 - Reformation Sunday - Bonhoeffer delivered a sermon at the prestigious Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church that scandalized Berlin's religious elite. Rather than celebrating German Lutheranism as expected, he thundered like an Old Testament prophet, declaring that the church of Martin Luther was dying, if not already dead. His chosen text from Revelation 2:4-5 warned of divine judgment: "You have abandoned the love you had at first... Repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place." The message was clear - unless the German Church awakened from its spiritual slumber, judgment would fall. When Hitler became chancellor three months later, Bonhoeffer immediately recognized the existential threat to authentic Christianity. Within days of Hitler's ascension, while delivering a radio address on leadership, Bonhoeffer's broadcast was mysteriously cut off mid-speech. This small incident foreshadowed the systematic suppression to come. Unlike many who believed they could continue religious business as usual, Bonhoeffer understood that circumstances had fundamentally changed and required an entirely different response. In April 1933, Bonhoeffer wrote his seminal essay "The Church and the Jewish Question," articulating three responsibilities of Christians under an unjust state. First, the Church must question state injustice and call it to account. Second, it must help victims of injustice regardless of their religious affiliation. Finally, and most radically, if the state persisted in injustice, Christians had an obligation to actively oppose it - to "jam a spoke in the wheel" of the state itself. This framework challenged the prevailing Lutheran interpretation of Romans 13 that emphasized unquestioning submission to governing authorities. While most German pastors hesitated, Bonhoeffer moved with decisive clarity. He became instrumental in forming the Confessing Church, which declared itself the true German Church in opposition to the Nazi-aligned "German Christians." The Barmen Declaration of 1934, which Bonhoeffer helped craft, explicitly rejected state interference in church affairs. Yet even within the Confessing Church, many balked at Bonhoeffer's insistence on speaking plainly about Nazi atrocities. What made Bonhoeffer's voice truly prophetic was not merely that he predicted future calamities, but that he diagnosed the present spiritual condition with unflinching accuracy. He saw that the German Church had abandoned its first love - replacing genuine faith with nationalist sentiment and religious formalism. His words proved tragically prescient when Allied bombs later destroyed the very church where he had delivered his warning sermon, leaving its ruined tower standing as a stark monument to unheeded prophecy.

Chapter 3: The Idol of Evangelism vs. True Christian Responsibility

When evangelism becomes an idol, it paradoxically undermines genuine Christian witness in the world. This idolatry occurs when bringing others to "salvation" becomes so singularly important that all other moral responsibilities are dismissed as distractions. Under this distorted framework, speaking truth about injustice, challenging cultural corruption, or confronting institutional evil becomes secondary or even counterproductive to the "real work" of evangelism. This error emerges from a reductionist understanding of the Gospel itself. By narrowing Christian faith to a transaction focused solely on individual salvation, broader biblical themes of justice, truthfulness, and communal responsibility get marginalized. The idol of evangelism teaches that winning converts is the only truly spiritual activity while engagement with societal issues becomes mere "politics" or "culture warring" - deemed secular distractions from evangelistic purity. The consequences of this idolatry proved devastating in 1930s Germany. Many pastors justified their silence about Nazi atrocities by claiming they wanted to "focus on preaching the Gospel." They feared that speaking against government policies would jeopardize their churches' evangelistic mission. Bonhoeffer confronted this evasion directly, famously declaring, "Only he who cries out for the Jews may sing Gregorian chants." His point was piercing: authentic worship and evangelism cannot be separated from moral responsibility toward one's neighbors. This same pattern appears in American Christianity today. When prominent pastors refuse to address clear moral issues - from abortion to racial injustice, from religious persecution to sexual ethics - they often justify their silence as preserving their "Gospel witness." Yet this approach fundamentally misunderstands how biblical witness functions. The Scriptures never present evangelism as an alternative to moral responsibility but as inseparable from it. Jesus himself repeatedly demonstrated this integration. He did not hesitate to confront religious hypocrisy, challenge unjust power structures, or speak difficult truths that drove many away. When he called the Pharisees "whitewashed tombs" and told them they were "of their father, the devil," he knew such language might alienate them permanently. Yet truth-telling was essential to his mission, not incidental to it. William Wilberforce exemplifies how evangelistic passion naturally flows into moral action. His deep faith motivated both his evangelistic zeal and his lifelong fight against slavery. He rejected the false dichotomy between proclaiming salvation and pursuing justice. When critics told him to keep his faith private and out of politics, he recognized this as a strategy to neutralize Christian witness rather than purify it. True Christian responsibility integrates proclamation and demonstration, evangelism and ethics, personal salvation and public justice. When churches elevate one aspect while neglecting others, they distort the very Gospel they claim to preserve. Bonhoeffer's warning remains relevant: those who remain silent about injustice while claiming to serve God are not preserving their witness but abandoning it entirely.

Chapter 4: False Neutrality: When Silence Becomes Complicity

The myth of neutrality constitutes perhaps the most dangerous self-deception within religious communities facing moral crisis. When confronted with systematic injustice or encroaching authoritarianism, many religious leaders convince themselves that silence represents prudent neutrality rather than moral complicity. This pattern dominated the German Church's response to Nazism and reappears in American religious institutions today. German sociologist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann later developed the concept of the "Spiral of Silence" to explain this phenomenon. When people fail to speak against injustice, the price of speaking rises. As that price increases, even fewer speak out, creating a downward spiral that eventually silences entire societies. This was precisely what happened in Germany. Of approximately 18,000 Protestant pastors in 1935, only about 3,000 stood firmly with the Confessing Church against Hitler. Roughly the same number actively supported the Nazi regime, but most telling were the 12,000 pastors who remained "neutral" - neither endorsing nor opposing the regime's increasingly obvious evil. This false neutrality manifests itself through several self-justifications. First comes the theological excuse that Christians should focus exclusively on "spiritual matters" rather than "political issues." Then follows the pragmatic concern that speaking out might limit future ministry opportunities. Finally emerges the rationalization that silence somehow preserves institutional influence for more important battles later. Each justification ultimately serves fear rather than faith, self-preservation rather than truthful witness. The consequences of such silence proved catastrophic. By refusing to speak when speaking might have mattered, these "neutral" clergy actually enabled evil's advance. Their silence was interpreted as tacit approval, emboldening perpetrators while demoralizing potential resisters. Had just a few thousand more pastors joined the Confessing Church's stand, the Nazi regime might have been significantly constrained. Instead, their "neutrality" helped create the conditions where millions would perish. Bonhoeffer understood that when moral clarity is demanded, silence itself becomes a moral position - not neutrality but complicity. This insight crystallized in the statement often attributed to him: "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act. God will not hold us guiltless." True faith demands discernment about when silence preserves witness and when it betrays it. American religious institutions face similar tests today. When churches remain silent about clear moral issues - afraid of being labeled "political" or losing cultural status - they repeat the pattern of the German 12,000. They may justify this silence as focusing on "preaching the Gospel" or avoiding "divisive issues," but the effect remains the same: moral abdication when moral clarity is most needed. Breaking this spiral requires courage that comes only from genuine faith. When Bonhoeffer wrote that "speech is a form of action" and "silence is a form of speech," he challenged the comfortable fiction that Christians can avoid taking moral positions. Every pastor, every congregation, and every believer must decide whether their ultimate allegiance lies with cultural acceptance or with truth itself.

Chapter 5: The Perilous Separation of Faith from Political Action

The artificial division between faith and political engagement represents a modern distortion of Christian tradition rather than its authentic expression. Throughout scripture and church history, faith consistently motivated political action whenever justice was threatened. Yet many religious leaders now embrace a truncated theology that renders them passive before political evil. This separation stems partly from a misapplication of Martin Luther's teaching on the "two kingdoms." Luther distinguished between the spiritual realm (governed by the Gospel) and the temporal realm (governed by law), but never suggested Christians should withdraw from political responsibility. In fact, Luther himself was deeply engaged in the political questions of his day. However, by the 1930s, German Lutherans had developed a rigid interpretation that effectively prohibited religious critique of state actions. When Hitler came to power, many pastors cited Romans 13 ("Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities") as reason for unquestioning compliance with the Nazi regime. This selective reading ignored scripture's broader teaching about government's divinely limited role and believers' responsibility to resist unjust authority. Bonhoeffer directly challenged this theological error in his essay "The Church and the Jewish Question," insisting that the church must not only help victims of state injustice but actively resist unjust state actions. A similar theological confusion plagues American Christianity today. When pastors declare they won't "get political," they selectively define which moral issues qualify as "political" based largely on cultural pressure rather than theological principle. Issues aligned with progressive causes rarely face this prohibition, while traditional Christian positions on sexuality, religious liberty, or unborn life are deemed "too political" for pulpit address. This inconsistency reveals not theological principle but cultural accommodation. The historical consequences of this separation proved devastating. Because German Christians believed politics lay outside their proper spiritual concern, they remained passive while political evil metastasized. By the time many recognized their error, resistance had become nearly impossible. Their theological compartmentalization had rendered them powerless precisely when moral clarity and courage were most needed. American Christians must recognize that everything touching human flourishing necessarily has political dimensions. Education, family formation, religious liberty, economic justice, and protection of vulnerable life all involve political questions. When churches abdicate responsibility in these areas, they don't preserve spiritual purity but abandon their neighbors to whatever ideologies fill the vacuum. Willingly engaging political questions doesn't mean partisan captivity. Rather, it means faithfully applying transcendent moral principles to contemporary challenges - exactly what prophets did throughout scripture. Neither Wilberforce nor Bonhoeffer could have effected change without political engagement. Their faithfulness required political action precisely because their theological convictions demanded it. The path forward requires rejecting false dichotomies between faith and politics. Christians must recover the understanding that political engagement flows naturally from loving one's neighbor, not as a distraction from spiritual mission but as an expression of it. Only then can religious institutions avoid the paralysis that overtook German Christianity at its critical moment.

Chapter 6: From Cheap Grace to Costly Discipleship

The distinction between cheap grace and costly discipleship lies at the heart of Bonhoeffer's critique of nominal Christianity. Cheap grace, as he defined it in his seminal work "The Cost of Discipleship," represents "grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ." It offers forgiveness without repentance, baptism without church discipline, communion without confession, and absolution without personal confession. In essence, it is grace divorced from its transformative power. This theological error emerges from misunderstanding Luther's emphasis on "faith alone." While Luther correctly emphasized that salvation comes through faith rather than works, later generations distorted this teaching into a passive, intellectual assent requiring no change in behavior. By Bonhoeffer's time, German Lutheranism had largely reduced faith to doctrinal agreement rather than life-altering commitment. One could profess Christianity on Sunday while accommodating Nazi policies throughout the week without sensing any contradiction. Bonhoeffer countered this distortion with his concept of costly discipleship. "When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die," he famously wrote. True grace always transforms; it demands everything from its recipients. While salvation remains God's free gift, it inevitably produces obedience. The evidence of genuine faith lies not in theological correctness but in concrete action that reflects Christ's character regardless of personal cost. This framework explains why so many "faithful" German Christians failed their historic test. Their cheap grace theology had immunized them against Christ's radical claims on their lives. They could recite creeds and participate in sacraments while remaining spiritually paralyzed when confronting systemic evil. Their faith had become what James would call "dead faith" - intellectual belief without corresponding action. James's epistle provided Bonhoeffer with biblical foundation for his critique. "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?" James challenged the notion that mere intellectual agreement constitutes saving faith. He insists that genuine faith inevitably produces faithful action: "Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." For contemporary American Christianity, this distinction remains equally crucial. Many churches emphasize doctrinal correctness while minimizing moral responsibility. They may excel at articulating salvation by grace while failing to embody Christ's sacrificial love toward neighbors. Like the fig leaves Adam and Eve used to cover their nakedness, doctrinal statements often function as inadequate coverings for spiritual nakedness. The path from cheap grace to costly discipleship begins with recognizing that faith involves trusting a Person rather than merely assenting to propositions. Os Guinness illustrates this distinction using hunting imagery: European "belief" resembles a hunter aiming a rifle from a distance, while biblical faith resembles a lion pouncing with its entire being. True faith engages our whole person - intellect, emotions, and will - in radical commitment to Christ. This understanding transforms how Christians approach moral challenges. Those gripped by costly discipleship cannot remain silent when human dignity is violated, truth is suppressed, or justice is perverted. Their faith compels them to act regardless of personal cost. In contrast, those content with cheap grace find endless theological justifications for inaction and silence.

Chapter 7: The American Church at the Crossroads of History

America occupies an inescapably central role in world affairs, placing unique responsibility on American religious institutions. This exceptional position stems not from inherent American superiority but from historical providence. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in the 1830s, America's strength emerged largely from its churches, which uniquely encouraged rather than opposed political liberty. This religious foundation distinguished American democracy from European counterparts. This historical role creates tremendous spiritual responsibility. If America has indeed been providentially positioned as a global defender of liberty, then American religious institutions bear corresponding obligations. This responsibility becomes particularly acute in moments of moral crisis when fundamental truths face systematic challenge. We currently stand at precisely such a crossroads. Multiple ideological currents now threaten the Judeo-Christian foundations of Western civilization. Critical theories that reject objective truth, radical gender ideologies that deny biological reality, and neo-Marxist frameworks that divide humanity into oppressor/oppressed categories all represent fundamental challenges to biblical anthropology. Though these movements present themselves as champions of the marginalized, they ultimately undermine human dignity by rejecting the created order. The most insidious aspect of these challenges lies in their strategy of neutralizing religious resistance. By characterizing traditional moral convictions as merely "political" or "divisive," these movements pressure religious leaders into self-censorship. Many churches have internalized these accusations, retreating from public engagement precisely when their voice is most needed. This pattern mirrors exactly what happened in 1930s Germany. During COVID-19 restrictions, this capitulation became particularly visible. When governments classified churches as "non-essential" while keeping casinos and marijuana dispensaries open, many religious leaders meekly complied rather than asserting the essential nature of spiritual community. When questionable medical policies raised serious ethical concerns, too many remained silent, deeming such matters outside their spiritual jurisdiction. This retreat represents not wisdom but abdication. When churches abandon their prophetic responsibility, the cultural vacuum gets filled with alternative value systems. Nature abhors a vacuum; when religious institutions withdraw from cultural engagement, secular ideologies inevitably advance. The consequences extend far beyond church walls, eventually threatening the very freedoms that allow religious practice. Breaking this pattern requires recovering several biblical truths. First, all truth is God's truth, making artificial divisions between "spiritual" and "political" matters theologically indefensible. Second, speaking truth constitutes an act of love, not its abandonment. Third, genuine faith always manifests in action rather than mere belief. Finally, religious institutions must recognize that neutrality in moral crises ultimately serves evil rather than good. The question confronting every American religious leader and congregation is fundamentally the same one German Christians faced: Will you recognize your moment in history and respond with courage, or will you retreat into comfortable irrelevance while evil advances? The answer will determine not only the future of American Christianity but the trajectory of human freedom itself.

Summary

The ultimate test of any religious institution lies not in its doctrinal precision or institutional vitality but in its moral courage during defining historical moments. What Bonhoeffer recognized - and what contemporary religious leaders must rediscover - is that faith divorced from moral responsibility becomes not merely irrelevant but actively complicit in evil. When churches prioritize institutional preservation over prophetic witness, theological correctness over moral clarity, or social acceptance over truth-telling, they betray their foundational purpose regardless of their numerical success. The path forward requires embracing what Bonhoeffer called "religionless Christianity" - not abandoning faith but stripping away its comfortable cultural accommodations to recover its radical core. Just as Reagan's bold declaration "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" helped collapse a seemingly impregnable Soviet system, so might courageous truth-speaking from American pulpits help dismantle ideological structures that threaten human dignity and freedom today. The choice facing religious communities is stark: continue business as usual and face judgment, or recover costly discipleship and fulfill their prophetic responsibility. History and heaven watch for their answer.

About Author

Loading...

John Harlestone

Read more