Friday, November 30, 2012

"Religionless Christianity"

As I get older, Dietrich Bonheffer means more and more to me.  In a prison cell on death row, guilty of conspiring to murder Hitler, he dared to imagine a post-religious Christianity.

There must be some way forward to engage the world, especially the modern world, without illusion and without cynicism.  There must be some way to engage honestly with its mysteries, its terrors, its tangled complexities, its departures from all precedents, and its paradoxes without the anodyne comforts of easy religious doctrinalism, or an equally facile secularism.  Bonhoeffer didn't know the answers, and neither do I, but he did a brilliant job of framing the issue, and out of the most desperate of circumstances.

To Eberhard Bethge, April, 1944:

What is bothering me incessantly is the question what Christianity really is, or indeed who Christ really is, for us today. The time when people could be told everything by means of words, whether theological or pious, is over, and so is the time of inwardness and conscience--and that means the time of religion in general. We are moving toward a completely religionless time; people as they are now simply cannot be religious anymore. Even those who honestly describe themselves as "religious" do not in the least act up to it, and so they presumably mean something quite different by "religious."

Our whole nineteen-hundred-year-old Christian preaching and theology rest on the "religious a priori" of mankind. "Christianity" has always been a form--perhaps the true form--of "religion." But if one day it becomes clear that this a priori does not exist at all, but was a historically conditioned and transient form of human self-expression, and if therefore man becomes radically religionless--and I think that that is already more or less the case (else how is it, for example, that this war, in contrast to all previous ones, is not calling forth any "religious" reaction?)--what does that mean for "Christianity"? It means that the foundation is taken away from the whole of what has up to now been our "Christianity," and that there remain only a few "last survivors of the age of chivalry," or a few intellectually dishonest people that we are to pounce in fervor, pique, or indignation, in order to sell them goods? Are we to fall upon a few unfortunate people in their hour of need and exercise a sort of religious compulsion on them? If we don't want to do all that, if our final judgment must be that the Western form of Christianity, too, was only a preliminary stage to a complete absence of religion, what kind of situation emerges for us, for the church? How can Christ become the Lord of the religionless as well? Are there religionless Christians? If religion is only a garment of Christianity--and even this garment has looked very different at different times--then what is a religionless Christianity?

The questions to be answered would surely be: What do a church, a community, a sermon, a liturgy, a Christian life mean in a religionless world? How do we speak of God--without religion, i.e., without the temporally conditioned presuppositions of metaphysics, inwardness, and so on? How do we speak (or perhaps we cannot now even "speak" as we used to) in a "secular" way about God? In what way are we "religionless-secular" Christians, in what way are we those who are called forth, not regarding ourselves from a religious point of view as specially favored, but rather as belonging wholly to the world? In that case Christ is no longer an object of religion, but something quite different, really the Lord of the world. But what does that mean? What is the place of worship and prayer in a religionless situation?

The Pauline question of whether [circumcision] is a condition of justification seems to me in present-day terms to be whether religion is a condition of salvation. Freedom from [circumcision] is also freedom from religion. I often ask myself why a "Christian instinct" often draws me more to the religionless people than to the religious, but which I don't in the least mean with any evangelizing intention, but, I might almost say, "in brotherhood." While I'm often reluctant to mention God by name to religious people--because that name somehow seems to me here not to ring true, and I feel myself to be slightly dishonest (it's particularly bad when others start to talk in religious jargon; I then dry up almost completely and feel awkward and uncomfortable)--to people with no religion I can on occasion mention him by name quite calmly and as a matter of course.

The transcendence of epistemological theory has nothing to do with the transcendence of God. God is beyond in the midst of our life. The church stands, not at the boundaries where human powers give out, but in the middle of the village...How this religionless Christianity looks, what form it takes, is something that I'm thinking about a great deal, and I shall be writing to you again about it soon. It may be that on us in particular, midway between East and West, there will fall a heavy responsibility.


Our own dear Episcopal atheist, IT, ponders these issues on her blog here, here, and here.


June Butler said...

Bonhoeffer was brilliant and prophetic. His Letters and Papers From Prison was transformative for me. More than once, I've sat in church on Sunday pondering, "What are we doing here?" Yes, we gather to worship God, but that is (or should be) only the beginning. What comes next?

The response of Trinity Wall Street and St Paul's in London to the Occupiers was also transformative, but not in a good way.

IT said...

Thank you for the call-out!

however the first link to FoJ is broken. :-)

IT said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom Sarmo said...

Thanks for the tip. (My mind is not nearly so focused, but meanders frequently over this subject.) Got some more reading to do, and I appreciate this.

Counterlight said...

The link is now fixed, at least on my computer.