Nonconformist Chronicles

Morality, Doctrine, and National Socialism

Hitler came to power as chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. That same year military chaplain, Ludwig Muller was elected bishop of the German Evangelical Church, with Hitler's blessing. Muller favored a Reich Church consisting of a federation of Protestants and Catholics who supported the National Socialist state. Nazis infiltrated Catholicism with the signing of a Nazi-Vatican concordat on July 20, 1933. This treaty guaranteed the Catholic Church certain rights in Germany, but restricted opposition to the Nazis.

Protestants favoring National Socialism were known as the "German Christians," but there was considerable dissent among some pastors. The German Christians resolved that Jesus was an Aryan revolutionary fighter against all things Jewish, which was given as explanation for his murder at the hands of Jews. It was further resolved that baptized Jews within Germany would be dismissed from the church. And finally, the Old Testament was dismissed as Scripture, rejected as Jewish myth. Some theologians sought to combine Christianity with German folklore advocating Aryan superiority.

A group of ministers and theologians met in January, 1934 at the synod in Barmen. They drafted the Barmen Declaration, written principally by Karl Barth and issued in opposition to changes proposed by the "German Christians." The Barmen Declaration is often considered the founding document of the "Confessing Church" who resisted the merging of National Socialist politics and Protestant Christianity. While some in the Confessing Church became part of an underground resistance to the Nazis, other members continued to offer allegiance to Hitler. 

Nazis eventually began closing down Confessing Church seminaries due to resistance within that movement. This was in 1937 which proved to be an eventful year. That same year, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was operating an illegal Confessing Church seminary in Finkenwalde (which the Gestapo finally shut down in 1940). Also in 1937, Bonhoeffer's friend, Pastor Martin Niemoller was arrested after a sermon in which he declared, "God is my Fuhrer." He spent eight years in concentration camps for having allegedly used the pulpit to vilify the state. By this time the Nazis had made sure that all church elections were won by "German Christians."  

It was also in 1937 that Bonhoeffer's book The Cost of Discipleship was published. His most famous first chapter pits "costly grace" against the notion of "cheap grace" in response to the national church concept which tends to produce marginal "Christians" wherever it has been tried. People are considered Christians by virtue of simply having been born as citizens of the nation. Moreover, Bonhoeffer was responding to common mis-readings of Luther's teaching on "grace alone" as license to live unethical lives with the false assurance that grace has one covered.  

While written against the backdrop of nationalism's threat to the church, the book transcends time and culture as an uncompromising call to die to self and follow Christ. It insists that there is no real faith without discipleship. A good portion is an exposition of the Sermon the Mount, insisting that Christian ethics never be set aside even when the state insists upon contradictory allegiances. This led Bonhoeffer to pacifism during this time in his life, a view that evolved as World War II came along and even family members were persecuted.

It's in the chapter on "The Saints" that Bonhoeffer states in a footnote that "doctrinal sin is more serious than moral." This is best understood against the backdrop of striving to be a disciple while living in Nazi Germany and within the context of the Barmen Declaration, which lists numerous Reich Church resolutions as "false doctrine." So in paraphrased summary, here are some stands taken by the Confessing Church, of which Bonhoeffer was a part: 

- There is no true source of revelation apart from Jesus Christ.

- There is no compartment of life that does not belong wholly to Christ.

- There should be no co-opting of the church's message in the interests of political ideology.

-  The church appoints its own leaders.

- The state is not to usurp the church's vocation.

- The church is not to engage in selfish agendas.

In light of the above doctrines it's easy to see why Bonhoeffer named doctrinal sin as more serious than moral. If you don't get the above doctrines right, then morality falls as well. Morality and doctrine are so intertwined as to be inseparable. Bonhoeffer concludes his footnote, "It is impossible to separate doctrine and morality in the Christian Church."

This is true when the doctrine taught is truly biblical doctrine. While some doctrines take priority over others the choice may be between love and ordinance, but never between morality and doctrine.

Is Morality or Doctrine Most Important?

Which is more important: Doctrine or Morality? Is a moral infraction or a doctrinal one the more serious offense?  It depends on how you define the terms. We could say that doctrine is "believing" the right things, while morality is "doing" the right things. This might be overly simplistic, but I'm speaking in generalities. 

Some would think of doctrine in terms of beliefs about such items as the nature of Christ and the atonement. Perhaps doctrine is more easily equated with sacramental theology, or what some would call the ordinances of the church, or even the "acts of worship." This would include beliefs about baptism, the Lord's Supper, and the worship assembly.

Morality, on the other hand, would tend to be more ethical in nature. It has to do with how we treat others and with human behavior in general. Morality would include respecting the property rights of others, being just in our dealings, and practicing purity of life.

My initial response to the question under consideration might have been that morality is more important than doctrine. Doesn't love outrank all other commands? Did Jesus not put the weightier matters of justice, mercy, and faithfulness above such matters as tithing? (Matt. 23:23). Did he not place the needs of people above Sabbath observance? (Luke 13:10-17). Is not mercy more important than sacrifice? (Matt. 12:1-7).

Is aiding the wounded more important than what one believes about the deity of Christ? Is treating our neighbor justly a better indicator of spirituality than whether we accept a bodily resurrection of Christ? Does feeding the homeless outweigh one's view as to whether Scripture is theologically inerrant?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in a footnote in his book, The Cost of Discipleship, stated that "doctrinal sin is more serious than moral." I've been turning that one over in my mind for weeks. It seems opposite of how I've been conditioned to think. 

Bonhoeffer showed that in the only biblical reference where the anathema is pronounced against someone, it is against the false teacher (Gal. 1:8). This would be one who perverts the gospel. Moreover, the term Antichrist, according to Bonhoeffer, is a "term which is not applied to those whose sins are moral, but which is reserved for teachers of heresy..."

To cite Bonhoeffer's earlier phrase in its larger context:

False doctrine corrupts the life of the Church at its source, and that is why doctrinal sin is more serious than moral. Those who rob the Church of the gospel deserve the ultimate penalty, whereas those who fail in morality have the gospel to help them.

So the gospel takes care of our moral failings, but without the gospel there is no hope at all, which is why Bonhoeffer chose doctrinal sins as the greater offenses. What do you think?

I'll close by saying that Bonhoeffer was not using the term "doctrine" as many of us do. He was not likely talking about a bodily resurrection or an inerrant Bible. Most Bonhoeffer scholars deny that he would be orthodox by the standards of today's American Evangelicals. So what was it that he identified as "false doctrine" which is so much more serious than a moral infraction?

I'll explore this in future posts. Stay tuned.               

Learning to Love God

For much of my life I failed to grasp what it means to love God. I know what it means to love my wife and kids. I can even love the stranger in need. But how can I love someone I cannot see? How can I love someone who does not speak to me audibly or even in sign language? How can I feel anything for this silent and invisible God?

I consoled myself with the notion that love is not a feeling at all and really has nothing to do with feelings. I told myself that love is not an emotion, but merely an act of the will. So to love God is to obey him. While this is true, it is only half true.

While love is not merely an emotion, nor is it a cold mechanical transaction in which parties do right by each other for mutual benefit as if they are trading commodities. A relationship with God, including conversion, has too often been likened to a mechanical process. Getting the right combination of coins in the vending machine will deliver the desired result. Reducing a real relationship with God to the working of any checklist, formula, system, or steps deemphasizes the relational nature of faith.

Faith in God, and love for God, is about relationship and not just a set of rules. If we learned anything from the Older Covenant it’s that mere compliance to law cannot save us. Even under Moses what God required was a contrite heart and a humble spirit. He doesn’t just want our compliance, but he wants our love. He doesn’t just want us to do right because we fear him, but because we actually feel something for him. Yes, I used the word “feel.” How can we really love anyone without feeling something for that person?

Real love entails affection. Jesus isn’t just after behavior modification. He wants our affection. Like an affectionate lover, God has wooed us to himself. Like an affectionate parent, he wants our obedience out of love and respect and not compulsion.

Our resurrected Lord asked Peter, “Do you love me?” He asked him three times, the first two times using the Greek word for committed love, which is agape. Each time Peter replied, “You know I love you,” using the Greek word for a close-knit friendship kind of love, which is phileo. By the third time Jesus asked, “Do you love me?” he used Peter’s term phileo (John 21:15-17).

Too many interpreters have thought this to mean that the first two times Jesus asked “Do you love me?” that he was asking for a committed love, but all Peter could bring himself to offer at the moment was friendship. So, it’s argued, that by the third time Jesus condescends to Peter’s level asking, “Are you sure that you can at least do that?”

But Peter wasn’t offering a love inferior to what Jesus wanted. Nor does Jesus condescend to Peter’s level by resorting to the use of phileo. But phileo is what the Lord really wanted all along.

While Jesus wants us to show our love in commitment to his lordship, Peter was willing to let his heart be the motivation. By the third time, Jesus wasn’t coming down to Peter’s level, but asking if Peter was really prepared to deliver on the love he claimed to possess. Yes, God wants our obedience. A disobedient lifestyle means one doesn’t love God regardless of how one claims to feel. But on the other hand, God doesn’t just want our obedience. He wants our affection.