When Eric Metaxas’ book was released, Letter to the American Church, I made sure I quickly secured my copy. His previous books, Martin Luther, and Bonhoeffer were both interesting and compelling works to read. As a former local church pastor, college professor, and current director of Church Engagement with a state-based policy organization, his premise in Letter to the American Church, solicited both my interest and anticipation. It was with equal interest that I have also viewed the recent release of the movie under the same name. The movie was a source of concern within the state policy organization I work for due to a donor who asked that we consider promoting this movie at a high visibility event we were hosting. The conversation swirled specifically around the 90-second marketing trailer which was being asked to be shown and whether its presentation at our event constituted an “endorsement” or just an “advertisement”. In much the same way vendors set up their tables for closely related events, could this trailer be presented to our audience? It caused no small discussion with opinions across the theological and practical spectrum.
I believe both of these works by Metaxas can be reviewed in a fair and appropriate way as both ostensibly put forth the same premise using the same information. I suspect the premise, tone, and action points he offers will create an even greater conversation in both evangelical churches and conservative advocacy organizations. This review offers no final resolution to the discussions, but simply some observations from one who has years in the civic engagement lane and soliciting pastors’ participation in three states.
From my vantage point, I can give Metaxas the benefit of the doubt that he is concerned about the direction of America. His analysis of the culture and the trajectory of our culture is unarguable. Everyone has a sense that America has come to some important crossroads and the Church has a responsibility in what that outcome will ultimately be. Since all governments are compromised at least in part by unregenerate people with darkened hearts, the participation of God’s ministers as the conscience of the state is critical. Metaxas uses as a springboard the biographies of Luther and Bonhoeffer to make the point that pastoral engagement is the key to righteous confrontation of civil authority.
In the opening of both book and movie, he immediately contextualizes and explains the nuances between the secularized critique of “American exceptionalism” and “Christian Nationalism”, which has often been used as a straw man to dissuade Church participation in biblical citizenship. Because this book and movie is entitled, “Letter to the American Church”, the reader (viewer) must allow for a compacted and expedited explanation of many thoughts and concepts. After all, a letter cannot be a 600-page textbook exploring the depths of every concept, nor can it be multi-episode video series. This may be a frustration for those of us who might like more information, explanation, or elaboration on some ideas Metaxas presents, but the content fits the ultimate purpose Metaxas is seeking. Both book and video are a fiery letter which exhorts the American Church to wake-up and get on the field of civic engagement.
The material has both strengths and weaknesses. I initially wanted to simply create a list of both in this review, but I found that to be too compartmentalized and potentially look as if I was speaking out of both sides of my mouth. I suspect it’s because while I agree that the Church is the linchpin to cultural reformation and I would offer no argument against the Scriptural declaration that “righteousness exalts a nation”, the strategy and tone by which we engage may indeed be a flash point of disagreement. I will offer my insights under the following headings:
- HISTORICAL AUTHORITY
We attribute to Edmund Burke the famous saying, “Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it”. Metaxas is masterful at finding historical illustrations to the moment we are living in America and making sure we see the connection and commit to not repeating it. He uses the unquestionable evil of the Nazi regime in the 1930’s and Hitler’s relationship to the Church in Germany to underscore our current problem. His premise is that we (the Church at large and pastors in particular) are sliding into the same dynamics of that era. To those who might scream, “foul”, at the comparison of now to then, I would simply point out that no one awakens one morning and pivots from a law-abiding, respectful citizen of everyone’s rights, to a violent, radical progressive who would persecute a whole class of people. Such things have a trajectory and milieu. Metaxas suggests that the Church is called by God to “see into the future” and prophetically challenge those cultural trajectories. Personally, I see no fault in making that case.
The tricky part enters the picture as to how much authority we grant the past in directing our future. I found Metaxas’ use of Bonhoeffer and the German Church as analogous to the American Church had some important imprecision in its application. No one wants a nerdy, history graduate to deep dive the differences, but while Bonhoeffer certainly has some application to the moment, I felt like a number of things needed contextual tightening for accuracy’s sake. For example:
A. The German Church was intricately attached to the state centuries before the Nazi take-over. The American Church is not attached in the same manner to the state. Hitler’s manipulation of the Church of Germany, while despicable, was not an historical anomaly. Many European churches have had an unhealthy, manipulative tie to their national state. This is an important distinction when making application. American liberal and conservative churches are both generally loath for hyper-political intervention in their congregations. This would not have been the case in Germany. The German church, in particular Lutheranism, had a deep historical relationship to the state.
B. Germany was ostensibly the home of theological pietism which engrained in the clergy’s psyche an instant compartmentalization of the Gospel away from the actual activities and policies of the state. This must have been deeply paradoxical, or at least a manifestation of cognitive dissonance on the part of the clergy. They had a longstanding relationship to the state while theologically disconnecting from its activity. The American Church, I would argue, has a healthier history of both relationship and engagement from its founding. While more American pastors no doubt need to be engaged, our country also has a robust remnant of clergy actively involved with the state. It is far beyond what Germany produced in 1939.
C. Bonhoeffer’s struggle was against the fascist “right”, not the communist “left”. Hitler was no fan of communism. America’s challenges with CRT, BLM, and Marxist pressures are from the “left”. So, perhaps Bonhoeffer’s example is better applied as an example of clergy engagement with tyranny no matter the political tangent. In other words, Bonhoeffer might be best understood as an example of an honest “umpire” calling balls and strikes on every political movement which violates God’s Word.
- PASTORAL SOLICITATION
I was very much intrigued by Metaxas’ research of the number of German pastors who sided with the Nazis, those who publicly stood against the Nazis, and those who believed they were maintaining their neutrality. The short, but interesting connection to the concept of the “Spiral of Silence”, made famous by German sociologist, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, may be worth the price of the book in its relevance to the American Church. That said, the challenge presents itself by asking the question, “Why?”. Why do pastors believe politics to be “poisonous in the pulpit”? Why do churches feel reluctant to engage at even the most minimal (and obviously legal) ways?
Metaxas introduces the need for a theological framework for civic engagement. Cheers to him for opening this can, but one cannot open the can without exploring the ingredients which are in the can. This is where we find some deficiency. Exactly what theology or upon what basis should the Church engage the state? How should pastors be solicited to this arena?
This is a particular “horse” I have been riding for a number of years. Everyone who has a call or interest in the political arena knows intuitively that the Church has a place in this space. I have said for years that pastors leading their churches with a comprehensive application of the Gospel are the linchpin to cultural renewal and reformation. The problem is that the discussion of the Church’s involvement almost always defaults into the phrase, “The Church needs to BE the Church”. The “be” part is almost always defined by personal vision or passion. This is true with Metaxas’ presentation and perspective.
I have, after a couple of decade’s experience of engaging the culture from the pulpit, the street, and in the halls of government, found that soliciting pastors to involvement from strictly the perspective of cultural decay and disintegration is not as effective as soliciting their involvement from a theological mandate. Sure, some will see this video or read this book and jump on board because “the house is on fire”. Others will see it as simply an illustration of their pessimistic theology of cultural decline before Christ’s return or vindication of their theological pietism. I am not antagonistic or dismissive of Metaxas’ effort, but I think it does demonstrate a gap in his understanding of how to exhort pastors and the Church. How many times can we say the “sky is falling” and expect to maintain long term involvement by pastors?
Metaxas rings the bell by introducing the theological underpinning of civic engagement, but never explores the application in greater depth or detail with the American Church. For example, have pastors disengaged primarily because of pragmatic pressures or doctrinal ignorance? Has our acceptance of a poorly trained clergy (especially in sound doctrine) contributed or even solidified pastoral disengagement? What should Bible colleges, seminaries, and ministry training schools be doing to rectify a shallowness in the doctrinal capacity for aspiring pastors? To what extent are church members culpable by supporting disengaged clergy and churches when there are plenty of engaged pastors who would love their support? This was an area that could have been filled with solutions to the problem of disengagement by the Church in the 21st century. Instead, Metaxas opens the can and then defaults to simply shaming America’s clergy for their lack of involvement likening them to the German state church pastors of 1939. To be candid, his incendiary method might score points with some frustrated sheep, but probably won’t recruit any new clergy.
- THEOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL CONFLATION
We are living in an era where the new bogeyman is called, Christian Nationalism. There are numerous definitions as to what CN may be and honestly, it has become a slippery epithet on too many occasions. If the question is, “Can your nation become your idol and your participation in politics idolatry?”, then of course, the answer is yes. However, just because a person has a theology of God’s sovereignty which includes involvement in the civic sphere does not necessarily make that person an idolater. There is a line between the two bases of involvement and it’s a line that can be walked. Perhaps it’s because I know Metaxas’ and Kirk’s political views and strategies that this particular point is of concern to me. I personally walked away from the video with the feeling that if I am not adhering to both conservatism and the strategy by which its definition and implementation is being suggested, then as Kirk stated, “I am in sin”.
Our allegiance should be to neither major political party. A case could be made, perhaps, that one party might better reflect certain policy priorities than the other party, but neither one is consistently righteous. Church engagement should never be conflated with political philosophy or outcomes. The Church engages based on the Gospel and the comprehensive nature of the Lordship of Jesus Christ. We, as believers, are ambassadors from another Kingdom and our churches are those embassies which reflect the culture and policies of that Kingdom. We must not be hijacked by those, who despite their seemingly good intentions, are conflating Gospel mission with political governance. We must be honest and biblical voices in our engagement strategies.
For example, I find it fascinating that the discussion of biblical voting is rarely broached at large and certainly not by Metaxas. There is never a discussion over what a vote actually represents. Should our vote seek to glorify God? Can we sin with our vote? To what extent is a Christian tied to a binary system of selecting civic leaders? Has our binary election system actually compounded the problems of our culture? Is a Christian actually in sin if they do not choose one of the two major party candidate offerings? How does fidelity to the Gospel translate into fidelity at the ballot box? These initial questions were never handled in Metaxas’ book of video. Personally, you cannot scold Christian leaders for cowardice when you haven’t rightly evaluated the field of battle (metaphorically speaking).
My concluding feelings after reading the book and watching the video could be summed up by using the words: indifference, neutral, unremarkable. I’m not “against” the book or film. It certainly analyzed our current culture accurately. I would also stipulate that there are many times I too, feel like we are spiraling towards a gigantic crash. It may solicit a few pastors to be more relevant in their preaching and teaching. That outcome would certainly be positive. However, there was no pushing the “engagement ball” forward in a meaningful way for the Church. It presented no optimistic possibilities for the future. It offered no theological insight as to how the Church remains faithful to God while engaging the political process. Furthermore, is there a model of engagement the Bible may espouse that we might implement? It gave us no glimmer of hope by showing us current oases of effective engagement by the Church (and there are shining examples out there). I think the video will be lauded in some circles and decried in others. For me, I am no longer moved by short term strategies which cut some crucial corners in maintaining our integrity and fidelity as believers. My bet is on a Gospel-centered, long term biblical template which places the Lordship of Jesus Christ front and center. Sacrifice under any other banner is not only meaningless; it is futile.
No Comments