Bonhoeffer opens Discipleship with a short preface in which he asks very direct questions: Has the church made it too difficult for people to hear the word of Jesus Christ? Has the church replaced the yoke Christ gives, which is easy and light, with a much heavier one? He asks, “Should the church be trying to erect a spiritual reign of terror over people by threatening earthly and eternal punishment on its own authority and commanding everything a person must believe and do to the saved?” (38) Bonhoeffer wonders if Christianity implies a “rejection of the great masses of people and contempt for the weak and the poor?” (39) The preface ends with this:
Today it seems so difficult to walk with certainty the narrow path of the church’s decision and yet to remain wide open to Christ’s love for all people, and in God’s patience, mercy, and loving kindness for the weak and godless. (40)
The decision he refers to is the refusal of some German Churches to be incorporated into the Reich church as Hitler sought to expand influence and control over protestant churches in Germany.
For Bonhoeffer, the purpose of the state is to create “law and order”—to keep chaos and disorder in check so society can flourish. As a Lutheran, he sees the state (political power) as an “order of creation”, which God uses to maintain the proper conditions for individuals and communities to live in the world. When the state serves this function, the church must recognize its authority. He writes:
As long as the state acts in such a way as to create law and order—even if it means new laws and new order—the church of the Creator, Reconciler, and Redeemer cannot oppose it through direct political action. “The Church and the Jewish Question” from The Bonhoeffer Reader
However, when the state does not fulfill its role, or when it oversteps its authority, the church has an obligation to act. In refusing to use its authority for the benefit of society the state creates conditions in which individuals and communities are deprived of their rights. This leads to oppression and suffering. On the other side, the state can inflict too much law and order which impinges on other parts of society, including the authority of the church. For Bonhoeffer, there are three ways for the church to respond:
To raise questions about the authority and character of its actions.
Provide service for the victims of the social order.
Take direct political action.
Bonhoeffer argues that the church is responsible to carry out the first two actions at all times, functioning as a check on political power. He writes: “The church as an unconditional obligation toward the victims of any societal order, even if they do not belong to the Christian community.” The third response is reserved for extreme circumstances. Bonhoeffer describes it this way:
The third possibility is not just to bind up the wounds of the victims beneath the wheel but to seize the wheel itself. This is only possible and called for if the church sees the state to be failing in its function of creating law and order, that is, if the church perceives that the state, without any scruples, has created either too much or too little law and order. (“The Church and the Jewish Question”)
So what does this have to do with the American church in 2024?
It is important to see how Bonhoeffer doesn’t fit into the neat categories of Republican or Democrat. The abuse of state power, as he describes it, has both conservative and liberal forms. The problem Bonhoeffer and his contemporaries faced was an ideology that led to the government overstepping its authority. Our problem is also ideological, though it manifests itself in the inability of government to fulfill its role. While it might seem counterintuitive, Bonhoeffer believes a non-ideological form of state power is possible, one that creates space for life together. This doesn’t mean getting rid of political parties, it means acknowledging there are differences of opinion regarding solutions to the problems facing our country. Vigorous debate and compromise should take place at the practical level of solutions—not at the level of ideology.
With regard to immigration and asylum, the state has abdicated its responsibility to establish law and order. Law and order, in this case, means establishing just laws and processes that make immigration to the United States easier, cheaper, and more accessible. It means providing resources for asylum seekers with legitimate cases to have their cases resolved in a timely manner. It means funding border security to fight crime, human trafficking, and the infiltration of drugs into this country. To do this government must take on the responsibility to create laws and systems, to change laws if it is needed, that allow society to flourish. This is not ideological; it’s practical.
So what does this mean for the Christian community?
When it comes to the need for immigration reform, we must hold the state responsible. Christians must remind their elected officials of the responsibility to govern, not to win elections or promote ideology. We do this by calling their offices, showing up at town hall meetings, meeting with them, and encouraging them to pass meaningful immigration reform. It also means taking responsibility for those who are being crushed beneath the wheel of the broken immigration system. As the rhetoric around immigrants gets ratcheted up during the 2024 political cycle, the Christian community needs to come alongside immigrants and refugees in our communities. We do this by supporting non-profit organizations that provide housing and jobs. We do this by providing access to English language classes, ITIN numbers, and driver’s license. We do this by supporting immigrant businesses and providing the means for members of the community begin creating a new life.
For Bonhoeffer, this is the responsibility of the Christian community. If other parts of society are abdicating their responsibility for the poor and the weak, we hold them accountable, and we step up to fill the gap. All the while reminding the government of its proper role and authority.
So, what is democracy?
The Albanian-British philosopher Lea Ypi’s memoir “Free: A Child and a Country at the End of History” is an account of growing up in Albania during its bruising transition from communism to a multiparty system (circa 1991). Dr. Ypi, who was able to move to the UK, has been researching and teaching for more than a decade, reflecting on the distinction between “negative freedom”—a person’s preferences void of social context—and “positive freedom,” which involves making decisions based on reason, setting aside one’s immediate cravings.
Han Zhang, a member of the New Yorker’s editorial staff has been following Lea Ypi’s career. Zhang says, “In America, ‘the land of the free’ and ‘beacon of democracy,’ people often think of freedom as an entitlement, not as something that must be realized and preserved in concert with others.”
At a talk in Chicago earlier this year (says Zhang), Ypi reminded her audience that democracy is a “demanding ideal … I want to get away from this idea that, because you have an election, democracy is secure.”
Ypi says, “There’s a dimension of freedom that’s not just about (individual or personal) satisfaction, but it’s about placing your desires in a moral context and in the context of relationship to other people, and saying, ‘Well, what makes sense for all of us?’”