In reading Religion in America since 1945 and the blogs on our site it seems that we all disagree with something Allit said about religion. I disagree with his representation of the theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. To read Allitt’s quote, one would think that Bonhoeffer believed that Christianity was going to go away, replaced by modernism and that Christians should get over mythologized ideas of God. This summary of Bonhoeffer’s theology couldn’t be further from the truth and the quotes Allitt uses are taken out of context. I checked the cite with my copy of Letters and Papers From Prison and discovered that the quote was from a passage in which Bonhoeffer was playing devil’s advocate–something he often did to explore the philosophical and theological anomalies of excessive religiosity or excessive modernism. Following the passage Allitt quotes, Bonhoeffer says that the “whole” truth of the New Testament must be kept, “the New Testament is not a mythological clothing of a universal truth…but the concepts must be interpreted in such a way as to not make religion a pre-condition of faith.” One of Bonhoeffer’s problems with modern Christianity in both Germany and America was that it was overly concerned with its own “religion” and not with the exercise of faith in community. Probably, Bonhoeffer’s most famous comment, ignored by Allitt, is contained in his book, The Cost of Discipleship, in which Bonhoeffer asserts, “when Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die” which reflects Bonhoeffer’s attitude about the importance of living one’s faith in community rather than in Church. By the way– Bonhoeffer’s particpation in the “conspiracy to assassinate Hitler” consisted of carrying notes from one group of conspirators to his brother-in-law. He was really executed because of his principled, public and faithful stand against the Nazis as the antithesis of everything Christ stood for.– OK, I had to get that off my chest.
As a teacher, I can see the use of Allitt’s book in a course on religion, especially in light of teaching about the preeminent position of the First Amendment to guarantee freedom of thought, expression and conscience as it relates to religion. Allitt’s book reflects a cacophony of religious expression flourishing in the United States–even though we all disagree with some of his comments about it. In an undergraduate survey course, I can see its usefulness in creating thoughtful discussion and as prompts for written assignments. No–it is not as instructive as the books we’ve read during this semester but it is an interesting read(when one isn’t disagreeing with what is being said). I think that by virtue of the many different aspects of American religion that Allitt tries to highlight, a reader will get a sense of the broad diversity that exists in our country that he or she may not have understood before. This book is a good introductory survey text which reflects the extent of religious diversity in America. Just don’t talk about it at the dinner table!
I am glad you clarified that for us-I too was confused by Allitt’s assertion that Bonhoeffer advocated a such a rarefied idea of religion, since I’d heard him described in a much more mainline way before. The way Allitt put it, Bonhoeffer’s ideas didn’t seem that far away from Nietzche’s assertion that one must look into the void of existence and wrest one’s own meaning from it! It seems that Allitt was particularly intrigued with different writers’ ideas on how religion should adapt to fit the modern world, although one thing he never paused to debate was whether religion actually needs to adapt. He also failed to make the distinction that many people were looking for a religion with increased moral permissiveness, rather than a religion with different doctrines about God.
Patricia_Murphy
December 3rd, 2007