The focus of my writing on
Eric Metaxas has been on his refusal to substantiate extraordinary charges
against the Obama Administration in general and the Health and Human Services
in particular. But of course the reason Metaxas has a platform for these
opinions, indeed the seeming reason why he is not even forced to make an actual
argument for his view that the HHS Mandate is comparable to early Nazi
legislation, is because of the mantle of authority that his biography of
Dietrich Bonhoeffer has provided him. In that light, it is interesting to see
two of Metaxas’ fellow Christian intellectuals, Tony Jones and Scot McKnight,
raising important questions about the veracity of that scholarship. Both Jones
and McKnight reference with approval a significant review by the Bonhoeffer
scholar Victoria Barnett. McKnight calls her essay “one of the best” and says
she has “the same sort of problems I had with Metaxas, not
the least of which is his failure to mention that Bonhoeffer was on Bultmann’s
side when it came to the historicity of the Gospels — both when Bonhoeffer was
in Spain and then later when the conservative Lutheran pastors disputed
Bultmann.”
Jones points to Barnett’s
review as well, noting it is an example of a trend that should cause Metaxas’
loyal followers some pause:
The problem? Metaxas’s account of Bonhoeffer’s life has been
almost universally derided by Bonhoeffer scholars. They say that he
simply took bits and pieces of Bonhoeffer’s biography — all cribbed from
earlier books — and pasted them together to make his point that Bonhoeffer was
actually a conservative cultural warrior who repudiated liberal Christianity
and considered fundamentalists in America to be in the same plight as German
Jews.
Richard Weikart puts it this
way:
I
trust that Metaxas is my brother in Christ, but unfortunately he simply does
not have sufficient grounding in history, theology, and philosophy to properly
interpret Bonhoeffer. This is not just my opinion. Victoria Barnett, the editor
of the English-language edition of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, wrote a
scathing review of Metaxas's biography. In her opinion, Metaxas "has a
very shaky grasp of the political, theological, and ecumenical history of the
period." She then calls Metaxas's portrayal of Bonhoeffer's theology
"a terrible simplification and at times misrepresentation."
What Barnett says of Metaxas’ biography of
Bonhoeffer is what I say about his claim to have discerned some sort of link
between early Nazi laws and the HHS Mandate, namely that it is “a terrible
simplification and at times misrepresentation."
And yet Bonhoeffer delivers a clear warning to those who would wade in as Bultmann did in applying a 20th century mindset to a 1st/2nd century question: "It is neither possible nor right for us to try to get behind the Word of the Scriptures to the events as they actually occurred. Rather the whole Word of the Scriptures summons us to follow Jesus." (Cost of Discipleship, p.84)
ReplyDeleteMost certainly, Father, Bonhoeffer is deeply relevant to our times. I don't think Scot or Tony would disagree with you at all. I think what they are trying to say is that the Bonhoeffer of history is richer and more complex than Metaxas' Bonhoeffer.
ReplyDeleteYou may disagree with Mataxes due to some real or perceived bias he has - certainly you are not disagreeing with the notion that pre-war Germany passed laws that at first seemed well intended, but in hindsight paved the way for mass atrocities are you? This is Mataxes point and it is a good one. Whether Bonhoeffer's experience is similar or not - our government is accruing more and more power...and power corrupts. I think even you would agree with this. It now holds controlling interest major corporations (in failing industries), it (soon)controls 1/6th of our economy and quite literally who lives and who dies. Whether it is the Patriot Act (Bush) or ACA (Obama), our government is accruing more and more power unto itself and, left unchecked, one day we'll have more than just whether we provide contraception to our employees as a mandate. In your reality, do we EVER cry foul? When?
ReplyDelete@Happy, "Whether Bonhoeffer's experience is similar or not" is precisely the point Metaxas is making. If he wanted to say "our government is accruing more and more power" there are plenty of ways to say that, and plenty of historical examples to compare that to. The question is not "do we ever cry foul?", it is "is Metaxas crying wolf?" I think he is and that the more one does that, the less people should credit his cry as credible.
ReplyDelete