Eric Metaxis, an evangelical author and speaker, has written a new biography about German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer is probably the reason that I am where I sit today as a Lutheran pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (evangelical carrying a far different meaning than it does in the media). Metaxis, like many American evangelicals, wants to claim Bonhoeffer as part of the evangelical team. It is a hard sell. Bonhoeffer is German/European and therefore quite far removed from modern American religious culture-specially the more right-leaning Christian movement, which has combined its theology of salvation with public issues like abortion and school prayer and a decidedly anti-government philosophy. It does so as if the Bible, or God, actually takes a position on such things and that they are the representatives of ultimate good in these matters. Liberals, as Metaxis defines them, are the opposition fighting God and God's faithful. There is not a little anger lurking in these woods.

So what to make of the biography? I am reading it and have read a good deal about it from various perspectives. I have read a couple of speeches Metaxis has made regarding his book. So, in a preliminary way, I have to say that I find his work biased. Of course any author has a point of view, but bias is something different. Metaxis has a bone to pick and an agenda to sell. Fundamentally, he is mad at liberals. He believes that the liberals of his imagination are taking this country to ruin. It doesn't take much insight to remark that the extremes of both right and left are afraid that the other will do that very thing, take us either to a fascist or a God-hating future. Both embrace dark and apocalyptic predictions. Metaxis even goes so far as to suggest that there is a connection with Nazi Germany and the Obama administration (you've surely seen those adolescent drawings of Obama with a Hitler mustache). He avoids liability, I suppose, but he walks a thin line.

Personally, I do not recognize myself in his depiction of liberals. And neither do I recognize the Bonhoeffer I read back in college and the years following. I remember a Dutch art historian years ago commenting that the Billy Graham Crusade organization thought, concerned as it was and is with saving souls through an acceptance of Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior, that it was giving Europe a gift in one of its overseas soul-saving excursions. He argued that, instead, it was insulting them. That notion has been verified over the years by Europeans I have had contact with and seems to correspond with what I read on the matter. Claiming Bonhoeffer as one belonging to a group that insults Europeans seems a genuine stretch.

Where does he get the idea that Bonhoeffer is more or less an American evangelical? To begin, Bonhoeffer, in his journey to America to study at Union Theological Seminary in New York, favored the black church pastored by Adam Clayton Powell, Sr. in Harlem. He also felt that the liberalism of the time in America lacked a clear classical theological foundation. At least, he said, the fundamentalists were clear and knew just what they were about biblically. He disliked Harry Emerson Fosdick at Riverside Church, a bastion of liberalism. He was uncomfortable at the way Union's students mocked fundamentalism at every turn. But he was deeply taken by the black church and its culture and music. It was alive for him and, as a sensitive and schooled musician himself, he fell in love with the musical heritage he found there. It was quite new to him. As a matter of fact the whole black experience was new to him. He was excited to share his experience where he could.

Some kind of change occurred to Bonhoeffer during this period. As evangelicals are looking for conversion experiences as evidence of religious authenticity, this change has come up as a possible conversion experience. It is suggested that Bonhoeffer moved from being an academic theologian, somewhat detached from his material, to being grasped by the true gospel, entering the company of the saved. He was moved, perhaps. Grabbed by a peak experience, certainly. But he was hardly in need of conversion. The black church may have quickened his social conscience in biblical terms, but he came from a family that taught him the values of justice and concern for the rejected or marginalized in society. But yes, it moved him. It is important not to forget how important the musical experience was in all this. Consider it the sound track to his encounter.

I will need to continue reading the book, but so far I would say it lacks theological and analytical sophistication. It is a good read, as far as that goes, and the anecdotes are interesting. Bonhoeffer is, as always, a charismatic and engaging figure. He inspires. But he knew and accepted higher biblical criticism and read the Bible much differently than modern evangelicals. He knew and respected Rudolf Bultmann, who is famous for "demythologizing" scripture and who strongly opposed evangelical approaches to biblical material. American evangelicals do not as a rule read or even like Bultmann, since his work undermines their basic assumptions about revelation. This side of Bonhoeffer is hardly evident so far.

On the other hand, thank goodness for the conversation. It will only serve in the long term to promote and popularize Bonhoeffer and will encourage many to study his life and work. But careful: he might also be someones ticket out of an evangelical worldview.