{"id":6959,"date":"2026-03-31T21:22:54","date_gmt":"2026-03-31T21:22:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/?p=6959"},"modified":"2026-04-01T17:09:52","modified_gmt":"2026-04-01T17:09:52","slug":"cheap-grace-and-the-alliance-between-evangelical-christianity-and-authoritarianism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/cheap-grace-and-the-alliance-between-evangelical-christianity-and-authoritarianism\/","title":{"rendered":"Cheap Grace and the Alliance between Evangelical Christianity and Authoritarianism"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1] Alliances between conservative religious movements and authoritarianism are not historically anomalous, nor uniquely Christian. But with democracy and its legitimacy on the wane in the West,[1]<\/a> Trumpism\u2019s overwhelming mobilisation of, and sustained appeal to, evangelical Christianity has spurred a re-examination.[2]<\/a> Trumpism shows that the conservative-religious\/authoritarian alliance promises moral and national restoration without the need to atone or repent; it simplifies or nullifies responsibility toward others, leverages threatened religious identities and reframes faith as loyalty to a human or to a specific partisan movement.[3]<\/a> The research, however, mostly counsels caution without offering resources to counter the accelerating slide into authoritarianism.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

[2] Using Lutheran ethics to create a deeper theological framing, Lori Brandt Hale and Reggie Williams, back in 2018, suggested how Bonhoeffer\u2014specifically in his church context in 1930s Nazi Germany\u2014can help.[5]<\/a> Bonhoeffer lived in a time when the huge masquerade of evil had thrown all ethical concepts into confusion, with ungodliness appearing in the form of light, good deeds, historical necessity and social justice.[6]<\/a> The parallels are obvious:<\/p>\n

In the elections of 1928 and 1932, the \u2026 vast majority of Protestants voted for the Hitler party. When Hitler [was] appointed as Reichskanzler<\/em> in January 1933\u2026Protestants all over Germany rejoiced. The believed that a new and better chapter in the history of Germany had begun. \u2026 Protestants backed the new regime without any reservations. It was not that some Protestants failed to recognise that harsh and unjust measures were taken by the Nazis, but they dismissed any objections with\u2026\u2019Wo gehobelt wird da fallen Sp\u00e4hne<\/em>.\u2019[7]<\/a> \u2026Those who supported Hitler did not care about the early victims of Nazi rule and did not comprehend the political and cultural implications of Hitler\u2019s quest for totalitarian rule.[8]<\/a><\/p>\n

[3] Some speak of a \u2018Bonhoeffer moment\u2019 now: a radical need for resistance and mobilisation of social, political and theological forces.[9]<\/a> Bonhoeffer has of course been co-opted for partisan ends across the spectrum,[10]<\/a> so I specifically embrace his theological grammar of cheap grace \u2013a grammar which was central not only to Bonhoeffer\u2019s views of the proper relationship between church and government,[11]<\/a> but also of Christianity\u2019s true calling.[12]<\/a> By embracing cheap grace, authoritarian supporters forsake at least four ontological commitments Bonhoeffer made to animate his resistance. These commitments (which are equally theological and scriptural) concern the relationships between God and humans, between Christ and humans, among humans, and between humans and their leaders. I refract these relationships through the lens of cheap grace to further diagnose its seduction and discern levers for resistance and repentance.[13]<\/a><\/p>\n

God and Humans<\/strong><\/p>\n

[4] Cheap grace distorts the relationship between God and humans because it severs grace from obedience. In Bonhoeffer\u2019s theology and social ethics, Luther is of course always close at hand.[14]<\/a> Luther\u2019s sola fide<\/em>[15]<\/a>called out the impossibility\u2014indeed arrogance\u2014of attempting to sway God through human moral achievement. Works, according to Luther\u2019s Von den g\u00fcten Wercken<\/em> (On Good Works) of 1520, <\/em>were not irrelevant but reordered: they followed justification as its fruit, not its cause. First Gabe<\/em>, then Aufgabe<\/em>.( First the gift, then the obligation.)[16]<\/a> It is this reordering that cheap grace later forgets. Abstracted from Luther\u2019s polemical context, sola fide<\/em> can be misread as a theological permission slip for ethical inactivity: because justification is already secured, nothing further is required of the human.<\/p>\n

[5] Bonhoeffer birthed \u2018cheap grace\u2019 as a condemnation against this understanding. In Nachfolge<\/em>, he didn\u2019t just protest the lax contentment of German society under nascent fascism. With justification from God assured, people could live on as usual: acquiescing in, condoning or even doing active duty for the regime. What wound up Bonhoeffer was sin collecting in the inaction, in the not-doing status-quo\u2014in the spaces where people were cozy, cushy and comfortable, or even enthusiastic.[17]<\/a> If there was any moral compunction, they could just come back for another dose of grace from the \u2018bargain basement\u2019 next Sunday. \u201cWhat happened,\u201d Bonhoeffer asked, \u201cto Luther\u2019s warnings against a gospel which made people secure in their godless lives?\u201d Churchgoers, Bonhoeffer saw, had \u201cleft out and did not consider and did not mention what Luther always included as a matter of course: discipleship.\u201d[18]<\/a> Their faith had been evacuated of its original dynamism as a lived, responsive relation to God\u2019s grace and subsequent call.<\/p>\n

[6] Bonhoeffer\u2019s indictment of cheap grace rested heavily on the neo-orthodox epistemology he shared with Karl Barth.[19]<\/a> In his 1922 commentary on Epistle to the Romans<\/em>, Barth had spoken of God\u2019s transcendence as \u2018wholly other:\u2019 a profoundly Lutheran idea,[20]<\/a> but by then a radical break with Germany\u2019s historical-critical liberal theology. Although he was well-educated to do historical-critical hermeneutic work, Bonhoeffer argued that in order to know anything about God, humans had to rely on revelation from<\/em> God. Barth\u2019s theology emphasised God\u2019s no<\/em> to human self-assertion; Bonhoeffer used Scripture to explain ethical and social responsibility.<\/p>\n

[7] Importantly, the rise of totalitarianism was not evident immediately\u2014which is consistent with drifting into failure.[21]<\/a> Effective authoritarianism slowly colonises and permeates institutions; modifying language, governance, control and administration to render authoritarianism salonf\u00e4hig<\/em>; it delegitimates and neuters dissent (\u2018L\u00fcgenpresse<\/em>; fake news\u2019). These also constitute \u201cmyriad ways in which our culture encourages us to not<\/em> see what is going on around us. It may even encourage us to see what is going on around us as fine, as morally commendable.\u201d[22]<\/a> With the assurance of cheap grace we can remain, as Augustine put it, curvatus in se<\/em>: bent inward, curved in on ourselves and unwilling or unable to stretch out to see what is being done to fellow human beings around us. We are \u00a0unable to glimpse over the horizon to recognise that even worse things are headed our way.<\/p>\n

[8] Bonhoeffer\u2019s invective against this shows similarities with that of the prophets Amos or Micah.[23]<\/a> They too take a theology of cheap grace to task. But one difference is that Bonhoeffer eschewed prophetic exhortations, leaving the societal and moral risks of cheap grace to speak for themselves.[24]<\/a> The second difference, of course, is the historical insertion of Christ since the prophets. Let\u2019s turn to that now.<\/p>\n

Christ with Humans<\/strong><\/p>\n

[9] Bonhoeffer\u2019s insistence on costly grace was founded on a rich Christological realism.[25]<\/a> Reconciliation of God with the world through Christ meant a crucial, inescapable ontological commitment. Costly grace arises where the priority of God\u2019s action is bound to the concrete call to obedience in the world. When the disciples viewed Christ\u2019s behaviour in context, they saw him defying customs, violating norms, breaking laws and pushing boundaries. That<\/em> was not sin. Acquiescing in legalised, normalised injustice was.[26]<\/a> In (what became) Ethics<\/em>, Bonhoeffer wrote that \u201cthere are occasions when\u2026the strict observance of the explicit law of a state\u2026entails a clash with the basic necessities of human life\u2026 To deny them would be ceasing to act in accord with reality.\u201d[27]<\/a> He advocated Jesus\u2019 resisting heinous social injustices.[28]<\/a><\/p>\n

[10] In 1944, Bonhoeffer wrote Bethge from prison, asking \u2018who is Christ actually for us today?\u2019 The question acknowledges that evolving social, political and economic conditions shape Christian faithfulness after contemporary needs. By asking who<\/em> Christ is (rather than what<\/em> he did), Bonhoeffer named an ontology that calls Christians into healthy community guided by Christ-centred concreteness. Faith is an obedient trust that reorients one\u2019s whole of life. This ontological commitment necessarily draws people into costly participation in Christ\u2019s suffering for others\u2014for we humans<\/em> in a sense, as theologian Christopher Holmes argues, are Stellvertreter<\/em> (\u201cstand-ins\u201d). Christ calls us into a specific form of life: \u2018When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.\u2019[29]<\/a><\/p>\n

[11] When cheap grace neutralises this call, what gets ontologically distorted? First, it retains Christ as redeemer while refusing to obey Christ the Lord. As Sider put it, Christians out for cheap grace happily embrace Jesus as their saviour, but not as Lord\u2014that part is too hard.[30]<\/a> Second, (evangelical) Christianity has developed a way of preaching the Gospel which distorts and betrays scripture by introducing an element of co-redemption: Humans can be saved because of their<\/em> decision, their<\/em> conversion, their<\/em> being born again.[31]<\/a> This encourages the boastfulness which Luther objected to.[32]<\/a> It legitimates, even encourages differencing and discrimination\u2014on which authoritarianism thrives, as does Trumpism and its evangelical support base. In political terms, this allows Christians to acclaim Christ in a form of spiritual warfare, aligning themselves with coercive power, national myth, punitive policies and the supremacy of one group at the exclusion of others.<\/p>\n

Humans among Humans<\/strong><\/p>\n

[12] For Bonhoeffer, human beings exist for one another before God; ethical life is irreducibly relational. Cheap grace fractures this. Responsibility toward others becomes optional, conditional, or selectively applied. Cheap grace enables what might be called a theologically sanctioned moral asymmetry: grace for \u2018us,\u2019 and indifference or animosity toward \u2018them.\u2019 In Nachfolge<\/em>, Bonhoeffer made clear that cheap grace does not radicalise human action in the way of Luther\u2019s gospel. Instead, cheap grace tamed and domesticated it, colluding in the status quo. Bonhoeffer protested the church\u2019s ostentatious devoutness that hid its theological quietism. This left the structures of power, exclusion and injustice unchallenged.[33]<\/a><\/p>\n

[13] Indifference to fellow human beings was anathema for Bonhoeffer\u2014incompatible with the Christ-reality we inhabit. Faith means embracing our relationships in this world as they actually are. Holmes reminds us that such Stellvertretung<\/em> (or vicarious representative responsibility) carries a grave obligation\u2014because we as humans<\/p>\n

are agents who are responsible to one another, that is, to actual human beings. This is and ought to be the case precisely because God\u2019s love has extended itself to all, rendering each one of us historically responsible for living in light of this love on behalf of all people.[34]<\/a><\/p>\n

[14] Scripture consistently guides Christians toward the powerlessness and the suffering. The ontological shape of the moral, loving universe was in Christ, in his \u2018delivery of love\u2019 across all human boundaries. Christ existing as community, Bonhoeffer wrote in Sanctorum Communio<\/em>, is the response to the destructive power of sin. Taking Bonhoeffer\u2019s social ethics back to Luther, ethicist Patrick Nullens argues that sola fide<\/em> affirms the believer\u2019s place among others, with all the moral demands that comes with this: \u201cFor if it is through faith that we identify with the crucified Christ, it means that we should be willing to face the needs of others in the real world.\u201d[35]<\/a> For Bonhoeffer, this gift of grace was an ontological phase shift which trawled all social relations in its wake, and injected them with a renewed moral expectation on us. The gift of grace needed to be embraced by faith, and once embraced, good works toward our neighbour proceeded as its fruits. Faith, centrally, meant participation:<\/p>\n

the moment a person accepts responsibility for other people\u2014and only in so doing does the person live in reality\u2014the genuine ethical situation arises… The subject of the action is no longer the isolated individual, but the one who is responsible for other people. The action\u2019s norm is not a universal principle, but the concrete neighbour, as given to me by God.[36]<\/a><\/p>\n

[15] Cheap grace severs faith from that responsibility. This distortion has direct political consequences. When grace is abstracted from relational responsibility, it enables moral disengagement on which authoritarian movements flourish. The believer, assured of their own righteousness or divine favour, is no longer bound to account for the harms borne by others; responsibility is narrowed to the in-group, while outsiders recede from moral concern\u2014or become targets of scapegoating, blame, vilification and other forms of ire.<\/p>\n

[16] During the launch of Trump\u2019s re-election campaign in Orlando, pastor Paula White-Cain prayed for grace, and urged that \u201cright now, let every demonic network that has aligned itself against the purpose, against the calling of President Trump, let it be broken, let it be torn down in the name of Jesus! Let the counsel of the wicked be spoiled right now.\u201d[37]<\/a> Cheap grace corrodes Bonhoeffer\u2019s vision of human relationality in Christ\u2019s reality. It replaces mutual accountability and costly solidarity with moral exemption and the narrowing of concern to one\u2019s own group. The rhetoric quickly becomes polarising, confrontational, bigoted and inflammatory.[38]<\/a> Bonhoeffer saw this happen in 1930s Germany. What remained was a form of Christianity that could coexist comfortably with coercive power precisely because it no longer expected grace to interrupt, expose, or transform\u2014only to affirm one\u2019s own self-obsessed sense of righteousness and a licence to expunge all others who didn\u2019t think, sound or look alike.<\/p>\n

Humans and Their Leaders<\/strong><\/p>\n

[17] Bonhoeffer rejected both withdrawal from politics and blind obedience to power. Leaders have a limited, penultimate mandate, and when they overreach, they must be called out, resisted, and, if necessary, obstructed. Hanne Amanda Trangerud of the University of Oslo documents how Trump was set up as a national saviour already in 2015. This then merged with other, mutually reinforcing narratives, which, others show, coalesced into a divine mandate:<\/p>\n

Trump as the modern-day Cyrus: an anointed one chosen by God to deliver the United States from the grip of secularism and to annihilate all opposition against Christians. \u2026 nothing can change the course of history: God mocks his adversaries, having sovereignly chosen his \u2018anointed.\u2019 The same would be true for Donald Trump, according to Paula White-Cain, as she claims that God \u2018raised President Trump up for such a time as this.\u2019[39]<\/a><\/p>\n

Set up like that\u2014specifically chosen for a specific task at a specific time\u2014the leader is an instrument of divine order and moral restoration. This typically has eschatological resonances, as it did in 1930s Germany.<\/p>\n

[18] Bonhoeffer recognised this pattern early and named it with theological precision. In his 1933 radio address, delivered days after Hitler\u2019s ascent to the chancellorship, he warned against the transformation of political leadership into an object of religious devotion. Where a leader is elevated beyond their penultimate mandate, Bonhoeffer argued, authority becomes idolatrous: loyalty to the F\u00fchrer displaces loyalty to Christ, and political obedience is mistaken for faithfulness. The danger was not merely that Christians supported a strong leader, but that they sacralised him. They confused divine providence with national destiny and mistook historical success for theological legitimacy. Political power is absorbed into a salvific narrative, and grace equals uncritical allegiance rather than costly discipleship.<\/p>\n

[19] Bonhoeffer, of course, detested this kind of F\u00fchrer Principle.[40]<\/a> What lubricates its idolatry is that cheap grace functions as moral outsourcing: discernment and responsibility are delegated upward to a divinely anointed leader. Ostentatious displays of national restoration take the place of costly discipleship.[41]<\/a> Should a leader like that be removed?<\/p>\n

[20] Bonhoeffer\u2019s own trajectory might seem to trouble the distinction I draw, given his eventual participation in the conspiracy to remove Hitler. In Bonhoeffer, I don\u2019t read an endorsement of \u2018costly grace violence\u2019 as a moral counter-model to cheap grace. On the contrary, I argue that Bonhoeffer\u2019s decision highlights the difference between violence putatively authorised by grace (as called for by White-Cain above) and action taken in the complete, terrifying knowledge of the absence of any such authorisation. Bonhoeffer carefully documented his torment and never claimed divine sanction, moral righteousness, or historical necessity for his act; nor did he imagine that grace would purify or justify it. Rather, he understood his action as a tragic arrogation of responsibility under conditions where all available options were morally compromised, and the less violent ones appeared exhausted.[42]<\/a><\/p>\n

[21] Costly grace, in this sense, did not absolve him or his co-conspirators in advance. In fact, it stripped them of moral certainty. It forced Bonhoeffer to bear guilt without a pathway to appeal. He had to entrust judgment to God alone. The decisive difference is not the presence or absence of forceful resistance in human-human relationships, but the refusal of moral self-exoneration. Cheap grace enables resistance with a clean conscience, whereas (as Bonhoeffer\u2019s torment shows) costly grace confronts the perpetrator with the unbearable weight of acting without innocence, moral certainty, or redemptive assurance.<\/p>\n

Discussion and Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

[22] By using Lutheran ethics, refracting Bonhoeffer\u2019s theology of costly grace through four relationships\u2014between God and humans, Christ with humans, humans among one another, and humans and their leaders\u2014I have tried to argue that cheap grace systematically loosens the bonds of responsibility that constitute faithful life in Christ.[43]<\/a> Cheap grace is detached from obedience; Christ is retained as redeemer but not Lord; the neighbour is rendered morally optional; and political leaders are elevated beyond judgment. In each case, cheap grace functions to relieve believers of the burden of discernment and accountability that Bonhoeffer regarded as intrinsic to discipleship in a fallen world. Bonhoeffer helps explain how an alliance between Christianity and authoritarianism is rendered theologically permissible, and what might be done instead.<\/p>\n

[23] For example, embracing cheap grace, leaders experience themselves as being fundamentally \u2018in the right,\u2019 validated by results, theatres of decisiveness, rank or other mandate, and act entitled. This produces intolerance of critique, bad news and moral certainty in the face of harm (\u2018we had no choice\u2026\u2019). In contrast, embracing costly grace means a disciplined acceptance that a human\u2019s authority is always penultimate, answerable and never self-justifying.[44]<\/a> Legitimacy needs to be renewed through listening: being in charge doesn\u2019t mean being morally insulated. Leaders must invite judgement\u2014not as punishment but as reality check.<\/p>\n

[24]\u00a0 When leadership values are used only on propaganda, they don\u2019t bind decision-making or constrain expediency. Ethical drift disguised as pragmatism is a real possibility. Costly grace means the discipline to develop habits of the heart\u2014forming virtues of integrity, compassion, safety and respect\u2014and knowing that these (and their resilience and authenticity) are best revealed under pressure.<\/p>\n

[25] Embracing cheap grace, leaders talk about people, wellbeing and culture while pushing morally injurious decisions down into specific groups whose lives or livelihoods are increasingly squeezed. Costly grace would imply a refusal to delegate the blame of difficulties onto scapegoated groups, and to accept that leaders set people across a nation up for success or failure by creating pertinent conditions for everyone.<\/p>\n

[26] Under authoritarianism, resistance against unethical leadership can be framed as disloyalty, while leaders enjoy cover from their base, or hide behind a crisis narrative with a claim of necessity. Costly grace, in contrast, would require leadership that expects and even invites resistance, understanding that dissent is not disloyalty but responsibility\u2014and that this leads to better, safer outcomes for everyone.[45]<\/a><\/p>\n

[27] Cheap grace claims the language of faithfulness and divine favour, and co-opts the resources by which Christianity might otherwise resist authoritarianism. Bonhoeffer\u2019s insistence on costly grace can inspire us to reappropriate those resources.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> R. Kuttner, Can Democracy Survive Global Capitalism?<\/em> (New York: Norton, 2018).<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> M. S. Brocker, “For Love of the World: Bonhoeffer\u2019s Resistance to Hitler and the Nazis,” Word & World<\/em> 38, no. 4 (2018), H. A. Trangerud, “The Trump Prophecies and the Mobilization of Evangelical Voters,” Studies in Religion<\/em> 51, no. 2 (2022), P. Wehner, “The Deepening Crisis in Evangelical Christianity: Support for Trump Comes at a High Cost for Christian Witness,” The Atlantic<\/em> 324, no. 1 (July 5 2019).<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> A. Gagn\u00e9, and L. Shanahan, American Evangelicals for Trump: Dominion, Spiritual Warfare, and the End Times<\/em> (London: Routledge, 2024), H. Willenbrink, Performing for the Don: Theaters of Faith in the Trump Era<\/em> (London: Routledge, 2023).<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> M. Hasan, “The Trump Administration Has a Nazi Problem,” The Guardian<\/em> (London), 22 January, 2026.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> L. B. Hale, and R. L. Williams, “Is This a Bonhoeffer Moment? Lessons for American Christians from the Confessing Church in Germany,” Sojourners<\/em> 47, no. 2 (2018).<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> D. Bonhoeffer, Nachfolge<\/em> (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1937).<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Where wood gets chopped, splinters fly.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> H. Lehmann, “Fatal Coincidences in 1933: Nazism\u2019s Triumph and Marin Luther\u2019s 450th Birthday,” STK<\/em> 1, no. 2 (2017). Page 2.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> J. T. Mauldin, “Interpreting the Divine Mandates in a Bonhoeffer Moment,” Political Theology<\/em> 20, no. 574-594 (2019).<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Bonhoeffer\u2019s resistance thinking focused on the church as the engine and agent of defiance\u2014at least initially. This did not (necessarily) mean churchgoers marching in the streets to protest fascism. Rather it meant resistance through the word (consistent with Reformation\u2019s insistence on \u2018God\u2019s word alone,\u2019 see van der Westhuizen, 2018), through concrete obedience to God\u2019s grace and Christ\u2019s calling. Bonhoeffer\u2019s involvement with family members and others in the plot to assassinate Hitler started brewing early, but his doubts and misgivings peeled away only reluctantly as he realised that all other, more ordinary forms of resistance had been exhausted. See: M. DeJonge, Bonhoeffer\u2019s Reception of Luther<\/em> (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), H. van der Westhuizen, “\u2018Whatever Became of That Earlier Time of Grace?\u2019 Luther, Bonhoeffer and the Quincentennial,” HTS Teologiese Studies\/Theological Studies<\/em> 74, no. 1 (2018), M. Mawson, “Lutheran or Lutherish? Framing Bonhoeffer\u2019s Reception of Luther,” Modern Theology<\/em> 35, no. 2 (2019), S. Haynes, The Battle for Bonhoeffer: Debating Discipleship in an Age of Trump<\/em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2018).<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> E. van \u2019t Slot, ed., De Politieke Bonhoeffer: Kerk En Overheid Toen En Nu<\/em> (Utrecht: Uitgeverij Boekencentrum, 2018).<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> J. Rehwaldt-Alexander, “Avoiding Cheap Grace: Luther and the Need for Moral Despair,” Dialog: A Journal of Theology<\/em> 45, no. 4 (2006).<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Authors who lived through the same times as Bonhoeffer have much to reflect on in this regard, for example H. Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (Third Edition)<\/em> (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1967), E. Fromm, Escape from Freedom<\/em> (New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1941).<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> To be sure, this is not the case for all<\/em> of Bonhoeffer\u2019s ethical thinking, nor is it as much the case for Bonhoeffer\u2019s engagements with social theory (such as in Sanctorum Communio<\/em>) or phenomenology (like in Akt und Sein<\/em>). More modern figures such as Hegel and Nietzsche show up there in addition to traces of Luther. But Bonhoeffer cites no theologian in his ontological commitment to the relationship between God and humans as often as he does Luther\u2014some 870 times, and basically always approvingly. See DeJonge, P. Frick, Understanding Bonhoeffer<\/em> (T\u00fcbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), T. Greggs, “Pessimistic Universalism: Rethinking the Wider Hope with Bonhoeffer and Barth,” Modern Theology<\/em> 26, no. 4 (2010).<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> R. Haight, A. Pach, and A. Avila Kaminski, eds., Grace and Gratitude: Spirituality in Martin Luther<\/em> (New York: Fordham University Press, 2022).<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> First the gift, then the obligation. H. Thielicke, Theological Ethics: Foundations (Vol. 1)<\/em> (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1966). Page 42.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> J. F. Keenan, Moral Wisdom: Lessons and Texts from the Catholic Tradition<\/em> (Lanham, MD: Sheed and Ward, 2004).<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> Bonhoeffer. Page 45 and 50.<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> Bonhoeffer\u2019s account of cheap grace stands in close\u2014if critical\u2014relation to Barth\u2019s neo-orthodox emphasis on the sovereignty and freedom of divine grace. Like Barth, Bonhoeffer rejected any natural theology that would ground ethics, politics, or religious authority apart from God\u2019s self-revelation in Christ. Grace, for both theologians, is God\u2019s unmerited, interruptive act, not a human achievement. Yet Bonhoeffer observed that, in practice, an emphasis on divine sovereignty could be misappropriated in ways that evacuated human responsibility from historical and political life.<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> At the heart of this sit (among other propositions) Luther\u2019s theses 19 and 23 which separate theologians of glory (who use human terms and get it all mixed up as a result) from theologians of the cross. A theologian of glory is speaking of God in terms that live on our<\/em> human side of the ontological divide. This disposition is marked by our confidence and even hubris\u2014that we can understand who God is and how God is present and active in the world by us reaching out to Him with our thinking, our concepts and terms, our language; our assumptions and resources. A theologian of the cross acknowledges that reality is God\u2019s reality (theologia crucis quod res est<\/em>); that any genuine knowledge we have of God is tied to and revealed through God\u2019s Word. God, as Barth said, is indeed \u2018wholly other:\u2019 we can know Him only on His initiative, terms and revelation.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> Phenomena of drift into failure have been studied in various contexts\u2014analytically both complexity science and various sociological theories have helped illuminate the mechanisms by which normalisation of deviance and practical drift happen. See for instance S. W. A. Dekker, Drift into Failure: From Hunting Broken Components to Understanding Complex Systems<\/em> (Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2011), S. G. Mandis, What Happened to Goldman Sachs: An Insider’s Story of Organizational Drift and Its Unintended Consequences.<\/em> (Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2013), S. A. Snook, Friendly Fire: The Accidental\u00a0 Shootdown of Us Black Hawks over Northern Iraq<\/em> (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000), D. Vaughan, The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at Nasa<\/em> (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996). http:\/\/www.loc.gov\/catdir\/description\/uchi051\/95039858.html<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.loc.gov\/catdir\/toc\/uchi051\/95039858.html<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.h-net.org\/review\/hrev-a0a3o8-aa.<\/p>\n

[22]<\/a> Rehwaldt-Alexander. Page 379. Sociologist Emile Durkheim was one of the first to theorise this problem adequately: Emile Durkheim, On Morality and Society; Selected Writings<\/em>, The Heritage of Sociology<\/em> (Chicago,: University of Chicago Press, 1973).<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a> S. G. Dempster, Micah<\/em> (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2017).<\/p>\n

[24]<\/a> C. Holmes, “\u2018The Indivisible Whole of God\u2019s Reality\u2019: On the Agency of Jesus in Bonhoeffer\u2019s Ethics,” International Journal of Systematic Theology<\/em> 12, no. 3 (2010).<\/p>\n

[25]<\/a> D. K. Williams, The Politics of the Cross: A Christian Alternative to Partisanship<\/em> (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2021).<\/p>\n

[26]<\/a> Bonhoeffer was executed on the charge of treason in April 1945. It took the German courts until 1996 to overturn it. Whereas this demonstrated that Germans had come to the conclusion who the real<\/em> patriot was, it can be argued that removing the charge also weakens Bonhoeffer\u2019s witness: if what he was doing (and risking his life for) got deemed to be lawful after all, then what was so special about his theological and humane poise?<\/p>\n

[27]<\/a> That reality is Christ\u2019s reality\u2014the only one existing, the one we all inhabit, where Christ takes hold of humans in the midst of their lives D. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison (Wiederstand Und Ergebung)<\/em> (London: SCM Press, 1953). This-worldliness was Bonhoeffer\u2019s interpretation of what it meant to respond in faith to the presence of Christ in the midst of life with all its pain, failures and perplexities; and where there is no fixed formula for showing compassion or plotting resistance against evil. Brocker.. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison (Wiederstand Und Ergebung)<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[28]<\/a> In return he encountered vicious opposition (and eventually martyrdom) at the hands of people who identified chiefly as Christian and law-abidingR. L. Williams, “Christ-Centered Concreteness: The Christian Activism of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther King Jr.,” Dialog: A Journal of Theology<\/em> 53, no. 3 (2014), S. Plonz, “‘The View from Below:\u2019 Some Approaches from a German Perspective” (paper presented at the Bonhoeffer Lectures on Public Ethics, Washington, DC, 11-13 October, 11-13 October, 2004).. Plonz.<\/p>\n

[29]<\/a> D. Bonhoeffer, Discipleship<\/em>, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works<\/em> (Augsburg: Augsburg Books, 2003).Yes, Villafa\u00f1e admits, \u201cbeing faithful to God\u2019s call to Christian discipleship is costly business!\u201d E. Villafane, Beyond Cheap Grace: A Call to Radical Discipleship, Incarnation, and Justice<\/em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006). Page 1. See: Holmes.<\/p>\n

[30]<\/a> Cheap grace empties the relationship between Christ and humans of that call for discipleship. It renders Christ into a symbolic figure whose cross no longer interrupts the abuses of power, the inflicting of violence, or exclusion of fellow humans\u2014and into a figure who might even be deployed in the name of a particular (putatively Christian) cause. R. J. Sider, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience: Why Are Christians Living Just Like the Rest of the World?<\/em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005).<\/p>\n

[31]<\/a> T. F. Torrance, God and Rationality<\/em> (Oxford, UK: Oxford Scholarship, 2000).<\/p>\n

[32]<\/a> M. Luther, Disputatio Pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum<\/em>, Project Gutenberg<\/em> (Champaign, IL: 1517).<\/p>\n

[33]<\/a> Bonhoeffer wasn\u2019t the first to recognise these risks and call them out. Methodist preacher William Booth (1829-1912), founder of the Salvation Army, had similarly feared for the future of the church. He saw as its chief danger a failure to emphasise personal holiness and life transformation, with people counting on forgiveness without repentance, conducting politics without God, and seeking salvation without any effort at humanitarianism, moral self-regeneration or achieving social justice.<\/p>\n

[34]<\/a> Holmes. Page 293.<\/p>\n

[35]<\/a> P. Nullens, “Luther and Bonhoeffer and the Social Ethical Meaning of Justication by Faith Alone,” International Review of Economics<\/em> 66 (2019). Page 279.<\/p>\n

[36]<\/a> D. Bonhoeffer, Ethics<\/em> (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995). Page 221.<\/p>\n

[37]<\/a> Gagn\u00e9, and Shanahan. Page 53.<\/p>\n

[38]<\/a> Wehner. Research on high-profile incidents, such as Kirk\u2019s assassination, show that majorities in the U.S. perceive harsh political rhetoric as a contributor to political violence. This subtle but consequential dynamic resembles historical patterns where rhetoric that marries authoritarian leadership with fundamentalist religiosity lowers moral barriers to hostility, even without explicit calls for violence.<\/p>\n

[39]<\/a> Gagn\u00e9, and Shanahan, Trangerud. Page 52.<\/p>\n

[40]<\/a> E. Metaxas, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy<\/em> (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2020).<\/p>\n

[41]<\/a> Willenbrink. The in-group is absolved while outsiders are rendered expendable. In this way, cheap grace operates not merely as theological error, but as an ethical mind-twist.<\/p>\n

[42]<\/a> Mauldin, M. Mawson, “The Weakness of the Word and the Reality of God: Luther and Bonhoeffer on the Cross of Discipleship,” Studies in Christian Ethics<\/em> 31, no. 4 (2018), Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison (Wiederstand Und Ergebung)<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[43]<\/a> J. Yang, “Faith and Obedience in Bonhoeffer and the Communicatio Idiomatum,” Dialog: A Journal of Theology<\/em> 60 (2021).<\/p>\n

[44]<\/a> M. U. Walker, Moral Repair: Reconstructing Moral Relations after Wrongdoing<\/em> (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006).<\/p>\n

[45]<\/a> A. C. Edmondson, “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams,” Administrative Science Quarterly<\/em> 44, no. 2 (1999), J. J. Kish-Gephart et al., “Silenced by Fear: The Nature, Sources, and Consequences of Fear at Work,” Research in Organizational Behavior<\/em> 29 (2009), A. C. Edmondson, The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth<\/em> (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2019), S. W. A. Dekker, and A. Edmondson, “Psychological Safety,” Restorative Just Culture in Practice: Implementation and Evaluation<\/em>\u00a0 (2022).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Introduction [1] Alliances between conservative religious movements and authoritarianism are not historically anomalous, nor uniquely Christian. But with democracy and its legitimacy on the wane in the West,[1] Trumpism\u2019s overwhelming mobilisation of, and sustained appeal to, evangelical Christianity has spurred a re-examination.[2] Trumpism shows that the conservative-religious\/authoritarian alliance promises moral and national restoration without the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[66,33,48],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6959","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bonhoeffer","category-government-civil","category-politics"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nCheap Grace and the Alliance between Evangelical Christianity and Authoritarianism - Journal of Lutheran Ethics<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/cheap-grace-and-the-alliance-between-evangelical-christianity-and-authoritarianism\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Cheap Grace and the Alliance between Evangelical Christianity and Authoritarianism - Journal of Lutheran Ethics\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Introduction [1] Alliances between conservative religious movements and authoritarianism are not historically anomalous, nor uniquely Christian. But with democracy and its legitimacy on the wane in the West,[1] Trumpism\u2019s overwhelming mobilisation of, and sustained appeal to, evangelical Christianity has spurred a re-examination.[2] Trumpism shows that the conservative-religious\/authoritarian alliance promises moral and national restoration without the […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/cheap-grace-and-the-alliance-between-evangelical-christianity-and-authoritarianism\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Journal of Lutheran Ethics\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-03-31T21:22:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-01T17:09:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2021\/01\/Journal_of_Lutheran_Ethics_Logo.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"250\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"250\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"heatherdean\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"heatherdean\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/cheap-grace-and-the-alliance-between-evangelical-christianity-and-authoritarianism\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/cheap-grace-and-the-alliance-between-evangelical-christianity-and-authoritarianism\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"heatherdean\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#\/schema\/person\/4493166c38ac3d4ed054c77e294df9fe\"},\"headline\":\"Cheap Grace and the Alliance between Evangelical Christianity and Authoritarianism\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-03-31T21:22:54+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-01T17:09:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/cheap-grace-and-the-alliance-between-evangelical-christianity-and-authoritarianism\/\"},\"wordCount\":4903,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bonhoeffer\",\"Government (Civil)\",\"Politics\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/cheap-grace-and-the-alliance-between-evangelical-christianity-and-authoritarianism\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/cheap-grace-and-the-alliance-between-evangelical-christianity-and-authoritarianism\/\",\"name\":\"Cheap Grace and the Alliance between Evangelical Christianity and Authoritarianism - Journal of Lutheran Ethics\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-03-31T21:22:54+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-01T17:09:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/cheap-grace-and-the-alliance-between-evangelical-christianity-and-authoritarianism\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/cheap-grace-and-the-alliance-between-evangelical-christianity-and-authoritarianism\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/cheap-grace-and-the-alliance-between-evangelical-christianity-and-authoritarianism\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Cheap Grace and the Alliance between Evangelical Christianity and Authoritarianism\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/\",\"name\":\"Journal of Lutheran Ethics\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#organization\",\"name\":\"ELCA - Journal of Lutheran Ethics\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2021\/01\/Journal_of_Lutheran_Ethics_Logo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2021\/01\/Journal_of_Lutheran_Ethics_Logo.jpg\",\"width\":250,\"height\":250,\"caption\":\"ELCA - Journal of Lutheran Ethics\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#\/schema\/person\/4493166c38ac3d4ed054c77e294df9fe\",\"name\":\"heatherdean\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1d3e5eff554ddaea495a274433db560cd82b346d68d3aeeb680955be3e7aa504?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1d3e5eff554ddaea495a274433db560cd82b346d68d3aeeb680955be3e7aa504?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1d3e5eff554ddaea495a274433db560cd82b346d68d3aeeb680955be3e7aa504?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"heatherdean\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/author\/hdean\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Cheap Grace and the Alliance between Evangelical Christianity and Authoritarianism - Journal of Lutheran Ethics","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/cheap-grace-and-the-alliance-between-evangelical-christianity-and-authoritarianism\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Cheap Grace and the Alliance between Evangelical Christianity and Authoritarianism - Journal of Lutheran Ethics","og_description":"Introduction [1] Alliances between conservative religious movements and authoritarianism are not historically anomalous, nor uniquely Christian. But with democracy and its legitimacy on the wane in the West,[1] Trumpism\u2019s overwhelming mobilisation of, and sustained appeal to, evangelical Christianity has spurred a re-examination.[2] Trumpism shows that the conservative-religious\/authoritarian alliance promises moral and national restoration without the […]","og_url":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/cheap-grace-and-the-alliance-between-evangelical-christianity-and-authoritarianism\/","og_site_name":"Journal of Lutheran Ethics","article_published_time":"2026-03-31T21:22:54+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-04-01T17:09:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":250,"height":250,"url":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2021\/01\/Journal_of_Lutheran_Ethics_Logo.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"heatherdean","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"heatherdean","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/cheap-grace-and-the-alliance-between-evangelical-christianity-and-authoritarianism\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/cheap-grace-and-the-alliance-between-evangelical-christianity-and-authoritarianism\/"},"author":{"name":"heatherdean","@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#\/schema\/person\/4493166c38ac3d4ed054c77e294df9fe"},"headline":"Cheap Grace and the Alliance between Evangelical Christianity and Authoritarianism","datePublished":"2026-03-31T21:22:54+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-01T17:09:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/cheap-grace-and-the-alliance-between-evangelical-christianity-and-authoritarianism\/"},"wordCount":4903,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bonhoeffer","Government (Civil)","Politics"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/cheap-grace-and-the-alliance-between-evangelical-christianity-and-authoritarianism\/","url":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/cheap-grace-and-the-alliance-between-evangelical-christianity-and-authoritarianism\/","name":"Cheap Grace and the Alliance between Evangelical Christianity and Authoritarianism - Journal of Lutheran Ethics","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-03-31T21:22:54+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-01T17:09:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/cheap-grace-and-the-alliance-between-evangelical-christianity-and-authoritarianism\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/cheap-grace-and-the-alliance-between-evangelical-christianity-and-authoritarianism\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/cheap-grace-and-the-alliance-between-evangelical-christianity-and-authoritarianism\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Cheap Grace and the Alliance between Evangelical Christianity and Authoritarianism"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#website","url":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/","name":"Journal of Lutheran Ethics","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#organization","name":"ELCA - Journal of Lutheran Ethics","url":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2021\/01\/Journal_of_Lutheran_Ethics_Logo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2021\/01\/Journal_of_Lutheran_Ethics_Logo.jpg","width":250,"height":250,"caption":"ELCA - Journal of Lutheran Ethics"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#\/schema\/person\/4493166c38ac3d4ed054c77e294df9fe","name":"heatherdean","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1d3e5eff554ddaea495a274433db560cd82b346d68d3aeeb680955be3e7aa504?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1d3e5eff554ddaea495a274433db560cd82b346d68d3aeeb680955be3e7aa504?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1d3e5eff554ddaea495a274433db560cd82b346d68d3aeeb680955be3e7aa504?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"heatherdean"},"url":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/author\/hdean\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6959","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6959"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6959\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6974,"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6959\/revisions\/6974"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6959"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6959"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6959"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}