Timeless truths in Karl Barth's Barmen Declaration, written against the Nazi dominated Evangelical Church in Germany

Written in 1934, the Theological Declaration of Barmen was the response of the Confessional Church, those Christians who had left the official Church in Germany because of Nazi influence.  While they represented Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches, they held in common a revulsion at Nazi ideology, and an unwillingness to ignore its corrupting influence upon both the German Church and German people.  The primary author of the declaration was the Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968), mentor to German leaders of the Confessing Church like Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
While it is typically folly to compare any situation to that of Nazi Germany, for the German Church certainly faced challenges with few parallels in the rise of Hitler's political party, there remains within the Barmen Declaration a number of truths which transcend the historical moment which inspired its writing. (The words of the Declaration appear below in bold, my commentary in normal font.)

8.04 Try the spirits whether they are of God! Prove also the words of the Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church to see whether they agree with Holy Scripture and with the Confessions of the Fathers. If you find that we are speaking contrary to Scripture, then do not listen to us! But if you find that we are taking our stand upon Scripture, then let no fear or temptation keep you from treading with us the path of faith and obedience to the Word of God, in order that God's people be of one mind upon earth and that we in faith experience what he himself has said: "I will never leave you, nor forsake you." Therefore, "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom."

No matter what circumstances an individual Christian, a local church, denomination, or the Church as a whole, may find itself in; whether that circumstance be one of abundance or scarcity, of peace or persecution, the response of God's people to that circumstance can only be validated or denounced based upon the teachings of Holy Scripture.  Let the people of God clamor for leaders who will build their ministry upon God's Word, and may they ignore those who would teach anything contrary to it.  I have told my own congregation, on a number of occasions, that as an American Baptist Church with a congregational polity, that they are the ones responsible for testing my sermons, bible studies, classes, blog posts, etc. by the standard of God's Word; and that should I fail to adhere to that Word, that I would expect them to call me on it, to challenge me, and if necessary to remove me from this position of authority in Christ's Church should I refuse to bend my will to that of God's Word.  This should be the standard for those who serve the Church in every denomination, whether it be on the authority of a bishop from above, or a local congregation's members, we must demand that God's Word remain the standard.  As Barth urged, if we are convinced that the path we tread is the path of faithful obedience to God's Word, let no fear or temptation keep us from following, for we can be assured that God goes with us.

8.08 As members of Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches we may and must speak with one voice in this matter today. Precisely because we want to be and to remain faithful to our various Confessions, we may not keep silent, since we believe that we have been given a common message to utter in a time of common need and temptation. We commend to God what this may mean for the interrelations of the Confessional Churches.

How does the Church speak with one voice when there are so many competing opinions being offered by its leaders?  For Karl Barth and the Confessing Church, it was necessary to set aside their denominational distinctions, to come together and hammer out a statement of common belief, and share that message with the world.  What will it mean for the barriers that exist between churches when they can find common ground in God's Word in the midst of extraordinary challenges?  The answer can hardly be detrimental, and holds promise of great benefit for the Kingdom of God.  What are the challenges today that the Church can come together and speak about from God's Word with one voice?  Sadly, the growing trend is for 'liberal' churches of various denominations, and 'conservative' churches of various denominations to find common ground with each other against the positions of their liberal or conservative brethren, thus resulting in a Church that speaks with two voices, one corresponding to each of the major political parties in the United States.  The long-term effects of this alignment are far from clear. {In other words, it is not so much Catholic vs. Protestant or Baptist vs. Methodist anymore, but rather conservative Catholic and conservative Baptist vs. liberal Catholic and liberal Baptist}.

8.15 We reject the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords--areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him.

The Nazis demanded total allegiance, and would not share it with Jesus Christ.  Like the Early Church's refusal to worship the Roman Emperor, this led to persecution and martyrdom.  Barth was absolutely right in declaring that no segment of our lives, as Christian disciples, are outside of the control of the lordship of Jesus Christ, and that no other authority can supersede our allegiance to God, for any purpose.  This idea was front and center at the start of the 20th century, as Nationalism grew steadily throughout Europe, resulting in millions of people viewing themselves as British Christians or German Christians rather than as Christian Brits or Germans.  Whatever other allegiances we may have in life, they cannot come first, they cannot be allowed to demand of us things contrary to the Word of God.  {And if they attempt to do so, we must resist, as Barth and Confessing Church were doing}.

8.17 The Christian Church is the congregation of the brethren in which Jesus Christ acts presently as the Lord in Word and sacrament through the Holy Spirit. As the Church of pardoned sinners, it has to testify in the midst of a sinful world, with its faith as with its obedience, with its message as with its order, that it is solely his property, and that it lives and wants to live solely from his comfort and from his direction in the expectation of his appearance.

This is simply an eloquent answer to the question: What is the Church?  Notice the radical commitment, a bold departure from what Dietrich Bonhoeffer diagnosed as the ill of the practice of faith exercised by German Christians: Cheap Grace.  A discipleship which costs nothing, which asks little of us, is no discipleship at all.


8.18 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions.

The Church has a divinely appointed purpose and mission.  This is not open for negotiation.  It cannot allow itself to abandon this calling, nor can it allow itself to be bullied into silence.  We are in the business of making disciples.  We do this by sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Good News that Jesus died for our sins and was raised to new life for our justification.  This message is for everyone, period.  This message is to be accompanied by acts of love and charity, by grace and truth.  Whatever self-interest, whether power, money, or fame, whatever ideology or political cause would seek to turn the Church from its God-given task, must be rejected.  {I may have written a few times about the Church's need to protect the Gospel from politics.}

8.21 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, apart from this ministry, could and were permitted to give itself, or allow to be given to it, special leaders vested with ruling powers.

The Nazis claimed the authority to appoint the leaders of the German Church, as if the Church were subservient to the state {An arrangement that existed for centuries in the Byzantine Empire with the Eastern Orthodox Church, and one that caused the Investiture Controversy in the 11th century as Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV squared off against Pope Gregory VII.  This episode is one of the portions of Church History highlighted in my class: What Every Christian Should Know About: Church History}.  This same dilemma exists for Christians in China, with the Communist Party insisting upon the right to appoint its leaders, thus driving into unofficial 'underground' churches, those who would not be subject to that illegitimate authority. 

8.23 We reject the false doctrine, as though the State, over and beyond its special commission, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church's vocation as well.


8.24 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, over and beyond its special commission, should and could appropriate the characteristics, the tasks, and the dignity of the State, thus itself becoming an organ of the State.

Why do Baptists traditionally espouse the Separation of Church and State?  For the very reasons cited here: The temptation for the State to try to do the Church's job, and for the Church to try to function as an arm of the State (or control it outright).  The State does not function well as an arbiter of our relationship with God {examples of which are plentiful, from the Salem Witch Trials to John Calvin's Geneva burning a non-Trinitarian heretic at the stake: The dark side of the Reformation: John Calvin and the burning of heretics - by Joseph Hartropp }, nor can the Church function properly as a witness to the Kingdom of God when it becomes enmeshed in the business of temporal kingdoms.  How the line is to be drawn between Civil and Church responsibility is a tough one, as is the question of cooperation in areas of mutual interest {For example: the mutually beneficial work of Mustard Seed Missions of Venango County in cooperation with the Human Services Department of Venango County}.

8.27 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans.

This is the Truth at the core of Barth's statement: The Church serves the will of God, it honors and obeys the Word of God, and it seeks to build up the Kingdom of God.  How could any diversion of that effort, and compromise of that cause be tolerated, and how could the Church allow itself to become the tool of any other vision?  It seems obvious that the Nazis were not the right ones to hand over control of the Church to, they had the mark of villains from the very beginning.  Nor would people within the Church be rushing to be under the authority of the Chinese Communist government, for their stated purpose is hostile to religion.  But temptation typically comes in subtler guise.  What about using the Church to help 'our side' win an election?  What about utilizing the worship service of our Lord to promote a politician or political party?  To think that Barth's warnings only apply when dealing with fascists or communists is naive.  The Church has a singular mission, the Church has a singular authority, and the Church bows its knee to only one Lord; those truths are timeless.

The Philosophy of Ayn Rand: Hatred of the authority of God

Years ago, I slogged through Atlas Shrugged out of the same sense of obligation to have read influential books that caused me to attempt, but choose to abandon, reading War and Peace.  Atlas Shrugged is not a well written novel, its plot is nonsensical, its protagonist is loathsome, and it contains extremely lengthy speeches given by various characters as a way of sharing Ayn Rand's philosophy.  The list of famous novels that don't deserve their accolades is not all that short, but Atlas Shrugged remains notable despite its fundamental flaws because of the impact of Rand's philosophy.  The 'rugged individualism' put forth by Rand is both a reaction to the authoritarianism of the 20th century, and a quintessential American idea, for few cultures have elevated the individual above the group as thoroughly and consistently.   As a teen the philosophy of Laissez-faire governance appealed to me, as it does to many a young person, but that appeal has soured over the years, in part because of a recognition that government has a crucial role to play in restraining human immorality, and also given my years of cooperation with our local government in anti-poverty and anti-homelessness efforts, in particular the county of Venango and the city of Franklin.  Whereas it is certainly possible for a Christian to take a libertarian view because of a mistrust of human governments (as they must be populated and run by sinful human beings and have a track record of misdeeds), there is no way for the hyper-libertarian views of Ayn Rand to be compatible with any sort of Christian worldview.  In fact, the moral philosophy advocated by Ayn Rand, ethical egoism, is a rejection of everything associated with Christian ethics, Rand's Jewish heritage, and religion in general.  To embrace ethical egoism is to reject, wholeheartedly, any obligation to God.



1.  Ethical egoism makes each individual the arbiter of right and wrong.
Historically speaking, it isn't a good idea to share philosophical/ethical space with Friedrich Nietzsche, but uncomfortable compatriots aside, ethical egoism's foundation is the belief that each individual should act in his/her own self-interest.  When ethical egoism is combined with Rand's libertarian political viewpoint, the result is a hoped-for false utopia in which no individual is required to do anything that isn't in their self interest.  It is a world free of compulsion.  In other words, I could help my neighbor, but only if I wanted to, to force me to pay a tax to support (or virtually any tax in Rand's view, for any purpose) a homeless shelter would be immoral.  It is only natural that human beings place themselves at the center of their own universe.  The word natural in that last sentence is used in the sense of 'expected', not in the sense of 'proper'.  As human beings who have a flawed human nature, one fully capable of doing evil, placing our own judgment and self-interest at the center of any ethical or governmental system cannot possibly produce a positive result.  It will merely make our own self-interested choices reality writ-large, enshrining in law and cultural practice the wants and desires of the selfish human heart.  Far from being an utopia, a fully realized Rand inspired society would be hell on earth, a danger eloquently expressed in William Golding's The Lord of the Flies.  Rand rightly abhorred the evil of the authoritarian systems of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, but replacing one egotistical maniac in the cases of Hitler or Stalin with millions of individual dictators running their own lives as they see fit will only disperse the moral evil, not eliminate it.  Whatever ethical, philosophical, or governmental system is created, if it is built upon human self-interest, it will fail, and fail spectacularly.  In the end, Ayn Rand's philosophy is simply the other side of the authoritarian coin, replacing one unaccountable dictator over society, with many unaccountable dictators over their own lives.

2.  If the individual is at the center, God must be displaced.
Atlas Shrugged, and Rand's philosophy in general, is extremely hostile toward religion.  Why?  Virtually all religion has this in common: it displaces the individual from the center and puts God(s) there instead.  In other words, the very concept of religion is based upon the premise that you and I are not the culmination of life in this universe, nor its final purpose.  To understand how we came to be, why we are here, and where we are going, human beings must look up, the answer does not lie within ourselves.  These are of course generalizations about religion, how Buddhism fits within this is of course a bit complicated, but the premise holds: religion is hostile to ethical egoism because religion recognizes that individual human beings do not belong at the center.
It is, of course, the Christian understanding that the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob who came in the flesh as Jesus Christ deserves to be at the center, due to both power and holiness that God alone possesses.  What happens when Christianity is led astray by a belief that warps the Gospel and moves individuals back toward the center?  The Prosperity Gospel.  The Prosperity Gospel is a heresy precisely because it elevates the individual, making our health and wealth God's priority, rather than maintaining the age-old understanding of both our Jewish and Christian ancestors in the faith that they were servants in the house of the LORD.  Another more radical example of a Christian-based system that has been warped, in this case beyond recognition, by the removal of God as the center is Mormonism.  The goal of Mormonism is to become god-like, to advance to the point of possessing the power of a god able to create worlds of our own to rule. 

3.  Christianity requires that individuals bow the knee to the authority of God.
Neither an authoritarian dictator, nor a 'rugged individualist' like Rand would be willing to bend their will to obey God.  Both are in rebellion against that higher authority, that one of them seeks to dominate others and the other to 'liberate' them is a difference of degree, not of kind; both extremes place the individual at the center, both reject any obedience to God or any other external moral authority, and both are a dead end.
One cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ without acknowledging, and welcoming, the authority of God over one's life.  This attitude of obedience is infused throughout the teachings of Jesus, summed up in his endorsement of the greatest commandment:
Matthew 22:36-40 (NIV)  36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Notice also that the 2nd commandment is our moral obligation to other people, one that will often come at significant expense to ourselves.)

Jesus also embraced the authority of the Father, even though he too was God, as an example for us all (see Philippians 2:5-11):
John 6:38 (NIV)  For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

For those of us who live in a free society, and Americans in the 21st century have freedoms our ancestors could scarcely comprehend, it is tempting to elevate ourselves to the position of being the arbiter of right and wrong, the determiner of purpose and meaning.  It is tempting, but it is a fool's errand, for that power and wisdom is beyond us, and pretending to possess it is the path of self-destruction.  The Church can ill afford to be infected with these notions, we have seen the results when it has been compromised in this way, from the support of millions of German Christians for the Nazi regime, to the hucksters on TV promising God's blessings to those who will send them money.  Ayn Rand believed that a truly 'free' society of individuals serving their own self-interests would be a paradise, she was wrong.

The Gospel or the Gun: Which do you trust?

In 1945, General George Patton wanted to invade the Soviet Union and wipe out the Communists with the help of the remnant of the shattered Nazi army.  In 1951, General Douglas MacArthur wanted to nuke China during the Korean War, forcing President Harry Truman to fire him.  There are always those who believe that the answer to a threat is the barrel of a gun.  It is indeed true that the strong must protect the weak, and a military solution may be the only moral option, but it is also true that militancy and nationalism can run amok with potentially peaceful solutions (or at least less violent ones) lost in the hysteria of fear and fear-mongering.

It is becoming increasingly clear that a number of American and European Christians, including some famous people in leadership positions, view a global war with Islam as inevitable, and perhaps even preferable.  One of the reasons for this militant stance is often a Pre-Tribulation Eschatology that sees a WWIII style conflict as a precursor to the Rapture, and something that cannot or should not be avoided, as it would usher in the return of Christ.  I've written before about the dangers of letting a particular view of Eschatology color your morality and attitude, so that's nothing new, but the issue of confronting Islam has another element that is also troubling.  It would appear that many of those in the pro-war camp are leaning that way because they envision Islam spreading globally and taking over the West through immigration and higher birth rates.  While such an argument might hold water with a statistician, how is it that those who believe in the power of faith, and the triumph of the Gospel, are terrified of the spread of Islam?  If this is simply a battle of ideas, like the Communism vs. Capitalism debate of the Cold War, then it truly would be a confrontation with an unknown outcome, but this is not what Christians believe, at least they shouldn't.  Christianity is based upon historical fact, and those who follow Jesus Christ believe in the triumph of the Gospel over the forces of darkness, whatever they may be.  In Philippians 2:5-11, the Apostle Paul speaks of the ultimate triumph of Jesus Christ, and foretells the day when "every knee should bow...and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father."  Do God's people really believe these words, or do they put more faith in the power of the gun?  How could a professing Christian's priorities be so eschew that he/she would prefer a war, and with it the tens if not hundreds of millions of civilian casualties that would result, to letting the Gospel contend, as it has since the founding of the Church 2,000 years ago, with whatever philosophies, ideologies, or religions which oppose it?

The triumph of the Gospel, foretold in Scripture, is found in the conversion of the Lost, the redeeming of those apart from God, not in the obliteration of those who disbelieve in the explosion of a bomb.  I believe in the power of the Gospel, it will triumph over Islam, and all other beliefs, no matter what they may be, in the end, I'm not looking to destroy those who oppose the will of God, it is my responsibility as a disciple of Jesus Christ to share the wonderful grace of Jesus with them, that they too might willingly and gladly bow their knee before the King of Kings.

The Dead-End of Anti-Intellectualism in the Church

One of the favorite themes of a growing number of politicians is an anti-intellectualism aimed at scientists, professors, and intellectuals of all kinds.  They combine this thinly veiled envy with a heaping dose of blue-collar mentality and grand conspiracy theories.  The end result is best illustrated by the insanity of the long-running anti-vaccine movement, a movement that is immune (pun intended?) to scientific evidence for it is all dismissed as being part of the global conspiracy involving governments, the CDC, the UN, and many more.  This same anti-intellectualism continues to be attached to issue after issue, to the detriment of our democracy, for few things are as dangerous to a healthy democracy (yes, I know, our gov't is a Representative Republic, but most people don't know the difference between that and a Democracy) as a purposefully uninformed electorate.
The Church is equally at risk when in the grips of anti-intellectualism.  Many evangelicals routinely belittle the public education system (thereby slandering the many good God-honoring men and women working in it), and look upon the higher education system with nothing short of hatred.  Secular though this education may be, it is still absolutely necessary that the people of God be an educated people.  Why?  Because when they're not, they're easy prey to heretics, charlatans, and frauds, not to mention the politicians who look at them with disdain while pandering to their hot button issues.
Just today I came across two examples of anti-intellectualism that are a clear danger to the Church.  The first was also mixed with racism (not a good combo) in that it was a protest against the teaching of the basic tenants of Islam to school children.  As a former teacher, I'm aghast at the idea of limiting the knowledge of the world that our children are given, and as a pastor, I'm entirely convinced that Christian children need to know the basics of not only Islam, but Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto, plus the ancient religions of the Greeks, Egyptians, Norse, not to mention the basic ideas of Communism, Fascism, and a host of other ideas that make our world tick and explain how we arrived at where we are.  Why?  Because ignorance is a haven for horrible ideas, and ignorance breeds bigotry like cockroaches.  When a Christian teens goes off to college, private or public, religious or secular, that teen needs to know his/her place in the world, needs to know where he/she stands and has little chance of being prepared for the many ideas that will soon flood his/her way if we've chosen to shelter those inside the Church from the many competing ideas that exist in our world.  Teachers need to teach, not pretend that ideas don't exist, how can a high school senior possibly understand the world that we live in today without knowing about the world's religions?  How can people appreciate the government that we do have if they are ignorant of the horrific alternatives that have already been tried?
The second example was once again the same ol' anti-intellectualism of the KJV Only movement, this time from a Chick Publications video that denigrated a seminary education (thereby slandering the many God-honoring men and women who work at America's seminaries) and instead elevating an "ignorance is bliss" attitude about the Bible.  In the video, David Daniels dismisses the manuscript evidence for the Bible, mocking the scholar and archaeologists who continue to work in this field, and treating the term "textual criticism" like a profanity instead of the vital tool that it is.  Why is anti-intellectualism a cornerstone of the KJV Only movement, the answer is quite simple: the entirety of the historical evidence, modern scholarship, and the way in which translations work are so firmly against their belief system that the only way to avoid total embarrassment is to dismiss the opposition as part of a huge conspiracy led by the dreaded intellectuals.  To say this attitude gives the Church a black eye is an understatement.
The Truth is not our enemy.  Facts, history, and knowledge are not the enemy of the Church, never have been, never will be.  We serve a risen savior, a Messiah whose life, death, and resurrection are firmly established in history, to veer off into anti-intellectualism, as a Church, is not only needless and foolish, but a dead-end.

Pope Francis' views on capitalism and Rush Limbaugh

I turned 18 on the day of the 1992 Presidential election between George Bush and Bill Clinton.  It was my first opportunity to vote, and my first experience with being disappointed by an election.  I grew up in a solidly Republican rural county, was a member of a Bible preaching church that was also clearly Republican in its attitude.  I remember speaking out against the Pope (John Paul II at the time) without knowing much about him because it was a given within evangelical circles that when the Anti-Christ came he would be the Pope (as reflected in the Left Behind series).  I listened to Rush Limbaugh on my commute home from work and agreed with much of what he had to say.
Over the years my eyes were opened to ecumenical issues, I became aware of the work of God within churches of other denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church.  My opinion of Pope John Paul II, now informed, was raised greatly by his brave stance against Soviet Communism.  At the same time, I began to listen to Rush Limbaugh less with each passing year; much of the reason was simply that I was tired of hearing the same old complaints and no longer accepted that Democrats were inherently evil and Republicans more/less good.  My understanding of human nature informed my understanding of politics because I could see that Lord Acton was right when he spoke about the tendency of absolute power to corrupt absolutely.  The solution to America's problems was never going to begin in Washington, on that level I still agreed with Rush, but we diverged when he saw an economic solution through the American businessman and I saw a spiritual solution through the Church.  Eventually, I stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh because I still have hope for America's future and the constant government is evil pronouncements he continues to offer isn't helpful to me as I work on a daily basis with the poor alongside government officials who I know truly want to help them.
Is Pope Francis a Marxist?  Hardly, Pope Francis decided not to join the Liberation Theology movement in Argentina, nor did he side with the government as they tried to suppress communist movements.  What the future Pope did instead was to continue to minister to the people that God had called him to serve.  Rugged Individualism may sound like a great idea, but it isn't a Biblical one.  Yes, each person should work if able, but washing your hands of those who are struggling, or have failed, to succeed in a given economic system is an unacceptable anti-Christian attitude.  We may disagree on how to truly help the poor, but we cannot afford to write-off the poor lest we destroy the integrity our very message of love in Christ.
Who will I listen to about justice for the world's poor?  The man who spent his life living with, and helping the poor as a representative of God's Church, or a man who sits behind a radio microphone and calls that man a Marxist?  The choice really isn't that hard, I'm done with Rush Limbaugh.
I know that this line of thought may cause some of the people who knew me growing up to shake their heads and wonder what took me down a road away from their idea of what a Conservative Evangelical Christian should be; they may even stop reading my blog out of some sort of allegiance to Rush.  If they do, that's their choice, I'm living my life in service to the call of Christ to help the widows and orphans, to hold out hope to the hopeless, to love them in the name of Christ.  Politics isn't the solution, it never was.  Pope Francis may not have all the answers, but at least he's on the right track, and I have no reason to doubt his willingness to carry his cross for the sake of the Gospel; I'll keep listening to him.

The End of Morality?

There has been much speculation in recent history about the possibility of mankind's "liberation" (as Karl Marx put it) from religion.  If mankind were to unshackle himself from the bondage of the superstitions of our ancestors, so the theory goes, a new age of freedom would dawn.  For many, the father of modern agnosticism and atheism was the critic of Christianity, Friedrich Nietzsche.  Nietzsche was himself the son of a Lutheran pastor, but he rebelled against his father's beliefs to find, as he thought, freedom in the "death of God".  Yet Nietzsche himself was aware that to rid mankind of religion must by necessity in a Darwinian worldview bring about the end of morality as well.  With an odd sense of hope, Nietzsche wrote, "morality will gradually perish". (Genealogy of Morals, III, p. 27)
The irony of the post-modern revelry in the "death of God" is not that it has, or will ever, led to the liberation of mankind, but rather it simply confirmed mankind's enslavement to a survival of the fittest world where morality has no meaning or purpose.  Without God in the equation, as C.S. Lewis argued in Mere Christianity, morality will cease to exist.  If there is no life after death, only this life matters.  If there is no ultimate judge of mankind, only my own opinion matters, and if there is no ultimate value to each and every human life, none of them really matter when being weighed against the self-interest of each individual.
If this seems like a bleak analysis you understand the point.  Without God, and specifically the morality taught and demonstrated by Jesus Christ, all other attempts to impose an arbitrary morality upon society are doomed to failure.  The Soviet Union committed countless horrors upon its own people in the name of God-less Communism, but were left in the end with a bankrupt society where self-interest could not be overcome by endless propaganda espousing the joys of collective goals.  The world could see that the Soviet Union had become an "evil empire", the phrase Ronald Reagan made famous, long before the system itself collapsed of its own decrepit inertia.
Am I advocating clinging to religion, Christianity in particular, regardless of the evidence simply as a bulwark against an amoral society?  If I was, this effort of whistling past the graveyard would ultimately end in failure.  If the claims of Jesus Christ are not true, then nothing built upon his foundation will long endure.  On the contrary, I am simply pointing out that the alternative to God's redemption is not the liberty that is advertised, but a form of enslavement with no more hope than the pagan religions of the ancient world.  Friedrich Nietzsche may have smiled at the "death of God" and dreamed of a world free from Christian morality, but the horrors of Nazi Germany forever dispelled the myth that mankind released from Judeo-Christian ethics would be anything but a monster.