The Church and Society: Fundamentals of My Understanding
Starting Point: The Church Is Part of Society and More Than That
For me, the relationship between church and society is not a matter of two separate entities that must subsequently be brought into relation. The church lives in the midst of society. Its members are citizens, its buildings stand in villages and cities, and its questions are the questions of the people of its time. At the same time, it does not understand itself as a mere part of the social order. It lives from a promise that it has not given itself. From this twofold belonging arises the tension in which the Protestant church stands: it is in society and yet does not live from it.
This tension is not a deficiency to be resolved. It is the condition for the church having something to say to society. A church that dissolved entirely into society would no longer have a voice of its own. A church that shut itself off from society would become irrelevant.
The Church as a Community of Responsible Believers
The Protestant understanding of the church proceeds from the responsible human being. The church is not the institution of a priesthood that believes and decides on behalf of others. It is the community of those who listen, judge, and bear responsibility together. The priesthood of all believers is therefore not merely a doctrinal principle but a structural question: it determines how the church is governed, who participates in decisions, and how responsibility is distributed.
This has far-reaching consequences for the relationship to society. A church composed of responsible members forms responsible citizens. It is a place where one learns to assume responsibility, to endure differing opinions, to justify decisions, and to remain together in disagreement. Its contribution to society consists not only in what it says publicly but also in what it practises internally.
Eschatological Publicity: The Distinctive Place of the Church
If the church neither dissolves into society nor separates itself from it, the question arises as to what place it has in the public sphere. My answer is that the church has its own public space, which I call “eschatological publicity”. By this I mean a public sphere that is determined not by the majorities, fashions, or constellations of power of any given present, but by God’s future. The congregation gathers in anticipation of what God has promised. It lives from a hope that reaches beyond what is socially feasible.
A distinctive position follows from this. The church is public, for it acts visibly, audibly, and responsibly in the world. But it is public in a manner of its own. It need not submit to the rules of the prevailing discourse in order to be heard. Precisely because it does not ground itself in the approval of the majority, it can set a counter-space against the simplifying mainstream: a place where different standards apply, where questions may remain open, and where human beings are more than their contribution to the functioning of society.
This publicity opens up for the church a different starting point and a greater scope for action than it often uses. A church that understands itself merely as a provider on the “religious market” squanders this potential and becomes interchangeable. A church that is aware of its eschatological publicity gains composure and freedom instead: it need not follow every trend, and it can object where necessary.
The Church as Counterpart and Counter-Space
Among the experiences that have shaped my understanding of the church is the insight that under pressure the church can be a space in which people preserve their dignity. Where social conditions diminish people, the congregation can become a counter-space: a place where human beings are more than their function, and where people strengthen one another without conforming. Under the conditions of a totalitarian system, this can be a matter of survival for the individual.
This function is not limited to exceptional situations. Even in free societies there are logics that reduce people to performance, utility, or consumption. Here the church has a critical task. It insists that the worth of a human being does not depend on usefulness. It does so not out of superiority but because it lives from the fact that its own worth does not rest on its own achievement.
The Church and the Critique of Structures of Power
From the counter-space follows the task of critique. The church has a duty to question structures of power, in society and within itself. This belongs to its mandate, for power tends to become autonomous and to make people available for use. Where people become means, where dignity is violated, or where the weak are overlooked, the church may not remain silent.
This critique has a theological ground. If God alone is the centre, then no human system, ideology, institution, or person may claim absolute validity. Every claim to absoluteness other than God’s own must be relativised. This makes the church critical of political and economic powers as well as of ideologies that promise quick and simple answers. In an age of polarisation and simplification, this is a particularly important task.
Three forms of this critique seem to me essential:
- Critique of degradation. The church names where people are humiliated, deprived of rights, or put to shame. The criterion of a decent society, in which institutions do not humiliate people, is a helpful standard here.
- Critique of simplification. The church resists discourses that reduce complex reality to enemy images and slogans. It keeps questions open where hasty answers exclude people.
- Critique of its own power. The church is itself an institution with influence, offices, and decision-making structures. Those who exercise critique of power must exercise it upon themselves as well. A church that names abuses of power in society while tolerating them in its own ranks forfeits its credibility.
This critique must not, however, turn into self-righteousness. The church does not stand outside the conditions it criticises. It lives from forgiveness and can therefore deal more calmly with failings, including its own. Its critique aims at lifting people up, not at putting others down.
The Public Responsibility of the Church
It follows from the above that church and theology bear public responsibility. The Reformation tradition has had society as a whole in view from the beginning: education, welfare, law, politics, and economy. The church has never withdrawn into a private sphere of piety. This tradition remains binding today.
Public responsibility does not mean, however, having a position on everything. The church must neither become a moral agency that holds a verdict ready on every subject nor an echo of prevailing opinions. Its task is to remind society of the dignity of every human being, to name humiliation as such, and not to leave people alone in difficult circumstances. Where it speaks, it does so with reasons, with modesty, and with a readiness to be corrected.
This also includes concern for the procedures and attitudes in which a society lives together. The church can introduce the criterion of dignity into public debates without having to advocate a comprehensive programme.
The Church in a Plural and Secular Society
The position of the church in society has changed. Attachment to the established churches is declining in large parts of Europe. At the same time, interest in spirituality and religion has not disappeared; it is seeking other forms. Modern human beings have not become “religiously unmusical”. Religiosity has partly shifted from the constituted space of the church into other spaces.
For the church, this means a twofold task. First, it must take the new forms of religiosity seriously rather than hastily devaluing or appropriating them. Second, it must clarify its own profile. Those who wish to endure in a plural society need clarity about what they live from. The need for spaces that establish identity is legitimate and strong among many people. A church that only emphasises openness and diversity will not meet this need. A church that defines itself only by setting itself apart from others will shut people out and have nothing left to say to society.
The task is to hold identity and openness together: to show a profile without closing oneself off, and to be open to dialogue without losing oneself. Eschatological publicity provides the framework for this. Those who live from the hope of God’s future need not secure their identity by excluding others. In an increasingly polarised society, the church can thus be a place where people with differing convictions remain in conversation.
The Church and Vulnerability
A measure of the relationship between church and society is the treatment of people on the margins: the sick, the bereaved, the failed, and people in borderline situations. A society reveals its character in how it treats the weakest. The same applies to the church.
This is where it is decided whether the church corresponds to its foundation. It exists not to pass judgement on people who have failed but to accompany them. Its contribution consists in attentiveness, in listening, and in the assurance that people are more than their failure. This pastoral stance is at once a social contribution and a form of critique of power: it contradicts a culture that conceals weakness and either represses shame or uses it as a weapon.
The Church and Its Structures
The church lives not only from convictions but also from structures: offices, orders, committees, and procedures. The question of how offices are understood, how ordination and leadership are shaped, and how oversight is exercised is therefore not a mere organisational question. It concerns the church’s self-understanding and its credibility in society.
A church that preaches responsibility must also make it possible in its own structures. It must allow participation, limit power, and make decisions transparent. This is the practical side of the critique of power: the church must shape its own order so that authority serves and does not dominate. Where this succeeds, it becomes an example for society of how communities can be led responsibly. Where it fails, it forfeits its credibility, precisely where it speaks publicly.
This also includes the relationship of the churches to one another. Protestant churches in Europe stand in a communion that acknowledges their differences and yet acts together. This is a model of coexistence that does not confuse unity with uniformity. Churches in the minority or in the diaspora, moreover, show that the church takes shape even where it is not carried by a social majority.
Theology Between Church and Public Sphere
Academic theology has its place between church and society. It serves the church by examining, deepening, and correcting its discourse. It serves society by making religious questions intelligible and open to discussion. Both tasks belong together. A theology that speaks only to the church loses its connection to the public sphere. A theology that speaks only to the public sphere loses its foundation.
Theology therefore needs exchange in both directions: dialogue with congregations and church bodies, and dialogue with law, sociology, philosophy, and the study of religion. It is equally important that it makes its findings accessible. In a digitalised world, it is part of the responsibility of scholarship not only to write for specialists but to make knowledge openly and comprehensibly available.
I understand my work on church committees, in the training of pastors, and in congregational life as part of this responsibility. It ties theology to practice and protects it from the danger of turning in on itself.
Summary
In my understanding, the relationship between church and society can be described as follows:
- Belonging and distinct: The church lives in the midst of society without living from society alone.
- Responsible: It is a community of people who bear responsibility, and thereby also forms responsible citizens.
- Eschatologically public: It has its own public space, determined by God’s future, which gives it freedom from fashions and majorities.
- Critical of power: It questions structures of power in society and in its own ranks and relativises every claim to absoluteness other than God’s.
- Publicly responsible: It bears responsibility for social questions without becoming a moral agency.
- Profiled and open: It takes new forms of religiosity seriously and remains clear about what it lives from.
- Pastoral: It accompanies people on the margins instead of condemning them.
- Credible in its structures: It makes possible in its own form what it advocates publicly.
- In dialogue: It seeks exchange between congregation, theology, and scholarship.
Church and theology gain their relevance to the present where they face the ecclesial and social questions of their time: searching, responsible, and in dialogue.