The Vision After. Impulses for a Theological Agenda for the Church After the Corona Crisis - Florian Hohne

The following blog post is an edited excerpt from an essay appearing in the Network’s eBook Project entitled Digital Ecclesiology: A Global Conversation. The eBook includes 11 essay where authors reflect on the realities of the church revealed through moving from offline to online worship during a time of global pandemic. The eBook is available for FREE download at: https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/188698.

The Vision After. Impulses for a Theological Agenda for the Church After the Corona Crisis

Florian Hohne

Filmmakers and writers have done a very good job in making worst-case scenarios imaginable. I want to argue in this essay that these movies and books do something that is missing in many theological and ecclesial discussions and in Christian sermons and meditations right now: they provide a vision of the nearer future, a “promise” about what is to come. What would a theologically informed vision of the nearer future look like? To put it in strong dogmatic terms: What is God’s promise for Her church in the COVID-19 crisis?

Jürgen Moltmann’s Theology of Hope is an attempt to remind theology of this issue: “There is therefore only one real problem in Christian theology, which its own object forces upon it and which it in turn forces on mankind and on human thought: the problem of the future” (Moltmann, 1967, p. 16). Moltmann narrates the story of Israel and the early Christians as stories of divine promise. He emphasizes the idea that this promise was and is a promise for this world, a promise for “the very earth on which his [Christ’s] cross stands” (Moltmann, 1967, p. 21). But what is the content of the promise right now? To put it more concretely: What do Christians have reasons to hope for when unemployment rates are rising due to the corona lockdown?

These are tough questions and they are not easy to deal with theologically, ecclesiologically, and societally. But these questions need to be on the theological and ecclesial agenda, because they make a practical difference. If the supposed afterlife were more important for the vision than survival and social wellbeing in this world, it would make sense to celebrate the Eucharist even where it is violating state law and endangering lives by increasing the risk of contagion. If the future vision entailed the good life in this world and an effort towards the survival of so-called “risk groups,” it would make more sense to refrain from gathering physically for worship for a while and find other ways of worshipping together.

A vision of God’s future with us is so important because it is the horizon in which our present actions make sense. Being clear about a vision would help to determine on what to spend these limited resources. What helps in clarifying and debating such a vision? I want to suggest two systematic-theological distinctions and two criteria, which are theologically decisive.

Distinction #1: Talking about a Christian vision of the future does not mean talking about the kingdom of God. While the future is subject to human planning, to human action, and human responsibility, the shape and coming of the kingdom of God is in God’s hands only and beyond human control.

Distinction #2: All human visions, as well as all human plans and projects, are fallible. That is precisely what distinguishes them from God’s perfect realization of peace, justice, and freedom in Her kingdom. Our visions are always human and must be considered as ethically fallible visions—they never come with divine authority or perfection.

Criterion #1: In Protestant theological ethics, a reappearing criterion is the preferential option of the least advantaged. A common biblical reference point for this criterion is the “judgment of the nations” in Matthew 25. According to this criterion, the theological adequacy of a future vision depends on how far it does justice to the least advantaged. In the current situation, this means a theologically adequate vision of the future during and after the corona pandemic must include the needs and rights of the least advantaged.

Criterion #2: Secondly, the theological adequacy of a certain vision depends on how diverse and inclusive the discourse was that produced the vision. The perspective of the worst off should not only be acknowledged, they should be empowered to raise their own voice in the discourse—and it should be heard and acted upon. If the Holy Spirit gives spiritual gifts to each and every Christian, each and every Christian’s perspective on the common vision matters.

All of this makes sense in the horizon of a vision of more justice in the future. In the very horizon of such a vision, all of this belongs together: the sermon on justice and the church’s political fight for justice are dependent on each other. The former only has “street credibility” if the latter takes place. That is why the quest for a common vision is so important. That is why a “vision after” is needed, hopefully one that is a little more hope-inspired than the vision of The Day After.

Dr. Florian Höhne is a researcher and teacher at the Institute for Systematic Theology and the Berlin Institute for Public Theology at Humboldt University Berlin. He is an ordained minister to the Lutheran Church of Bavaria. His research interests include digital theology, public theology, and ethics of responsibility.

Sources
Moltmann, J. (1967). Theology of hope. On the ground and the implications of a Christian eschatology (J. W. Leitch, Trans.). London: SCM Press LTD.

Meireis, T. (2008). Tätigkeit und Erfüllung. Protestantische Ethik im Umbruch der Arbeitsgesellschaft [Action and fulfillment: Protestant ethics in the change of the labor society]. Tübingen, DE: Mohr Siebeck.

Menzel, K. (2020). Wir machen es jetzt öffentlich. Wie geht es weiter mit dem Gottessdienst nach dem Lockdown [We are now making it public: What happens to church service after the lockdown?]. Zeitzeichen. Evangelische Kommentare zu Religion und Gesellschaft, Onlineausgabe. Retrieved from https://zeitzeichen.net/node/8310.

Mudge, L. S. (2004). Ecumenical social thought. In J. Briggs, M. A. Oduyoye and G. Tsetsis (Eds.), A history of ecumenical movement 3: 1968-2000 (pp. 279-321). Geneva, CH: WCC Publications.