Theological Horizons: identity and relevance

Imagine the Church had one of those sticker nametags that says, “Hello My Name is…” Rather than putting a proper name in the blank space, a simple description was written. What would it be?

In The Crucified God, Jürgen Moltmann describes the church in crisis in terms of relevance and identity, and he describes the ways in which different wings of the church have approached the issue of relevance and identity. The first wing of the church seeks to maintain its identity by defending orthodox doctrine. The second wing of the church seeks relevance by being politically and socially active. The first wing accuses the second wing of assimilation, and the second wing accuses the first of sectarianism. Relevance and identity appear to ram heads.

In this discussion, Moltmann has raised some important issues for me, namely that maintaining identity should not mean seclusion and that solidarity should not entail assimilation. In addressing these issues, Moltmann builds upon Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s prison theology in which Bonhoeffer asserts, “The church is only the church when it exists for others” (Letters and Papers from Prison, 382). Moltmann explains that in order to exist for others it cannot mean that the church must then become like the other, e.g. like society, for that would merely entail residing in the company of those like yourself.

Moltmann exclaims, “Bonhoeffer’s ‘existence for others’, to which so much appeal has been made, becomes meaningless if one is no longer any different from others, but merely a hanger on. Only someone who finds the courage to be different from others can ultimately ‘exist for others’, for otherwise he exists only with those who are like him” (The Crucified God, 16).

Existing for the other must then entail being different from the other. Existing for the other necessarily excludes assimilation. However, existing for the other also excludes sectarianism, retreating into the ghettoes of marginalization, for this too is a sort of assimilation in so far as it passively accepts the marginalization of institutionalized religion in secular society. “Christians, churches and theologians who passionately defend true belief, pure doctrine and distinctive Christian morality are at the present day in danger of lapsing into pusillanimous faith…they build a defensive wall around their own little group,” and they risk losing their identity by accepting “the increasing isolation of the church as an insignificant sect on the margin of society, and encourage it by their sectarian withdrawal” (The Crucified God, 20).

Rather than falling victim to either form of assimilation – sameness or sectarianism, existing for the other entails plunging into society as a reality distinct from society.

If the church in America is to have a future (which I remain quite hopeful about), then its nametag must surely entail a description that is both relevant and faithful to its identity. It can do so by naming its identity to be in the crucified one whose identity is revealed in his relevance. As Moltmann says, “[Jesus] revealed his identity amongst those who had lost their identity, amongst lepers, sick, rejected, and despised, and was recognized the Son of Man amongst those who had been deprived of their humanity” (Crucified God, 27). Moltmann seems to suggest that the church reveals and maintains its identity and relevance by its difference and solidarity.