Helmut Gollwitzer: Public Theology and a Prophetic Voice

 

Our God Loves Justice: An Introduction... book by W Travis McMaken

 

Helmut Gollwitzer: Public Theology and a Prophetic Voice

Reviewed by Paul S. Chung

 

It is my pleasure to introduce Professor W. Travis McMaken's study of Helmut Gollwitzer. This book appears to be the first substantial introduction to Helmut Gollwitzer’s theology and praxis of discipleship within American academia.

 

Although several of Gollwitzer’s works have been translated into English, he remains relatively underrecognized in the U.S. as a significant pupil of Karl Barth. Gollwitzer’s theological orientation is best described as that of a Lutheran shaped by the doctrine of grace and justification, yet also as a critical and engaged student of Barth, extending Barth’s theological insights into the political, social, and economic realms.

 

This characterization of Gollwitzer has profoundly shaped my own theological trajectory. It began with my theological studies in South Korea, where I focused on Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and continued through my doctoral work at the University of Basel in Switzerland—Barth’s own academic institution. My journey further evolved through postdoctoral research on Max Weber’s sociology, the Reformation, Christian theology, and Buddhist thought.

 

My engagement with Gollwitzer reflects a sustained commitment to integrating theological reflection with public theology and the sociological study of religion—particularly the religious construction of socio-cultural reality. This commitment is grounded in a prophetic ethic of conviction, pursued within the broader context of world religions, and aimed at fostering a critical, dialogical, and transformative understanding of faith in public life.

 

Political Theology and Liberation Theology

 

Jürgen Moltmann distinguishes political theology from liberation theology by emphasizing their distinct political and historical contexts. Political theology, as he presents it, is shaped by the Cold War division of Europe—particularly the East-West conflict—while liberation theology emerges from the socio-economic struggles of Latin America and the broader North-South divide.

 

Political theology is deeply connected to the prophetic tradition, religious socialism, and the Confessing Church’s resistance to the Third Reich. It reflects a critical engagement with the political structures of modernity from within a European theological framework.

 

By contrast, liberation theology arose in response to systemic poverty and oppression in Latin America. During the presidency of Salvador Allende in Chile, for example, the Christians for Socialism movement held a landmark conference in Santiago in 1972, marking a significant moment in the development of liberationist thought. Liberation theology may be understood as one of the earliest articulations of postcolonial theologies, directly challenging centuries of colonial exploitation and economic dependency on Europe and North America.

 

At the heart of liberation theology is the "preferential option for the poor"—a guiding principle that calls for solidarity with the marginalized. This theology draws heavily on dependency theory to critique the global economic structures that sustain unequal relationships between metropolitan centers and the periphery.

 

In the prophetic stream of public theology, Jürgen Moltmann identifies Helmut Gollwitzer as a central and influential figure, particularly for his emphasis on the relationship between the Christian Gospel and social emancipation. Gollwitzer was profoundly engaged with society and the world, drawing on the legacy of the Confessing Church during its resistance to the Third Reich.

 

As one of Karl Barth’s most significant students, Gollwitzer stood in solidarity with the student movements of the 1960s, confronting the brutal realities of capitalist exploitation and crimes against humanity. He emerged as a passionate advocate for what he called a "revolution of life," calling for systemic transformation grounded in theological conviction.

At the heart of Gollwitzer’s theology is the Gospel of the Kingdom of God—understood as a promise of hope and the anticipation of a new divine reality revealed through the Gospel narrative. He insisted that every traditional theological theme must be reinterpreted and contextualized within the framework of world transformation. As Gollwitzer famously declared, “God, the wholly Other, demands that society be completely different.”

 

 Barth and Gollwitzer

 

Professor W. Travis McMaken seeks to situate Helmut Gollwitzer—one of the foremost Barth scholars in Germany—within the context of American theological discourse. Despite Gollwitzer’s substantial influence as one of the most significant Protestant theologians of the twentieth century, his theological contributions have received relatively little attention in the U.S. academy. His work is deeply rooted in the Lutheran tradition, particularly in the doctrine of justification by grace and a strong concern for economic justice.

 

Gollwitzer regarded Karl Barth as his most important teacher. In fact, Barth once hoped that Gollwitzer would succeed him at the University of Basel, although this plan ultimately did not materialize. Gollwitzer played a vital role in the Confessing Church’s resistance to National Socialism and its opposition to the Nazi-aligned “German Christians.”

Together with his student and close friend F. W. Marquardt, Gollwitzer became a leading voice in Jewish-Christian dialogue, especially in efforts to confront and combat antisemitism.

 

Gollwitzer’s theology is fundamentally grounded in the biblical witness to God (YHWH) as totaliter aliter—the wholly Other—who is revealed through Jesus Christ in the presence of the Holy Spirit. For Gollwitzer, God cannot be objectified or ontologized in philosophical terms. His doctrine of God, aligned with Karl Barth’s, is shaped by the relational theology of Martin Buber and the biblical-theological insights of Kornelis Miskotte.

 

Central to Gollwitzer’s understanding is that God reveals Himself as a “Thou” in the event of grace and the confession of faith. This deeply relational view of divine encounter stands in clear contrast to Eberhard Jüngel’s attempt to interpret Barth’s doctrine of the Trinity through an ontological lens influenced by Hegelian dialectics and Heideggerian philosophy.

 

 

For Helmut Gollwitzer, the affirmation that “God IS” does not refer to ontological becoming in a metaphysical sense, but to the dynamic coming of God—a presence that renews and transforms society and the world in radically different ways. This theological stance aligns with Karl Barth’s sharp critique of Martin Heidegger, particularly as developed in the doctrine of das Nichtige (“the Nothingness”) in Church Dogmatics III/3.

 

Gollwitzer’s contextual theology of solidarity emerges from his understanding of God as totaliter aliter—the wholly Other—who becomes the grounding source of his political theology, oriented toward democratic socialism and the eschatological vision of the Kingdom of God.

 

His approach stands in contrast to Eberhard Jüngel’s interpretation of Barth, in which Jüngel integrates Hegel’s philosophy of history with Heideggerian existentialism. This is especially evident in Jüngel’s influential work God’s Being Is in Becoming, where he undertakes a project of divine ontology.

 

With philosophical ontology in view, Jüngel critiques Gollwitzer for what he perceives as a metaphysical gap between God's aseity and God for us. However, in my view, Jüngel’s criticism underestimates Gollwitzer’s account of God’s existence as an all-transforming reality—one that is not defined by a metaphysical deficiency but by a refusal to ontologize YHWH through the lens of Hegelian dialectics or Heideggerian existentialism.

 

Gollwitzer’s concept of “God IS” safeguards the immanent Trinity in relation to the economic Trinity, serving as the source of immanent critique against human projections of the economic Trinity for self-interest and manipulation. This perspective diverges from Jüngel’s identification of God in se with God for us (following Karl Rahner’s rule), instead emphasizing the expectation of the unity of God’s Being in the eschatological consummation.

 

As Barth writes, “To recognize the revelation of God in Christ means to situate oneself within its promise—not proleptically in some presumed fulfillment” (Die Auferstehung der Toten, p. 96). The term prolepsis is preserved here to reflect Barth’s distinct theological vocabulary. He uses prolepsis to describe the apocalyptic reality of the resurrection of the dead, grounded in the death of Jesus on the cross. As Matthew writes, “The graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised” (Matt. 27:52). This event signifies a proleptic anticipation of the Jewish hope for the general resurrection.

 

Gollwitzer integrates this understanding into his own eschatological reflection on God’s “being in coming”—a being marked by the ἀρραβών (arrabōn), the “down payment” or pledge of the Spirit. This pledge opens the present toward the future of God, including the promise of the new heavens and the new earth. For Gollwitzer, this proleptic dimension of eschatology is not confined to theological abstraction but becomes historically concrete—manifested in movements toward democratic life, social justice, civic initiative, and the recognition of the other.

 

In this way, eschatological hope, for Gollwitzer, is neither postponed nor merely symbolic. Rather, it is enacted in the midst of historical struggle and lived solidarity, pointing toward a transformed world shaped by the coming reign of God.

 

Gollwitzer’s well-known assertion that “the wholly Other God wants a wholly other society” encapsulates his theological commitment to deepened democracy and enduring social justice. This vision is inseparable from his reflection on the identity of God as revealed in Jesus Christ—whom Karl Barth famously described as “the partisan of the poor.” In this light, the doctrine of God becomes the central axis of Gollwitzer’s theology of solidarity, grounding both his prophetic engagement with public life and his insistence on status confessionis: a decisive theological stance taken in the face of false teaching and injustice, both within the church and in society.

 

Barth himself once summarized the arc and orientation of his theology in response to Eberhard Bethge’s book on Dietrich Bonhoeffer with these words: “ethics—co-humanity—servant church—discipleship—[democratic] socialism—peace movement—and, hand in hand with all that, politics.”

 

Helmut Gollwitzer embodied this prophetic orientation throughout his life and work. His public theology was shaped by a deep commitment to Christian-Marxist dialogue, Jewish-Christian reconciliation, and a sincere openness to interreligious and intercultural engagement. Gollwitzer stands as one of the most distinguished figures in the field of public theology, offering a compelling model for those seeking to renew the public sphere in the direction of greater justice and human dignity. His vision was animated by a prophetically inspired socialism, grounded in the hope and promise of the Kingdom of God.

 

Gollwitzer Forward

 

My aim is to advance Helmut Gollwitzer’s theological insights into new frontiers by situating his thought within the context of public theology, postcolonial (post-Eurocentric) critique, and the broader landscape of world Christianity. Gollwitzer’s work remains profoundly relevant today, especially as we confront urgent issues of global justice, economic structures, and the meaning of Christian witness in an increasingly pluralistic and interconnected world. His theology is particularly vital in light of the dangerous realities posed by American MAGA politics and its autocratic dominance from above, which threaten the integrity of human rights, the politics of recognition, and constitutional democracy.

 

Gollwitzer draws heavily on Karl Barth’s seminal 1946 work, Christian Community and Civil Community, using it as a foundational framework to articulate a theology of Christian political responsibility and the Gospel of the Kingdom of God—not only within the national public sphere but also on global and systemic levels. His vision promotes a prophetic concept of the “revolution of God,” directly challenging the ideological and theological legitimacy of the capitalist revolution and its claim to lordship over human life and history.

 

In this light, Gollwitzer calls the Christian church to confront its complicity in capitalist modes of accumulation, especially those historically rooted in the colonial expansions of the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries. Drawing on Marx’s Capital, Volume I, he critiques the Christian legitimation of early capitalist development and urges theology to reckon honestly with its past. He advocates for an alternative trajectory grounded in justice, solidarity, and the eschatological vision of God’s reign.

 

This perspective opens a compelling path to re-read Gollwitzer as a public theologian with significant postcolonial implications—particularly in light of his solidarity with Black liberation theology and his critique of structural racism. At the same time, it should be acknowledged that Gollwitzer did not fully develop a social-scientific framework to engage the religious construction of reality or the theological significance of world religions.

 

This task was taken up and further developed by Gollwitzer’s student and close friend, F. W. Marquardt, particularly in his dogmatics of Christology (Das christliche Bekenntnis zu Jesus, dem Juden, vol. 1, pp. 11–56). Marquardt integrated Barthian theology with an interreligious perspective, engaging deeply with Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism, thereby broadening the theological horizon toward a more inclusive and dialogical approach.

 

Building on this legacy, my own work seeks to explore the religious construction of reality through a social-scientific and comparative theological framework, with particular attention to the concept of the axial age. I aim to contextualize Barth’s “irregular theology,” which recognizes the strange and unexpected voice of God outside the walls of the church, engaging seriously with the spirituality, ethics of compassion, and wisdom found in world religions.

 

Barth himself anticipated this approach through his comparative reflection on Amida Buddhism and the Reformation doctrines of grace and redemption (Church Dogmatics II/1). In Barth’s dialectical method, religion is neither simply dismissed nor affirmed on its own terms, but rather elevated and transfigured by the grace of divine reconciliation. From this perspective, God’s speech-act moves from the world of religions back to the heart of Christianity, affirming that God’s reconciliation in Christ is not without the world (keine Weltlosigkeit).