https://tedp.substack.com/p/we-belong-9-lutherans-doing-public
Public Theoloy and Social Stratification:
A Sociological Approach
Craig L. Nessan and Paul S. Chung
We read Ted Peters on Lutheran public theology in The Voice of Public Theology. Peters defines public theology as being “conceived in the church, critically reasoned in the academy, and offered to the wider culture for the sake of the common good” (Peters, The Voice of Public Theology, 3). The Lutheran teachings on justification and justice call the church to protect democratic institutions and promote governance for the common good, resisting the influence of Christian nationalism and its ideological conflation of throne and altar.
In pursuing public theology, Ted Peters emphasizes that the church collaborates with other institutions and social forces on behalf of the global common good, encompassing not only the human sphere (anthroposphere) but also the ecological sphere (ecosphere). The Lutheran core doctrine of justification by faith cannot be fully understood apart from the church’s identity as the body of Christ—a community committed to the pursuit of justice.
In his study on the sociology of the church, Dietrich Bonhoeffer describes the true nature of the church in terms of the presence of Christ brought by the Spirit—what he calls “Christ existing as church-community.” In critical dialogue with Max Weber’s sociology of religion and Ernst Troeltsch’s social teachings of the churches, Bonhoeffer underscores the church's role in bringing the gospel into authentic engagement with the massa perditionis, yet without succumbing to an apotheosis of the proletariat. He affirms that God has bound the church-community to God’s own being (Sanctorum Communio, 272).
Upon reading Bonhoeffer’s dissertation, Karl Barth remarked, “I have misgivings whether I can even maintain the high level reached by Bonhoeffer” (Church Dogmatics, IV/2:641).
To address the dialogical relationship between justification and justice, Ted Peters proposes two strategies: discourse clarification and worldview construction. In a society marked by disruption, victimization, and rising signs of fascist tyranny, these strategies serve as critical tools. To diagnose the illness and propose a path toward healing, Professor Christine Helmer argues that a theological reparation of the doctrine of justification is essential for pursuing justice on behalf of the broader society. She emphasizes the doctrine’s capacity to resist the social, cultural, and political “demons” intent on dismantling humanity, civil society, and integrity of the lifeworld. She calls for the creation of new forms of community, grounded in the memory and presence of Jesus Christ, as a counterforce to the impersonal and dehumanizing realities of our time.
In Ted Peters’ account, such healing begins with the articulation of a worldview that upholds a just, sustainable, participatory, and global society oriented toward the common good. Moving in this direction, he emphasizes the importance of offering a renewed commitment to truth within the broader public sphere. Professor Craig Nessan explores why this commitment to truth has eroded, particularly in the wake of the postmodern condition. He identifies the emergence of a post-truth culture, characterized by hyper-individualized constructions of truth claims and the closing of ranks among the like-minded. As Nessan observes, “The breakdown of genuine democratic process stymies the possibility of compromise toward an approximation of the common good” (“Practicing Jesus Christ in Public: Embodying Resistance,” in Helmer, ed., Truth-Telling and Other Essential Practices of Resistance, 127–142).
Postmodern incredulity toward grand narratives challenges the rhetoric of totality and the totalizing tendencies of metaphysical philosophy and its metanarratives. As Jean-François Lyotard argues, postmodern thinkers critically engage with social justice and scientific truth by interrogating the legitimacy of dominant power structures and narratives (The Postmodern Condition, Introduction).
In doing so, they cultivate a heightened sensitivity to difference and a capacity to tolerate the incommensurable. However, this should not necessitate abandoning the value-rationality embedded within language games and forms of life, which function according to rules and shared norms. What is required is a strategy that combines discourse clarification with power analysis, attending to the regimes of effective history that have silenced or marginalized as innocent victims―those who have been displaced or violated by the meta-historical narrative of progress.
Bonhoeffer encourages a Christian discipleship rooted in truth-telling, in terms of a careful appraisal of real situations and serious reflection on their contextual dimensions. He articulates parrhesia (audacious speech) in conjunction with phronesis (practical wisdom), shaping a prophetic stance that engages with the regime of effective history during the biopolitical era of fascist politics. In the context of the church's confession of guilt, he writes: “The church has witnessed the lawless application of brutal force, the physical and spiritual suffering of countless innocent people, oppression, hatred, and murder. But it has not raised her voice on behalf of the victims. The church is guilty of the deaths of the weakest and most defenceless brothers of Jesus Christ” (Ethics, 114; see also his reflections on truth-telling, 358–367).
This profound acknowledgment exemplifies Bonhoeffer’s call for prophetic witness through courageous and discerning speech in the face of injustice and violence. His insights into parrhesia and the regime of effective history are strikingly relevant to contemporary public theology, particularly in addressing the rise of Trump’s MAGA agenda and far-right Christian movements—both in the United States and in global politics.
For this task, a strategy of discourse clarification enables public theology to construct a worldview grounded in the prolepsis of God’s reign, revealed in the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The gospel narrative, rooted in the grace of reconciliation, unfolds with a universal horizon that incorporates the local and concrete expressions of a theologia crucis. Public theology, therefore, is situated within a dynamic space—between particular contexts, intercontextual dialogue, and the ecumenical whole. It embraces diverse modes of narrative and subaltern publics through anamnestic rationality, shaped by the transformative effect of resurrection narrative.
This perspective transcends the limitations of postmodern deconstruction, particularly in relation to democratic consensus, the politics of recognition, and the role of truth-telling within the context of effective history and truth claims across diverse publics. Within the dialectical framework of the particular and the universal, public theology seeks to expose fake news, hyperbole, deceit, and ideological interpellation by elaborating on the rationality of communication and its role in democratic consensus. Truth-telling, in this context, creates opportunities to enhance justice and the recognition of difference, countering the postmodern hyper-individualistic relativism.
Paul Chung defines public theology (theologia publica) in relation to the public affairs and institutions of society (res publica), aiming to promote the common good and civil society within a democratic and pluralistic context. This definition emphasizes public theology and public policy as foundational to civil society, fostering both personal and communitarian connections, as well as solidarity within democracy, especially for those on the margins or innocent victims. It problematizes the impact of the scapegoat mechanism and the specter of power-centered politics of domination from above.
In opposition to the politics of hegemony from above, the strategy of public theology is grounded in conceptual clarity and discourse clarification when addressing the realities of social and cultural stratification, as well as access to power, wealth, and privilege. Discourse formation focuses on the network of power relations, hierarchies, and the exclusion of marginalized faces. The diverse realities of the public sphere must be examined through the lens of justification and justice, in light of God’s grace of reconciliation.
The Gospel of reconciliation does not compromise with or accommodate the reality of impersonal forces, but rather challenges these self-righteous structures of sin. Theologia crucis inspires us to engage in anamnesis reasoning in the presence of the risen Jesus Christ, especially among those who are stratified and trapped in the mechanism of victimhood that underpins a biopolitical politics of exclusion and violence.
To promote public church in opposition to the politics of mammon, Martin Luther remains crucial for taking a stand with God against mammon, as prophetically articulated in the first commandment of his Large Catechism. “To have a god is nothing else than to trust and believe in that one with your whole heart.” Anything on which your heart relies and depends—that is truly your god. Some may think that they possess both God and mammon—money and property. “Idolatry is primarily a matter of the heart” (The Large Catechism [1529], in The Book of Concord, 387-88).