Heinrich Bedford-Strohm and Public Theology: Civil Society and Emancipation
This paper illustrates my engagement with Heinrich Bedford-Strohm’s public theology and liberation. The proposed Seoul Conference in 2026 seeks to cultivate a shared vision of public theology and emancipation in addressing religious, scientific, and sociobiological discourses.
Paul S. Chung
Abstract
In the following essay, I intend to introduce, examine, and explain Heinrich Bedford-Strohm’s ecumenical public theology of liberation, through constructive assessment and supplementation to reinforce his public theology. Bedford-Strohm demonstrates that ecumenical public theology promotes emancipation, solidarity, and authentic democracy. Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Karl Barth play a pivotal role in influencing Bedford-Strohm about Luther’s teaching of two kingdoms.
Furthermore, Bedford-Strohm reinforces a hermeneutical arc that corresponds to the horizon of the life-world and its spectrum of multiple realities in a critical theoretical framework. Its discourse is clarified by the interplay between contextuality, intercontextuality, and universality. It delineates the epistemology of public theology, which can be pursued through discourse clarification and world formation.
Introduction
Heinrich Bedford-Strohm is an influential German scholar, with specialties in political philosophy, social scientific theory, life sciences, and ecology. His theological integrity and prophetic voice are evident in his church leadership as Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Bavaria, Council Chairperson of the EKD, and current moderator of the WCC.
Bedford-Strohm defines public theology as a theological paradigm. He believes that public theology is best understood in terms of its relationship to political ethics in an ecumenical framework. Through his theological contributions, public theology is reviving in the intellectual community around the world.
To analyze his ecumenical public theology, I start by discussing public theology with political ethics, which is the foundation of participation for a genuine democracy. Next, I demonstrate how Bedford-Strohm uses analogical language to show Karl Barth to be a bilingual public theologian as he examines the theological similarities between Martin Luther and Karl Barth on the two kingdoms and Christ’s Lordship.
Bedford-Strohm’s innovative position is undertaken as he synthesizes prophetic witness (parrhesia) with wisdom in a type of multilingual proficiency. He makes new advancements in public theology as he presents public theology as the continuity between political theology and eschatological hope. In contrast to Max Stackhouse, who represents much of public theology in the United States, Bedford-Strohm takes a unique approach to society in terms of the dialectical relationship between reform and change.
Second, to understand Bedford-Strohm’s approach to biotechnology and natural science, it is critical to appreciate Dietrich Bonhoeffer as a key public theologian who influenced Bedford-Strohm. Bonhoeffer’s tripartite approach to political regimes (interrogation, victim solidarity, and resistance) is indicative of his ethics of reconciliation. This well-articulated synthesis becomes normative in Bedford-Strohm’s focus on human dignity, addressing issues with genetic engineering, biological determinism, and biomedical ethics in light of a theological anthropology based on the image of God.
Third, I scrutinize the interaction between contextuality, intercontextuality, and universality, as I evaluate Bedford-Strohm’s epistemology under the hermeneutical arc and emphasize its significance in clarifying public theological discourse. Public epistemology, as a means of clarifying conversation, supports the concept of Trinitarian inclusivism in a pluralistic reality. It is crucial for interfaith dialogue, aligning with the stance of theologia crucis and reconciliation. I conclude by noting a few positive developments for ecumenical public theology within the postcolonial context of world Christianity, reinvigorating Bonhoeffer’s profound ideas.
On Public Theology and Political Ethics
The term ‘politics’ derives from the Greek word polis, which refers to the city-state or the commonwealth. It designates a public society (res publica) with a long history in the ancient Greek (particularly politeia in Aristotle) and the Roman
Republic.
Given this historical background, I argue that civil society, democracy, and the common good are not just byproducts of modern laissez faire capitalism, its dark side of colonialism, or its degeneration into National Socialism. In fact, political theology began with the critique of Carl Schmitt’s political theology, the totalitarian version of Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, and the privatization of religion.
Against these critiques, the central tenet of public theology transcends a one-sided view of civil society, modernity, and democracy as civil society is not founded merely on industrial capitalism and colonialism in Britain.
In contrast, Bedford-Strohm is committed to expanding the multiple realities of liberation and genuine democracy in solidarity with marginalized people and refugees. He broadens the scope of liberation theology by exploring a variety of topics such as politics, human rights, global peace, immigration, the refugee crisis, interreligious dialogue, ecology, and biomedical ethics, among others.
Bedford-Strohm pursues these topics in ways that highlight public theology as a critical component of the Church’s prophetic vocation. Furthermore, he believes that public theology must academically incorporate the theological concerns of the Church’s discipleship. The Church must demonstrate God’s love for the world, people, and creation by publicly giving ethical advice and reflect its political consequences, in advocating for social justice. Therefore, Bedford-Strohm’s public theology has little to do with adhering to a single political party’s program or its goals.
In the aftermath of colonialism, I believe the poor are more vulnerable to political populism, which has little to do with improving their living conditions in civil societies. Rather than political populism and demagoguery, a true democracy must be founded on distributive and restorative justice in the context of governance for the common good. In the postcolonial Korean context, I argue that the option for the poor must be the basis for our understanding of democracy and justice for common good.
Theological Stance: Ecumenical and Constructive
Bedford-Strohm interprets Martin Luther’s concept of the two kingdoms to mean that God rules the world through two distinct governments: the spiritual (gospel) and the temporal (State) realms. He integrates Luther with Barth to advocate for an ecumenical teaching of the Kingdom of God and the world.
Thus, it is the responsibility of the temporal State to uphold the peace and defend the weak, even if it means using force. The State’s objective is to carry out this mandate and responsibility that God has given it. These two realms do not exist independently. Rather, they work together to promote peace, justice, and public safety.
Furthermore, Luther offered a harsh critique of sixteenth century capitalism concentrated on usury. His position remains critical in the exposition of the seventh commandment in the Large Catechism: Will one serve God or Mammon?
According to Bedford-Strohm, “‘Theo-logy’—talk about God—is impossible without talking about the human historical experience of slavery and oppression and God’s action in history to overcome such oppression” (Bedford-Strohm, “Poverty and Public Theology: Advocacy of the Church in Pluralistic Society,” Liberation Theology for a Democratic Society, 153).
In his article on “Die Renaissance des Christlich-Sozialen”, Bedford-Strohm argues for Luther's ethical attitude toward the economics, emphasizing the relevance of Luther's most important writing on the economy “On Trade and Usury” from 1524. It is crucial to evaluate Luther's prophetic economic ethics and his assessment of global trade dynamics in light of Luther’s teaching on two governments and Christian freedom. Luther defined freedom as always being of service to the needy neighbors. Luther arranges the two regimes (Church and State) under God's rule and therefore criticizes an alliance between politics and the economics, in which the latter uses the former to pursue its interests at the cost of the poor (Politische Studien, 2/2013).30-42)
The biblical option for the poor is a central basis for Bedford-Strohm’s public theology with consequences for issues like poverty and distributive justice and advocacy for refugees. His personal dedication to helping refugees who risk their lives at sea to cross the Mediterranean, is a prominent example of his public witness (“Solidarity after death threats against Bishop Bedford-Strohm.” LWF 17 Jan. 2020).
According to Bedford-Strohm, the biblical narrative intertwines Torah/righteousness (Leviticus 25:35–38) in the New Testament (Matt 19:21–22), as it introduces the ethical component of compassion. Likewise, the Golden Rule (Matt 7:12), concerned with mutual recognition, defines the norm of reciprocity for public theology. Therefore, public theology builds on the Golden Rule’s ethical guidance, counsel, and direction for reciprocity and recognition. For the follower of Jesus, faith is active in love (Gal 5:6).
Bedford-Strohm and Interdisciplinary Competence
When it comes to a true sense of democracy and the public role of religion, Bedford-Strohm demonstrates his interdisciplinary competence as he engages in public discourse with political theorists and sociologists. For instance, he engages with Jürgen Habermas’s later turn to religion, which acknowledges the public role of religion and the meaning of life.
Similarly, Bedford-Strohm draws from Jose Casanova, an American sociologist at the University of Berkeley, who
emphasizes the shift from the secularization thesis to the resurgence of religion and its public role in contemporary democratic society (“Nurturing Reason: The Public Role of Religion in the Liberal State”).
However, Bedford-Strohm acknowledges Richard Rorty who argues that biblical information should not be utilized as a ‘conversation-stopper’. In other words, biblical ideas should not be imposed dogmatically on public discourse without showing their reason and intellectual credibility.
Drawing from Rorty, Bedford-Strohm recognizes this public rule of communication and evaluates Rawls’s argument: “‘The idea of public reason’ must examine contributions to the public discourse, whether sacred or secular; it is measured in their compliance with enlightened reason. It remains critical in a democratic society” (Rawls, The Idea of Public Reason Revisited, 573-615).
Rawls acknowledges the public role of religion and the significance of the biblical narrative such as the parable of the Good Samaritan. He recognizes the significant impact of Christian anti-slavery work during the nineteenth century and Martin Luther King Jr.’s civil rights movement. Therefore, religious beliefs uphold basic constitutional principles in comparison to rational concepts of political justice and fairness.
Public Theological Engagement for an Authentic Democracy
Bedford-Strohm defines public theology as democratic engagement, as he combines biblical-theological principles with bilingual competency and interdisciplinary features. This bilingual proficiency characterizes as an intellectual endeavor engaged in interaction with and learning from non-theological fields. This approach underpins his ability to provide political direction while acknowledging the prophetic aspect and intercontextual nature of public theology (“Engagement Für Die Demokratie.” Position Beziehen, 111–22).
Bedford-Strohm draws heavily from Dietrich Bonhoeffer to construct his public theology for democratic engagement. Bonhoeffer writes that in a liberal democratic society, the Church can fulfill a public function by actively shaping itself both for the benefit of others and in solidarity with them. Jesus Christ is both the Lord of the Church and the Lord of the world.
Thus the Church has a responsibility to address political matters, since it arises from the liberating message of the gospel. Bonhoeffer continues to play an important part in his own argument that God has reconciled the world, ton kosmon—through Christ—and that God can only be manifested in the reality of the world. Thus for Bedford-Strohm, politics is a significant aspect in theological reflections on God since it investigates God’s action in the world.
When examined through the lens of reconciliation, public theology seeks to renew the constraints of Western liberal democracy, which is currently afflicted by elitist privilege and the erosion of social foundations. The ‘reconciliation and democracy’ stance advocates efforts to alleviate inequality, builds inclusive solidarity, and enables citizens to pursue the common good. This characterizes the politics of recognition, which underpins the concept of authentic democracy as it opposes its degeneration.
In this light, public religion in modern society has evolved from secularization and privatization to de-privatization and social transformation in both the public and the transnational global spheres.
In fact, Bedford-Strohm suggests a paradigm shift away from political theology and toward civil society and authentic democracy. During its initial development, political theology focused on criticizing Thomas Hobbes’s theory of the State (Leviathan) and his view of religion as a private matter. It also examined the totalitarian version of Carl Schmitt’s political theology.
However, Moltmann’s interest in public theology emerges later in his career, and he discusses the implication of public theology in the aftermath of colonialism, as well as World Christianity in the postcolonial formation (God for a Secular City, 6-17).
Ecumenical Legacy: Martin Luther and Karl Barth
Bedford-Strohm develops his public theology by referencing Luther, Barth, and Bonhoeffer. I employ these theologians to elucidate Bedford-Strohm’s work and relate it to a US audience and East Asia.
Bedford-Strohm views Karl Barth as one of the most prominent practitioners of public theology in an ecumenical setting. In a comprehensive examination of the relationship between public theology and politics, Bedford-Strohm strives to reconcile Luther’s two kingdoms doctrine with Barth’s model of the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Bedford-Strohm maintains that the models’ commonalities transcend ecclesial and denominational barriers, fostering the ecumenicity of the church. This is aided by Barth’s own ecumenical goals in his Church Dogmatics. Likewise, his theology has a strong contextual implication for relating the word of God to the social and political situations.
Aiding Bedford-Strohm, Wolfgang Huber further analyzes Barth’s concept of the Lordship of Christ and Luther’s two kingdoms theory. A Christian living in the temporal realm should be a part of Christ’s kingdom. However, the Christian who lives in the State is still a citizen of Christ’s kingdom, not of two kingdoms.
The doctrine of the Lordship of Christ focuses on the relationship between the Church and the State rather than Christ being the foundation of the State itself. It is true that Barth discusses the Christian’s relationship to the Church and State. Thus, Huber demonstrates that Barth does not disagree with Luther’s two kingdoms doctrine (Huber, Kirche und Öffentlichkeit, 458).
I am not reluctant to concur with Wolfgang Huber, as Barth's Christological concentration incorporates the first function of the law with his assertion that the State is founded on a specific divine ordinance, which is a part of the Kingdom of God.
The shared responsibilities of the Church and the State are emphasized by Barth’s paradigm of Christ’s Lordship which underscores the shared responsibilities of the Church with the State (Thesis 14 in “The Christian Community and the Civil Community”).
Luther’s concept of God’s universal reign is based on the two kingdoms (with a focus on the importance of creation), and it includes a strong critique of early capitalism’s economic disorder in usury. Both Luther’s emphasis on reason and natural law and Barth’s Christocentric model (based on reconciliation) nurture a prophetic critique both of capitalism’s inordinate and greedy order and the totalitarianism of the State socialism.
Karl Barth and His Public Theology Avant la Lettre
According to Bedford-Strohm, Barth’s Christological approach to political ethics is highly contextual because it is shaped by particular historic experiences and constellations. In a turning point toward God, the totaliter aliter, and dialectical theology, Barth expresses his profound dismay at the naïve enthusiasm among his theological teachers for the German cause during the First World War, which theologically legitimized nationalism.
Against this liberal trend, Barth began to understand God as the ‘wholly other’, the one who judges all domesticated gods as idols and nationalistic religious projections. As a result, the Barmen Declaration of the Confessing Church had a strong Christocentric basis, challenging the exaltation of Arian heroism and German superiority in National Socialism.
Drawing from Barth, Bedford-Strohm focuses on Barth’s text “The Christian Community and the Civil Community” (1946) as the classic example for the public theology of liberation and bilinguality. Barth’s method of analogy influences how the Church addresses the public realm by making biblical ethical ideas applicable and appropriate to the secular world. He facilitates the translation of theological and biblical discussions into secular languages. This text features Barth as a public theologian avant la lettre.
Bedford-Strohm points to Barth’s political ethics which explains that the Christian community forms the first circle of governance around Jesus who is at the center. Jesus Christ encircles the Church with civil society. Thus, Christ is the focal point of both the civil society and the Church which shares political responsibility by witnessing to the reality of God’s reconciliation with the world in light of the coming Kingdom of God.
I believe that this constitutes an analogical discourse in terms of parable as anticipatory narrative (prolepsis) in the interplay between reconciliation and eschatology. Therefore, it is important to emphasize that Barth employs analogy in conjunction with Jesus’s secular parable. Parable is defined as a narrative prolepsis that foreshadows future events, with a specific emphasis on the interaction between reconciliation and eschatology.
As a result, Barth’s teaching of analogy helps Bedford-Strohm to advance to what he calls “bilinguality”, that is the ability to speak both the biblical language and the language of secular discourse. Since secular discourse is in itself shaped by various languages one could also speak a multi-linguistic paradigm. Barth’s method of analogy opens the universal horizon of God’s reign by addressing topics such as natural science, technology, comparative religions, and ecology. These realms may serve as extraordinary ways and unique channels for divine communication that reach beyond the boundaries of the churches.
Thus, Barth’s public theology can be defined as discerning and understanding how the Christian Gospel can be effectively translated and employed in its societal function and impact—especially regarding freedom and innovation—through interaction with a diverse range of communication channels. This mode of communication is also instrumental in influencing and reshaping theological discourse in a constructive manner.
Accordingly, it is necessary for Bedford-Strohm to evaluate the political sphere in relation to God’s kingdom because this evaluation will influence Christian judgments, goals, and ideals in those areas. To illuminate this, a political hermeneutics of analogy suggests that differences can also include similarities as a fundamental aspect of their identity.
Due to its reliance on a particular divine decree, I believe that the State is unable to assert its own autonomy and independence in governing the Church and the Kingdom of God. The State is characterized as a parable, a correspondence, or an analogy to the Kingdom of God that is proclaimed by the Church.
Barth’s analogical thought refers to God’s universal reign (totaliter aliter) through two strategies: the Church and the world, in accordance with Christ’s reconciliation. Barth’s model of reconciliation within world history of divine communication aligns with Luther’s teaching of God’s universal reign, which is accomplished through two distinctive strategies.
Political analogy is a method that uses a secular story to demonstrate the enigmatic and divine nature of God’s kingdom. Helmut Gollwitzer, Barth’s protégé, articulates his political stance using the concept of political analogy. He advocates for a prophetic public theology to achieve emancipation through solidarity, civil society initiative, and democratic socialism (Gollwitzer, “Kingdom of God and Socialism in the Theology of Karl Barth”).
This Barthian perspective may underlie Bedford-Strohm, who reinterprets Barth in ecumenical dialogue with Luther and Bonhoeffer. Barth’s political analogies and bilingual skills highlight that the Church’s major focus should be on the lowest segments of human society. The Church’s primary focus should always be on the impoverished vulnerable—socially and economically marginalized individuals.
To highlight Bedford-Strohm’s public theology, I emphasize that Jesus’s attitude serves as a standard in Paul’s reasoning for God’s preference for the lowest, as God “chooses the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not” (1 Cor 1:28). Jesus Christ exhibits compassion for the downtrodden and lost multitude; he is partisan for the poor (Parteigänger der Armen, Church Dogmatics, IV/2:180).
Prophetic Witness, Deliberate Reflection, and Democracy
Bedford-Strohm’s contribution to public theology is noteworthy as he defines prophetic witness as a fusion of parrhesia and deliberation (wisdom), which is a crucial aspect of his ecumenical public theology. Bedford-Strohm’s prophetic witness can be relevant to Barth and Bonhoeffer. This prophetic witness in a Barthian sense shares in the veracity of God’s word. Thus, words gain velocity through parrhesia and become God’s own word in witness to the word. This audacious but trustworthy discourse sets authentic preaching apart from talking about God and opposes ideologically distorted forms of self-righteousness, cruelty, and exploitation (CD 2/1:231-32; CD 4/2: 442).
Similarly, in a supplementary section of his unfinished work, Ethics, Bonhoeffer reflects on parrhesia which refers to a bold and thoughtful prophetic utterance that involves audacious critique and deliberation: What is meant by telling the truth? He explores the concept of truth-telling in this context. A prophetic speech consists of fearless criticism and resistance. This holds particular significance in Bonhoeffer’s context of dictatorship and persecution.
In this line of argument, Bedford-Strohm asserts that the inclusive prophetic witness is undertaken in the spirit of parrhesia. Furthermore, this aligns with Cornel West’s appeal to transcend a purely critical stance towards power which ultimately leads to self-righteousness. West integrates world change with the everyday experiences of the underprivileged (“Prophetic Witness and Public Discourse in European Societies – a German Perspective,” Liberation Theology).
Therefore, it is imperative to integrate public expression, such as parrhesia, with bilingual competency and a conscious comprehension of the social political context.
Additionally, Bedford-Strohm agrees with Eva Harasta, while stating that Barth’s treatise “The Christian Community and the Civil Community” has the potential to influence bilingualism and public witness in navigating between Church and democratic society.
According to Harasta, Barth provides an example of how to transform Christian terminology into secular language near the conclusion of his work, making it “read like a programme for Public Theology avant la lettre.” In all these examples, “Barth refers to an aspect of the Christian community as revealed in Scripture in order to guide the analogical proclamation of the Christian community within the civil sphere” (Harasta, “Karl Barth: A Public Theologian? The One Word and Theological Bilinguality,” pp. 188-203).
Harasta is correct in featuring Barth as a theologian with bilingual competency and translation, because for Barth “the translation of the Kingdom of God into political terms demands Christian, spiritual and prophetic knowledge on every side” (Thesis 27. “The Christian Community and the Civil Community”).
According to Harasta, the civil community and the Christian community are two different analogies in their own way for testifying with co-responsibility to the eschatological kingdom of Christ and his reconciliation.
At this point, I insist that Barth establishes a connection between bilingual competency and translation to enhance communication, drawing upon J.J. Rousseau’s political philosophy. Barth has a profound knowledge of Rousseau and supports his concept of a liberal State (Thesis 28), as well as civil society, democracy, and the politics of recognition.
This perspective reinvigorates Bedford-Strohm to implement his own stance for democracy and emancipation. Barth’s bilingual discourse on Rousseau’s democratic society examines how the law serves both political and civil purposes, drawing on the ideas of Luther and Calvin. Barth views politics as a means through which divine communication takes place. The Christian Church and the democratic societies genuinely adhere to distribute justice and implement direction and orientation toward the Kingdom of God.
Interrogation: American Global Public Theology
Differing from prominent US theologian, Max Stackhouse, Bedford-Strohm’s position is grounded within the Confessing Church. Unlike Bedford-Strohm, Stackhouse is content with modest improvements with moral guidance because of the depth of sin. Thus, Stackhouse tends to accommodate the status quo of the economic global order. He justifies the economic global order under the guise of God’s providential grace. Global public theology, in his view, has little to do with calling for radical renewal through a prophetic vision. For Stackhouse, the marching history of the meta-discourse of economic globalization is identified with a biblical concept of providential grace (Chung, Hermeneutical Theology and the Imperative of Public Ethics, 264).
Bedford-Strohm acknowledges Stackhouse’s perspective in his article “Public Theology and Political Ethics,” where he is concerned with the moral validity of the short term. While small steps would be conceivable, they can be seen as necessary preludes to a more radical transformation that will occur over time.
In contrast to Stackhouse’s minimalist approach to the political-economic realm, Bedford-Strohm advocates for a drastic overhaul of the world to enable every person to live in dignity. Thus, Bedford-Strohm argues for a radical transformation of the world. Societas semper reformanda!
Bedford-Strohm’s public theology of liberation for a democratic society corresponds with the South African public theology perspective of John W. de Gruchy who describes the transition from the political theology of resistance against the Apartheid system to a public theology in a democratic society.
Furthermore, Bedford-Strohm is hermeneutically motivated in the horizon of the contextual-intercontextual interaction for the universal position of the ecumenical whole. Based on the hermeneutical arc, he finds a balance between the various contexts, searching for God’s will because God leads God’s people in their particular contexts. Thus, this contextual-intercontextual distinction is combined to form an ecumenical whole.
I regard this epistemology as a creative contribution to a sociological, hermeneutical framework that addresses the communication between contexts and emphasizes the importance of the universal whole in the context of the biblical life-world of reconciliation. The liberating word of God leads to the holistic view of the ecumenicity of the churches in which Jesus Christ is at the center (“Nurturing Reason: The Public Role of Religion in the Liberal State.” in Liberation Theology).
Human Dignity: Natural Science and Technology
Bedford-Strohm is concerned with the role of technology, natural sciences, and biomedicine as realms of interrogation through the lens of public theology. However, when considering issues such as cloning, genetic engineering, euthanasia, embryonic stem cells research, and climate change, it is necessary to elaborate on biomedical ethics in light of theological anthropology.
To do this, the Anthropocene is part of the regime of interrogation or problematization that public theology employs to address an ethical consideration. What matters is the advocacy of human dignity, which originates from the fact that humans were created in the image of God. Human dignity is not merely predicated on the capacity for reason and rational thinking.
Instead, its foundation lies in God’s relationship with humankind. The New Testament places a great emphasis on the forgiveness of sin, reaffirming God’s unwavering acceptance of the sinners. This is especially evident in the parable of the Prodigal Son. The God of life, displaying the grace of justification, goes beyond the empirical worthiness of God’s creatures or moralist reasoning. The God of life, in mercy, creates humans as an aim in themselves and bestows life itself with dignity (“Sacred Body? Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning,” Liberation Theology).
This approach combines a theology of nature (Ian Barbour and Ted Peters) with epistemological and practical reasoning within public theology which culminates in a paradigm shift toward a public theology of science with ecological responsibility. Bedford-Strohm insists that humans are mandated to till and care for the earth because it has been entrusted to them in exchange for sharing nature with other living animals in the ecosystem.
With the completion of the Human Genome Project, biotechnology has emerged as an important topic for public theology in terms of interrogation, problematization, discourse clarification, and renewal of human dignity. Bedford-Strohm undertakes his creative interpretation of Bonhoeffer and public theology, placing him in dialogue with biotechnology (“Biotechnology and Public Theology: A Dialogue with Dietrich Bonhoeffer,” Liberation Theology).
Bedford-Strohm draws upon the former President Bill Clinton’ that “Today we are learning the language in which God created life.” This is the biological language of God—deciphering the human genome. However, the biblical language describes that God’s creation of life is not merely biologically determined. Everything is not in our genes or DNA, because the word of God does not refer to chromosomes, DNA, or nuclear cell transfer.
In contrast to the biological reductionism and its central dogma of DNA determinism, Bedford-Strohm asserts a comprehensive vision of God’s language in relation to human life, including the profound significance of God’s great “Yes” to creation.
He emphasizes the importance of addressing fundamental ethical concerns that are relevant to public audience. He fosters resources for multilingual communication by articulating the relevance of religious traditions in the moral ecology of multicultural societies.
Furthermore, Bedford-Strohm explicates how the tradition of the Christian faith can provide guidance in contemporary issues through interdisciplinary engagement with other academic disciplines. Specifically, it requires critical dialogue with the Church, society, and the scientific community. Thus, Bedford-Strohm’s definition of public theology is stated in the terms that Bonhoeffer promotes (“Dietrich Bonhoeffer als ȍffentlicher Theologe,” Evangelische Theologie, 329-341).
If public theology straddles the line towards pure adaptation to the world, it undermines the prophetic witness in the
biblical tradition. However, if it is fundamentally opposed to the world, it also violates God’s love for the world, with all its virtues, limits, and flaws. The Gospel is integrated and embodied in the meaning of life because God creates humans as the object of divine love, not because of human technological prowess—don’t play God!
Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Public Guidelines
The promise of biotechnology has given way to its consumer orientation and social hierarchy through its commercialization. Bedford-Strohm brings Bonhoeffer’s article “the Church and the Jewish Question” (1933) to the forefront when discussing human dignity and public ethical guidelines.
In his article, Bonhoeffer proposes three steps for the Church to deal with the State. The first is to hold the State accountable when its activities are morally questionable (interrogation/ problematization). The second is to care for the victims, because the Church has a mission to serve the victims of society (the solidarity principle). The third requires practical engagement, applying the bandage to the victims under the wheel of the State while inserting a spoke into the wheel for resistance (Bonhoeffer, Berlin 1932-1933, 355-6).
In the threefold approach, it is necessary to integrate the prophetic discourse of parrhesia with deliberative reasoning in light of God’s reconciliation with the world. Certainly, one cannot refer to the world of technology as a godless world or vilify scientists as new Frankensteins. Churches should not confront scientists as adversaries of faith.
Acceptance, on the other hand, does not always imply accommodation or approbation as a ‘servile attitude toward the facts.’ Instead, it must be guided through public theological epistemology, which encompasses interrogation, critical distance, solidarity, and theological-ethical renewal. The Church, responsible for the existence of the other, must engage in a critical examination of unredeemed reality or impersonal forces like those evidenced in National Socialism, the Holocaust, Bolshevism, Apartheid, Christian nationalism, the ecological devastation in late capitalism, or biological determinism of life.
If the Church engages in this critical examination, the Church embodies Bonhoeffer’s concept of resistance in status confessionis as the Church stands up against the State’s intrusion in cases of excessive law and order.
Bonhoeffer’s politics of resistance awakens the mandate to sustain and improve the living arrangements of all because God is present with those who suffer and are victimized. Remarkably, Bonhoeffer also considers the reality of the restrainer (2 Thess 2:7) under God’s governance in a way that keeps the world from destruction in his chapter titled “Inheritance and Decay” of his incomplete Ethics. The restrainer places boundaries on wickedness and prevents individuals from plunging into the abyss.
Conversely, I see the reality of the restrainer within the framework of the primus usus or the lex naturae. In this, the Church proclaims the primus usus to be in service of the gospel. Bonhoeffer’s politics of resistance is understood in a genealogical view of the victim, which means adopting a perspective from below, the insignificant, and the subjugated. Without this view, Bonhoeffer argues that the Church “witnessed in silence the spoliation and exploitation of the poor and the enrichment and corruption of the strong.” (Ethics, 115)
This epistemic attitude encourages public theology to be grounded in the biblical and confessional traditions of Christian faith, as well as its prophetic renewal. It implies an anamnestic rationale in the remembrance of the mass suffering of the victims.
This counters American evangelical Erich Metaxas’s attempt to exploit Bonhoeffer to support US evangelical nationalism, often associated with far-right ideology (Metaxas, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy). Metaxas affirms the use of violence and even deception for the larger good, implying that Bonhoeffer epitomizes the use of violence in opposition to Hitler. He counterfeits Bonhoeffer’s legacy as an inspiration, supporting churches on the far-right politics and Christian nationalism (Metaxas, Letter to the American Church).
Metaxas’s manipulation is observed in his utilitarian justification of deceit to obtain political power. This clearly opposes Bonhoeffer’s prophetic attitude of solidarity with those who have been victimized under totalitarian power.
Discourse Clarification: Contextual-Universal-Intercontextual
In countries such as South Africa, Brazil, or even Rwanda, civil society does not reveal itself in the Western bourgeois style of laissez faire capitalism (John S. Mill and Heber Spencer’s social Darwinism). Spencer’s social Darwinism is fraught with natural selection, rampant competition, white racism, civilizing mission, sexism, and eugenics, among others. These reappear today in the neoliberal global economy and even in the genetically determinist view of human life within a militant atheist stance.
Instead, public theology as the liberation for the democracy in its authentic sense runs counter to an old colonialist concept of laissez faire capitalism and liberal democracy. Public theology has a liberating project to explore the relationship between civil society and the Church, navigating between the anti-modernist pole of Scylla and the laissez-faire pole of Charybdis. Establishing this relationship proposes a social ethical direction for the Christian tradition to be a place of genuine democracy through emancipation and solidarity (“Braucht Die Zivilgesellschaft Die Kirche?,” Position Beziehen, 34-35).
Public theologies worldwide are characterized by two things—their emphasis on contextuality and their focus on civil society, democracy, and politics of recognition. The contextual aspect does not contradict universality. Instead, it implies a broad range of interconnected contexts, that is, intercontextuality.
Within intercontextuality, various contexts interact with one another to exchange their own experiences and world formation. Each situation has a distinct general structure of meaning, morals, and identity. However, cultural context is susceptible to sedimentation, prejudices, and ambiguities. Thus, to achieve liberation through engagement with various texts, it is necessary to address and overcome any obstacles and obscurities through immanent critique and insightful analysis. This discourse clarification aims to enhance the shared objective by considering its universal nature or the ecumenical whole.
In my opinion, the epistemological articulation is nestled within the contextual-intercontextual framework and seeks to fulfill Church’s ecumenicity. To strengthen ecumenical public theology, I characterize its -historical arc as advancing a method of discourse clarification based on the epistemology of the (inter) context and the universality. It is a remarkable quality and fascinating trait that determines the identity, relevance, and objective of public theology.
This epistemic approach may be in line with the relevance of the biblical life-world of reconciliation and its world construal (Contextuality and Intercontextuality in Public Theology, edited by Heinrich Bedford-Strohm, et al. 5–9).
Epilogue from Constructive Reflection
Public theological hermeneutics, or discourse clarification, can be enhanced by incorporating Bonhoeffer’s reflection on discourse ethics of parrhesia, which varies based on the time and context. Truthful speech is beholden to God, because the true God is not a metaphysical principle, but rather places Christians in the living context of life connection. It represents a critical reorientation of interpretation in the postcolonial context of world Christianity.
It involves a right assessment of real situations, giving preference to those fragile, foreclosed, and defenseless in a world full of conflicting religions. Contextuality, seen in light of God’s reconciliation, is not opposition to a universal perspective since every culture has its own general structure of the life-world but interacts on the basis of universal intercontextual orientations like human dignity.
This universal, under the socio-hermeneutical arc, undergirds meaning and morality, while also serving as the source of the immanent critique of obscurities and prejudices entrenched in cultural habitus or sedimentation.
The concept of contextuality is open to various contexts, because it seeks a universal objective towards peace, justice for the common good, and politics of mutual recognition in the interreligious dialogue.
This perspective on contextuality and universality is under the aegis of the Church’s ecumenicity. It navigates between the Scylla of Eurocentric discourse (“Christian Occident” or civil religion formation) and Charybdis of cultural, moral relativism in a postmodern style of deconstructionism.
I define a distinctive public theological hermeneutics as a sociological-hermeneutical arc that reinforces the doublet ‘theologia crucis-reconciliation.’ This doublet explores civil society and real democracy within the framework of alternative modernities (or multiple modernities). Thus, it reinvigorates public theology in global exchange and network formation.
According to Bedford-Strohm, interreligious dialogue becomes an essential arena for public theology. For the Church, this strengthens its ethical attitude and mutual learning towards the common good through recognition, peace, hospitality, and humility, as central to Jesus’s life. Interreligious dialogue is critical for promoting and enhancing peaceful coexistence in a world afflicted with cultural strife and religious intolerance (Position Beziehen, 81).
Already in Bonhoeffer’s thought (a letter dated in February 1928), one meets his interreligious interest in Gandhi and the world of the Buddha. In another letter (May 22, 1934), Bonhoeffer claims that the realm of “heathens” has more Christianity than the entire official State Church of Germany.
Bedford-Strohm, in a conscious reflection on the possibility of reconciliation and comparative religion, advocates for a model of Trinitarian inclusivism that avoids both sheer relativism and dogmatic absolutism. The Trinitarian God is the foundation for authentic Church engagement in an interreligious context.
First, the Church recognizes the differences among religions with mutual learning and respect rather than just devaluing them through relativist totalization (“Public Theology and Interreligious Dialogue,” Liberation Theology for a Democratic Society, 224-27).
Secondly, Trinitarian inclusivism is defined by God’s reconciliation with the world through Jesus Christ, standing in the hope of the coming God for the world. This position accords with Moltmann’s synthesis of theology of hope with public theology, as articulated by Wolfgang Huber. For Moltmann, an emancipatory form of public theology is founded on public, critical, and prophetic hope in God (Moltmann, God for a Secular Society, 5).
In sum, public theology is a critical, prophetic, and reflective engagement with society and the world, drawing the poor and disadvantaged into the ethical dimension of God’s kingdom. This is neither an alternative to a theology of hope or political theology. Rather, public theology continues a political theology of hope and further develops it through a distinctive epistemology, discourse clarification, and world construction.
In the face of a shifting global-public scenario, multilingual competence and multidisciplinary communication reinvigorate the public role of religion for Christian witness and the Church’s vocation. We pray with Bonhoeffer: to do justice is to wait for God.
References (select)
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics IV.2: The Doctrine of Reconciliation, eds. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance. London. New York: T & T Clark International, 2004.
______. “The Christian Community and the Civil Community” (1946), Karl Barth: Theologian of Freedom, ed. Clifford Green. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. Pp.265-96.
Bedford-Strohm, Heinrich. Position Beziehen: Perspektiven Einer Öffentlichen Theologie. München: Claudius Verlag, 2012.
______. Contextuality and Intercontextuality in Public Theology, eds. Heinrich Bedford-Strohm, et al Münster: LIT Verlag, 2013.
______. Liberation Theology for a Democratic Society: Essays in Public Theology, ed. Michael Mädler and Andrea Wagner-Pinggera. Zürich: LIT Verlag, 2018.
______. Liberation Theology. Collected Essays (in Manuscript form provided by Heinrich Bedford-Strohm).
______. “Dietrich Bonhoeffer als ȍffentlicher Theologe,” Evangelische Theologie, 69. H. 5. 2009. Pp. 329-341.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Berlin 1932-1933 (DBW 12), München: Kaiser Verlag, 1997. Pp. 355-6.
Casanova, Jose. Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1994.
Chung, Paul S. Hermeneutical Theology and the Imperative of Public Ethics: Confessing Christ in Post-Colonial World Christianity. Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick, 2013.
Gollwitzer, H. “Kingdom of God and Socialism in the Theology of Karl Barth,” Karl Barth and Radical Politics, 2nd ed. trans. G. Hunsinger. Eugene, Origen: Cascade Books, 2017. Pp 50-85.
Harasta, Eva. “Karl Barth: A Public Theologian? The One Word and Theological Bilinguality,” International Journal of Public Theology 3, 2009, Pp. 188-203.
Huber, W. Kirche und Öffentlichkeit. Stuttgart: Klett, 1991.
Moltmann, J. God for a Secular Society: The Public Relevance of Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999.
Rawls, J. “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited,” John Rawls, Collected Papers, ed. S. Freeman, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001, Pp. 573-615.
LWF News
Solidarity after death threats against Bishop Bedford-Strohm. LWF 17 Jan. 2020.