political ecclesiology w/ moltmann & pannenberg
continuing in my reading of ecclesiology with william placher, but especially, veli-matti karkkainen, i have found something to possibly latch onto. both pannenberg and moltmann propose the ideal of a political ecclesiology (my phrase; not theirs). each do it in their own way, but i found it to be a compelling thought. both men suggest the church is moving towards an eschatological unity in which all people will participate and benefit from being under the reign of god (this makes the church an anticipation of things to come). both have given the holy spirit much more room to work than other more christocentric ecclesiologies or even humanistic ecclesiologies. they each have their own unique ways of describing it, but in general they seem to agree. and both believe that the church has something to do with politics and society.
for pannenberg the church is a sign for the world/society/political figures to look at for direction. he says that, “if christians succeed in solving the problems of their own pluralism, they may be able to produce a model combining pluralism and the widest moral unity which will also be valid for political life” this is a lofty goal indeed and he says further, “as the body of christ the church is the eschatological people of god gathered out of all peoples, and thus it is a sign of reconciliation for a future unity of a renewed humanity in the kingdom of god.” the church is a sign that points beyond itself toward unity under god. interesting, considering that this past weekend, barack obama brought his message of hope and unity to washington state and beat hilary clinton by a wide margin, as well as dominating in virginia, maryland, and the district of columbia. but i digress.
according to karkkainen, moltmann characterizes his theology as having a biblical foundation, an eschatological orientation, and a political responsibility. moltmann’s ecclesiology is also understood as an anticipation of reign of god. where moltmann seems to divert away from pannenberg is that he simply says that political involvement is a necessary part of the church’s ministry to the world. everything that the church is about is for the sake of the world. for moltmann, the charismata are distributed, not for the church’s sake, but for the world’s. prophecy is more likely to be about bringing political or social change, for justice, than for declaring god’s judgement on the church or for predicting the future.
again, it is not lost on me, the significance of this upcoming presidential election, with all of the primaries happening right now, and reading these two men’s ecclesiologies. both of their approaches are full and comprehensive and in no way am i trying to pigeon-hole either of them into political activists, but they are that in many ways. would they agree with the way in which christianity was linked up with the politics of rome in centuries of old? likely not. would they agree with the way a certain portion of american christianity is lined up with a certain political agenda? absolutely not. pannenberg would be quick to say that no individual christian or community unreservedly identify themselves with any model of political order. and it is also painfully clear, that all of this is contingent on whether or not the church is actually something that can be pointed to as a hope for the world. currently, in my context, i cannot say that i would stake any claim in that, but i still hope and have committed my life bringing that hope to reality.