Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008) 240-254

www.brill.nl/jrt

Vulnerable Church in a Vulnerable World? Towards an Ecclesiology of Vulnerability

Nico Koopman
Professor of Systematic Theology and Ethics; Stellenbosch University E-mail: nkoopman@sun.ac.za

Abstract This essay argues that the faithfulness of the church in a world with so many vulnerabilities entails that she acknowledges her own vulnerability and frailty. This ecclesial vulnerability is based in the vulnerability of the triune God to whom she witnesses, as well as in the vulnerability of human beings. On the basis of this trinitarian and anthropological vulnerability, suggestions are made regarding the nature, attitude, and public calling of the church. As witnesses and disciples of Jesus Christ, the church has a threefold presence in public life; namely, to be vulnerable prophets, priests, and royals. A vulnerable church is a faithful church, and therefore, a relevant church. Keywords vulnerability, Trinity, anthropology, ecclesiology, calling

We live in a vulnerable world.1 Human and natural existence is one of contingency, tragedy, and aporia. I come from a continent where the vulnerability of existence is expressed as perhaps on no other continent. The vulnerability and suering of Africa have a variety of faces, such as severe and chronic poverty; diseases such as HIV/aids, tuberculosis, and malaria; violation of human dignity and human rights; war and violence; dictatorship and corruption; alarming gaps between rich and poor; racism, xenophobia, sexism, and homophobia; and also ecocide. The most basic needs of millions are not met.2
1 This paper draws on two broader research projects of the author, which focused on the themes of theological anthropology and public morality, and public theology as prophetic theology. 2 For an analysis of the major challenges of Africa, see N. Koopman, Public Theology in South Africa. A Trinitarian Approach, in International Journal for Public Theology vol.1 no. 2. (Leiden/Boston: Brill), 188-209.

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2008

DOI: 10.1163/156973108X333731

N. Koopman / Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008) 240-254

241

A church that lives faithfully to her calling takes the tragic and aporetic nature of existence seriously. To be church in a vulnerable world is to be a vulnerable church. This is the case even though the membership numbers of the church might be highas in South Africa, where approximately 80% of the population belongs to the church. Vulnerability is, however, not merely the product of the vulnerable environment of the church. Vulnerability is part of the essence of the church. The vulnerability of the church is based in a theology and anthropology of vulnerability, and it is expressed in an ethic and mission of vulnerability. Vulnerability therefore means that the church is essentially vulnerable, and that she lives in solidarity with vulnerable humans and nature. This paper investigates the vulnerable nature and calling of the church, mainly with reference to the South African context. The concept vulnerability is used in a variety of ways in this article. It refers to the tragic, aporetic, contingent nature of existence in general; the various forms of suering of humans and the rest of creation; the fragility and interdependence of humans and of other creatures in all their relationships; the predisposition to pain and suering of so many humans and other creatures; the style, mode, and attitude of brokenness, empathy, softness, and humbleness; and, regarding God, it refers to his compassion with the suering world, and to the interdependence of the three persons within the Trinity.

A Vulnerable Church In this rst section, it is argued that in its essence the church is vulnerable. This vulnerability is based in the vulnerability of the triune God (1), as well as in the vulnerability of human beings (2). Church of the Vulnerable God Faith in the triune God is faith in the vulnerable God. The vulnerability of the triune God comes to clearest expression in the life of service, humility, and self-sacrice, and in the eventual death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the death and suering of Jesus Christ, we see, as Barth says, the fatherly sympathy (vaderlike medelye) of the triune God; or in the words of Moltmann, the compassion of the Father (patricompassianisme); or as Berkouwer states, the compassion (bewonheid ) and sympathy of God. In the suering of Jesus, God identies with suering humans. He shows concern, sympathy, and compassion for us. In the suering of Jesus, the compassionate heart of God,

242

N. Koopman / Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008) 240-254

which is described in passages like Isaiah 63:9; Jeremiah 31:20; Hosea 11; and Hebrews 2:16, is seen in its clearest form. The suering of Jesus Christ also reects the vulnerability of the Spirit, who can be hurt (Isaiah 63:10 and Ephesians 4:30).3 The vulnerability of God is also described in terms of the inner-trinitarian relations where the focus is not on the passion and suering of God. This position is highlighted within the context of renewed attention to the doctrine of the Trinity.4 Ralph Del Colle points out that trinitarian thinking is currently under the inuence of the three Greek church fathersthe Cappadocians (Basilius the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus)who emphasized the interdependence of the three Persons in the Trinity.5 They described the relationship between the three Persons in terms of origin whereas the Latin church fathers describe them in terms of identity. The Greek church fathers emphasized the diversity or plurality in the Trinity, and the Latin church fathers emphasized the unity. Gregory of Nyssa described the Father as the Unbegotten, the Son as the Begotten, and the Spirit as the Proceeding.

3 See J. Durand, Die Lewende God (Kaapstad: NG Kerk Uitgewers, 1976), 94-98. Berkouwer agrees with Barth and Moltmann regarding the sympathy and compassion of the Father. They both, especially Barth, help Christian theology to get rid of the idea that dominated Christian theology for so long; namely, that of an unchanging, static, and apathetic God who is not really involved in life with all its vulnerabilities. Berkouwer, however, reckons that both of them, and all other theologians that adhere to various extents to the notion of theopassianism, make God the subject of suering on the cross, and thereby nullify the work of reconciliation of Christ as mediator. Theologians such as Dorothee Slle, Kazoh Kitamori, Heribert Mhlen, and Hans Kng also oppose the idea of a deistic and apathetic God, and in dierent ways describe God as the subject of the suering of Christ. See Durand, Die lewende God, 97-98. 4 According to the North American theologian, Ralph Del Cole, Karl Barthfrom a Reformed perspectiveand Karl Rahnerfrom a Roman Catholic perspectiverevalued trinitarian thinking in the twentieth century. Barth viewed the Father as the Revealer, the Son as the Revelation, and the Spirit as the Revealedness. Rahners trinitarian thinking culminates in this axiom: The economic trinity is the immanent Trinity and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity. Thereby, he claims that Gods revelation to usi.e., economic Trinity, and his essencei.e., immanent Trinity, do not dier. See R. Del Colle, The triune God, in C. Gunton (ed), The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 135-137. The British theologian, Colin Gunton, also refers to the resurgence of trinitarian thinking in the twentieth century. In addition to the work of Barth and Rahner, he stresses the work of the Orthodox theologian, Lossky. More recent treatises represent many of the main traditions of Christendom; namely, Roman Catholic (Kasper Hill), Orthodox (Zizioulas), Lutheran (Jenson), Reformed (Moltmann), and Anglican (Brown). See C. Gunton, The One, the Three and the Many. God, Creation and the Culture of Modernity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 1. 5 See Del Colle, The Triune God, 129-132.

N. Koopman / Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008) 240-254

243

Although they emphasize this diversity within the Trinity, they also hold on to the unity. They achieve this by describing the relationship of the three Persons in terms of perichoresis. This means that there is coinherence of the Persons in each other. In everything the one Person does, the other two are involved. There is therefore interdependence among the Persons of the Trinity.6 Dutch theologian, Hans Reinders, also emphasizes the focus on interdependence within the trinity.7 Reinders pleads for a revaluation of the trinitarian views of the Cappadocians. Where the Western church fathers such as Augustine focused on the being and unity of the triune God, these Eastern theologians concentrated on the diversity and relationships of the three persons. In the last few decades a new appreciation for the last-mentioned approach to trinitarian thinking and the formulation of the doctrine of the social trinity developed. Reinders specically appreciates the views of John Zizioulas on the interdependence among Father, Son, and Spirit. Zizioulas argues that God is not caused by a divine substance, but by Himselfspecically, by the Father. There is not a divine substance that makes God God. His Name Yahweh I am what I ambears witness to this fact. Zizioulas also reasons that God has an ecstatic character.8 Ecstacis means that Gods being is determined by his radical search for communion with the other. In fact, God is communion. In Jesus Christ, who became human, we are part of this communion. In this communion God nds his true being. This choice for ecstasis, for communion with his creatures, expresses the vulnerability of God. The vulnerability of God is manifested in the relations of interdependence between Father, Son, and Spirit. It reaches its culmination point in the cross of Jesus Christ, and it comes to expression in the compassion, sympathy, concern, and solidarity of the triune God with a suering world. From this vulnerable Godwhose essence is that of vulnerability in Christ, and whose mission to the world culminates in the vulnerability of the crossthe church

Gunton also acknowledges that the concept of relation in the Trinity mainly originates in the thinking of Eastern theologians, specically the Cappadociansin particular, Basil. He does, however, argue that some Western theologians also adhered to this relational view of the Trinity. Calvin, in opposition to some Western theologians such as Jerome and Augustine, and in conjunction with Western theologians such as Tertullian and Hillary of Poitiers, shows anity to a relational view of the Trinity. See Gunton, The One, 95-96. 7 J. Reinders, Wat niets kan worden, stelt niets voor. Mensen met een ernstige verstandelijke handicap in het licht van de hedendaagse gezondheidsethiek (What Can Become Nothing Does Not Amount to Anything. People with a Serious, Intellectual Handicap in the Light of Current Health Ethics) (Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit, 1996), 30-31; 60-61. 8 See Reinders, Wat niets kan worden, 33.

244

N. Koopman / Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008) 240-254

receives her essence, identity, and mission. The vulnerable church came into being through her election, calling, justication, and sanctication by the vulnerable triune God. Church of Vulnerable Humans The church consists of vulnerable human beings. Vulnerability is part of the essence of being human. Theologians Hans Reinders and Stanley Hauerwas, and philosopher Alisdaire MacIntyre write remarkably about the vulnerability of humans. Reinders, whose research focuses on mentally disabled people, states that an adequate ethical response to disabled people can only be arrived at if the dependence of human beings is not viewed negatively.9 This requires a break from the dominant modern anthropology of rationality, autonomy, and independence. With an appeal to the ethicist Joan Tronto, he argues that the one fundamental feature of human beings should not be independence, but care. Care is the result of the acknowledgement that we can never be fully autonomous, that we need each other, and that we exist in a condition of interdependence. According to Reinders the idea of human freedom as rational autonomy and independence is an aporia, since human beings are not able to subject all conditions of their existence to their reason.10 These conditions include the contingent and nite nature of our existence, as well as the external limitation of our freedom in relation to others and the internal limitation of our freedom, which is caused by our lack of self-knowledge. Hauerwas shares this plea for the redenition of human beings in terms of interdependence and care.11 He is of the opinion that the freedom and autonomy, which enable us to decide for ourselves on questions such as when to terminate a pregnancy, prevent us from negotiating the limits (i.e., dependence) and possibilities of this existence in a just and caring fashion. The freedom to merely choose for or against contraception prevents us from discussing the question about why we ought to be open to having and caring for children at all. Reinders agrees with Kant that we cannot derive specic moral rules from the Trinity.12 He, however, reckons that the Trinity does oer a normative

Reinders, Wat niets kan worden, 16-17. Reinders, Wat niets kan worden, 32, 61. 11 S. Hauerwas, Suering Presence, Theological Reections on Medicine, the Mentally Handicapped, and the Church (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986), 13-14, 19. 12 Reinders, Wat niets kan worden, 37, 43.
10

N. Koopman / Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008) 240-254

245

framework for understanding our identity and purpose as human beings. This self-understanding helps us to understand who the disabled person is, and this knowledge of who we are and who the disabled are determines the way we fulll our ethical responsibility with regard to disabled people. True humanity is not dened by independence and rationality, but by the willingness to enter into relationships with others. In this relationship with the other, you do not discover a replica of yourself, as Aristotle taught. In the interaction with the otherin the communion, in the relationshipI nd my essence and being. I receive my being from the other. We receive our existence out of the hands of the other, and my existence is meaningful because there are others who want to share their existence with me.13 Reinders argues that we need hermeneutical skills to appropriately understand the other, especially people with disabilities, who are viewed as inferior in terms of the modernistic paradigm. These skills enable us to view the other as someone who helps to constitute my essence as person. It resists denying the uniqueness of the other, and it resists the modernistic temptation to see our task with regard to the disabled as one of determining and developing their potential for rational and independent living as the pedagogic approach to the disabled of the last decade strives to do.14 To receive my being from the other implies that I am dependent and vulnerable. Those who live so ecstatically can merely trust that this ecstatic living does not imply the loss of myself, but the true nding of myself.15 Hauerwas view of God as the God of sacrice and of weakness and sueringwho draws people to Him not by coercive power, but by sacricial lovecomes to mind. This genuine weakness lures us from our pretentious attempt to make our lives meaningful through power and violence. This weakness also entails that we acknowledge that our attempt to eliminate the suering of sick and disabled peopleinstead of being present with them, being available for them, and personally caring for themis merely a demonstration of our quest to arm our own signicance through power.16 MacIntyre builds with appreciation on the work of, among others, Reinders.17 He is of the opinion that this emphasis on vulnerability and dependence is a

Reinders, Wat niets kan worden, 34-35, 43. Reinders, Wat niets kan worden, 17, 42-43. 15 Reinders, Wat niets kan worden, 38-39. 16 Hauerwas, Suering Presence, 13. 17 A MacIntyre, Dependent Rational Animals. Why Human Beings Need the Virtues (London: Duckworth, 1999), 3.
14

13

246

N. Koopman / Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008) 240-254

highly neglected theme in Western moral philosophy.18 MacIntyre states that when there is reference to disabled people in the pages of moral philosophy books, they are sketched as subjects of benevolence while so-called normal people are portrayed as continuously rational, healthy, and untroubled.19 MacIntyre argues that there is no human being who does not experience vulnerability and dependence in his or her life. He articulates this inclusive understanding of dependence as follows: This dependence on particular others for protection and sustenance is most obvious in early childhood and in old age. But between these rst and last stages our lives are characteristically marked by longer or shorter periods of injury, illness or other disablement and some among us are disabled for their entire lives.20 The church serves a vulnerable God. The church consists of vulnerable humans. The vocation, mission, ethics, and public theology of such a church is determined by the notion of vulnerability.

The Public Calling of the Vulnerable Church The public task of the vulnerable church entails special identication with the most vulnerable ones in society (3). This identication determines the agenda of the church. The mode in which the church fullls her public responsibility is one of vulnerability (4). The Church and the Priority of the Most Vulnerable In a certain sense, all humans are vulnerable. It is, however, also true that in specic situations some are more vulnerable than others. These most vulnerable ones need the special attention of the church. The Belhar Confession 1986 states in article 3 that we are called to stand where God stands; namely, in a special way with the vulnerable, i.e., the poor, the destitute, and the wronged.

18 From Plato to Moore and since there are usually, with some rare exceptions, only passing references to human vulnerability and aiction and to the connections between them and our dependence on others . . . Dependence on others is of course often recognized in a general way, usually as something that we need in order to achieve our positive goals. But an acknowledgement of anything like the full extent of that dependence and of the ways it stems from our vulnerability and our aictions is generally absent. See Macintyre, Dependent Rational Animals, 3. 19 MacIntyre, Dependent Rational Animals, 2. 20 MacIntyre, Dependent rational animals, 1.

N. Koopman / Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008) 240-254

247

The idea that God is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor, and the wronged is a controversial formulation.21 The South African theologian, Dirkie Smit, argues that the formulation that God is, in a situation of injustice, in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor, and the wronged, and the Help of the helpless rests on a solid biblical foundation.22 Smit cites the following, central, biblical evidence in support of his stance: the Old Testament laws, such as the laws about the Sabbath, the Jubilee, tithes, and usury; narratives about Gods continual rescuing of individuals and the people of Israel from danger and misery; the various ways in which the rights of the orphan, the widow, and the stranger are protected; the doxological description of God as the Help of the helpless in the book of Psalms; the protection of the poor in the wisdom literature; the portrayal of Gods justice as his active intervention to rescue and to restore; the prophetic criticism of social injustice, exploitation, and the gap between rich and poor; the role of the poor and of poverty in the gospels, especially the gospel of Luke, which is also called the gospel of the poor; Jesus identication with the marginalized; the Messianic meaning of the miracles of Jesus, among others the multiplication of the bread and sh and healings; the remarkable teaching of Matthew 25:31-46 that compassion shown to the needy is compassion shown to Jesus Himself; the pursuit of sharing and equality in the congregation according to Acts, 1 Corinthians, and the pastoral letters; the role of wealth and poverty in James; and the urgent appeal of 1 John for concrete deeds of love and compassion.

21 One of the members of the ad hoc synodical committee that were tasked by the 1982 meeting of the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Mission Church to present Synod with a draft confession, which later became the Draft Confession of Belhar and four years later the Confession of Belhar 1986, Dirkie Smit, in an article about Barths views on the conviction that God is in a special way the God of the poor, outlines the reasons for this controversy: To some, the Bible and the Christian tradition has simply never taught this option for the poor. To some, this claim fundamentally contradicts their understanding of the obvious universality of Gods love and actions according to the Bible, especially the New Testament. To some, the idea of partiality is alien to their own moral convictions and not applicable to God. To some, it suggests a parallel of the very idea they are rejecting in Afrikaner civil religion, namely, the particularistic claim to be an uitverkore volk, an elected nation. To some, it sounds like nothing more than a crude theological restatement of Marxism and class-struggle theory. To others . . . it may become a mere ideological weapon . . . See D. Smit, Paradigms of Radical Grace, in C. Villa-Vicencio (ed.) On Reading Karl Barth in South Africa (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 17. 22 D. Smit, . . . op n besondere wyse die God van die noodlydende, die arme en die veronregte . . . (. . . in a special way the God of the destitute, poor and wronged . . .), in G.D. Cloete and D.J. Smit (eds.) n Oomblik van Waarheid (A moment of truth) (Kaapstad:Tafelberg Uitgewers, 1982), 61-62.

248

N. Koopman / Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008) 240-254

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the theme of Gods special identication with suering people runs like a golden thread through scripture. This theme is not being referred to coincidentally. It cannot be ignored. Neither can it be countered with other evidence from scripture. This vast biblical evidence shows that this theme has to do with the heart of the Christian faith. The renowned South African theologian, the late David Bosch, shows how this theme was accentuated within various periods in the history of the church.23 The early church preserved the ethos of this theological position. He is of the opinion that when the church became richer and more privileged after Constantine it started to neglect this theme, and it treated the poor and powerless condescendingly. However, in this situation there were powerful voices such as that of the monastic movement that continued proclaiming and practicing this position. He cites Basil the Great as a champion for the poor in the Constantine period. During and after the Reformation and into the twentieth century, various branches of the Christian church accentuated this theme. Examples are the Methodist movement, the Quakers, the Social Gospel Movement, and since the 1960s various proponents of liberation theology. This confession of Gods special identication with the marginalized received specic attention in the Reformed tradition. The South African Reformed theologian, John de Gruchy, explains how this notion was prominent at the birth of the Reformed tradition.24 De Gruchy argues that this was the case because many of the earliest Reformed theologians and pastors, as well as congregations, were persecuted, and much Reformed theology was conceived in exile, poverty, amidst adversity, and in the struggle against social and ecclesiastical tyranny. He cites the famous address of John Calvin to King Francis I of France, in which he describes his fellow refugees as the oscouring and refuse of the world. De Gruchys explanation about how this notion inuenced the Reformation is worth quoting.

D. Bosch, Transforming Mission. Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (New York: Orbis Books, 1991), 436. 24 J. De Gruchy, Towards a Reformed Theology of Liberation? Can we retrieve the Reformed symbols in the struggle for justice?, in W.A. Boesak, and P.J.A. Fourie, Vraagtekens oor Gereformeerdheid (Belhar: LUS Uitgewers, 1998), 75-76; See also J. De Gruchy, Liberating Reformed Theology: A South African Contribution to an Ecumenical Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991).

23

N. Koopman / Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008) 240-254

249

The original impulse which led to the Reformation and to Calvins interpretation of it, was a rejection of human tyranny of all kinds and the proclamation of the liberating power of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It was this which rst led to Calvins break with Rome, and it was this that motivated his attempt to create a new, just and equitable (if not egalitarian) society. Likewise, this has been the motivation of all those prophetic Calvinists who have taken the side of the oppressed, whether in the past or in the present.25

According to De Gruchy, this theologizing from the perspective of the destitute faded as Reformed Christians became part of the middle and upper classes where the dominant political power also resided. It regained prominence in Reformed theology as a result of the challenge posed by liberation theology about Gods preferential option for the poor. De Gruchy states that liberation theology did not challenge Reformed theology to develop a commitment to the public square because, since its inception, Reformed theology takes the public square seriously.26 According to him, Reformed theology is essentially a public theology. De Gruchy reckons that liberation theologys real challenge to Reformed theology, however, was to rediscover and to revalue the notion that was so central at the birth of Reformed theology; namely, to express its commitment to the public square from the perspective and in the interest of the victims of oppressive power. The emphasis of liberation theology on this notion not only entailed that the interest of the marginalized should be viewed as a matter of social ethics, but that it be viewed as a theological question. How we respond to the destitute in society has to do with how we respond to God.27 In his book, which is recognized by many as the most important word on liberation theology, the Peruvian liberation theologian, Gustavo Gutirrez, echoes this position.28 He argues that we encounter, know, and love God in the encounter with, knowledge, and love of the poor. This love is expressed in the quest for justice for the poor. The applicability at this point of one of the central passages in scripturenamely, Jesus parable in Matthew 25:31-46 about the recognition of Jesus in the suering and destituteis quite clear. De Gruchys statement is therefore supported that article three of The Belhar Confession, which links

De Gruchy, Towards a Reformed Theology of Liberation?, 78. De Gruchy, Towards a Reformed Theology of Liberation?, 76. 27 See E. Castro, Freedom in mission: The perspective of the kingdom of God (Geneva: WCC, 1985), 32. 28 G. Gutirrez, A Theology of Liberation. History, Politics, and Salvation (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1971/1988 repr.), 110-116.
26

25

250

N. Koopman / Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008) 240-254

justice to God and to theology in the narrow sense of the doctrine of God, is a positive Reformed response to this challenge.29 A word about who the destitute, poor, and wronged are is appropriate before we conclude this section. Boschs understanding of the poor in the Bible sheds light on this question. Bosch observes that when Luke identies those who suer in various ways, he always put the poor at either the head (4:18; 6:20; 14:13; 14:21) or end (7:22) of the list.30 The poor, therefore, seems to be an all-embracing category for those who are in various ways the victims of societyfor those who lack every active or even passive participation in society. This marginality comprises all spheres of life, and it makes people feel helpless. The poor, therefore, refers in the rst instance to the materially poor, but also to other forms of misery. In fact, all who experience misery, according to Bosch, are in some very real sense the poor.31 To be church is to stand where God standsi.e., in a special way, by way of priority, and primarily with the most vulnerable. This principle constitutes the parameters for the ethics of the vulnerable church. The moral status of our customs, traditions, policies, and practices in all walks of life is determined by the question: how do they impact the most vulnerable ones in specic, concrete situations? The Vulnerable Church and Her Threefold Public Calling The mode in which the vulnerable church fullls her calling, participates in Gods mission in the world, and does Christian ethics and public theology is that of vulnerability, humility, and servanthood. The public role of the church

De Gruchy, Towards a Reformed Theology of Liberation?, 81. Prominent Reformed thinkers arm the centrality of the involvement of God in the world and of his special identication with the destitute. The Reformed theologian, John Leith, states clearly that for Reformed Christians the world, the society, and the political, social, and economic realities we live in are all matters of faith. The central theme of Calvinist theology is the conviction that every human being has every moment to do with the living Godbe it in the political, social, or economic spheres of life. See J. Leith, Introduction to the Reformed tradition (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981). Lehmann states that in Reformed theology God is called the Great Politician. See his Ethics in a Christian context (New York: Harper & Row, 1963). And according to Meeks, he is called the Supreme Economist. See his God the Economist. The Doctrine of God and Political Economy (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989). 30 Bosch, Transforming Mission, 99, 436-437. 31 Bosch pleads that the secondary use of poverty to refer to all forms of misery not be abused to neglect the primary meaning of poverty as concrete and visible material poverty. See Bosch, Transforming Mission, 99.

29

N. Koopman / Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008) 240-254

251

is described in terms of its priestly, prophetic, and royal tasks. As disciples of Jesus Christthe prophet, priest, and kingthe church witness to Him in word and deed, teaching, and concrete action. Like their master, churches fulll prophetic, priestly, and royal servant roles in the world. Vulnerable Prophets. In a very helpful analysis, James Gustafson identies various ways in which the Department of Church and Society of the World Council of Churches had fullled its public role.32 He refers to the prophetic, narrative, technical, and policy discourses of the church. In a slight adjustment of his typology, I propose that these moral discourses should all be accommodated under the prophetic task of the church. This would imply a broader understanding of the prophetic task of the church. This task is about spelling out a luring, inviting vision of a good society; and it is about oering courageous criticism where the status quo does not adhere to that vision. But it is also about telling the narratives of suering and despair, and of victory and hope. Prophetic speaking is also about analyzing situations technically, philosophically, and in an interdisciplinary way, and then suggesting solutions on basis of such thorough analysis. Last, prophetic speaking is about participating in policy discourses in society, where decisions have to be taken within the space of political limitations. South African theologian, Bernard Lategan, oers useful guidelines for fullling the prophetic role in the mode of vulnerability.33 According to Lategan, constructive public theological discourse reects the following characteristics: non-prescriptiveness, inclusiveness, interactive participation, serving mode, constructiveness, anonimosity (i.e., use secular, camouaged language that is accessible to all), and hermeneutical competence (i.e., familiarity with dierent discourses and the ability to move between these discourses, and to mediate and interpret the issues as they are expressed and experienced in dierent contexts). Vulnerable Priests. North American theologian Rebecca Chopp identies four modes of public theological discourse. These modes oer suggestions regarding the way the church can fulll her priestly role in society. With an appeal to both black theology and feminist theology, she identies the following four
32 J. Gustafson, Varieties of Moral Discourse: Prophetic, Narrative, Ethical, and Policy (Stob lectures of Calvin College and Seminary, Grand Rapids, 1988). 33 B. Lategan, Taking the Third Public Seriously, in J. De Gruchy and S. Martin, Religion and the Reconstruction of Civil Society (Pretoria: UNISA, 1994), 227-228.

252

N. Koopman / Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008) 240-254

modes. The use of prognosis of empathyi.e., the ability to identify with and understand someone dierent than oneself, especially when listening to their stories and testimoniesfosters the cultivation of compassion within the public space.34 Second, solidarity in praxis, which implies the forming of a network of interrelations among multiple and contending discourses. People who understand dierences learn to live together in their dierences. Together they enact transformation and redeem suering.35 Third, transcendence as possibility and praxis, which implies the creation of a public space in which compassion is cultivated as hope; in which slavery, classism, and the denial of the dignity of women have no place; and in which history is transgured and justice is enacted.36 Her fourth mode entails that the testimonies of the marginalized deserve priority. But, perhaps, drawn in an even tighter circle, forming the heart or the reshaped center of the ethical imaginary, is the ethical responsibility of testimony to the memory and the presence of the dead and those who suer. The circle of the suering, the oppressed, the dead, . . . summons us to see them, to hear them, to remember them, and in compassion, to rewrite and relive the narrative toward a future and a present of justice.37 Chopps modes illuminate the priestly calling of churches to participate in Gods work of overcoming alienations and injustices such as racism and xenophobia, classism and sexism, handicappism and ageism, and ecocide and global disaster. Vulnerable Royals. To fulll our royal task in society implies that we live with hope that is based in the resurrection of the crucied Christ who is also the resurrected Lord. The vulnerable church therefore speaks and acts with condence in the public domaina condence that is based in the victory of the vulnerable and crucied Lord Jesus Christ. In this regard, the views of Leander Keck should be seriously attended to. He reckons that the attempts in mainline churches, especially since Schleiermacher, to make the gospel presentable to modern societies has had two negative consequences. On the one hand, by making the substance of the faith continually more palatable to the increasingly secular mind, the hearty gumbo of the Christian faith has been thinned so often that there is little nourishment left. On the other hand,
34 R. Chopp, Reimagining Public Discourse, in Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 103, 1999, p. 44-45. 35 Chopp, Reimagining, 46. 36 Chopp, Reimagining, 46-47. 37 Chopp, Reimagining, 48.

N. Koopman / Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008) 240-254

253

by concentrating on how one can be a Christian and a modern person at the same time something vital has been lost: the conviction that one ought to be a Christian. Unless the mainline recovers its condence in the gospel enough to commend it heartily, the future of these churches will be bleak indeed.38 One can even echo this plea for condent speaking and acting in addressing complicated public issues such as the impact of global capitalism, HIV/aids, racism, etc. To fulll our royal task in a vulnerable manner also entails that we protect especially the most vulnerable ones by being advocates of human rights, rights that resist the violation of dignity, and that help dignity to ourish by championing for values like equality, freedom, justice, and equity. Moreover, Christians strive for more than what human rights askamong others, solidarity, love, and self-sacrice. And this interconnectedness of vulnerability and human rights makes it clear that vulnerability discourses do not advocate passivity and apathy amid oppression. It does not romanticize suering. To be royal servants entail that churches proclaim the message of hope and victory in Jesus Christ. This hope is witnessed to in the resilience of people in so-called hopeless situations. It is witnessed to in the strength of people to persevere against all odds. This hope in action is a crucial dimension of the royal task of the vulnerable church. It clearly demonstrates that the vulnerability of the church, humans, and the triune God is not a surrender to the threatening powers of the world, but a victory in the midst of seeming defeats, light amidst darkness, and joy in the midst of sorrow. The royal church awaits the dawning of the day when the reality of victory in Christ will be fully actualized, operationalized, and fullled.

Conclusion In various works Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon reected on the role of the church in modern/postmodern societies.39 In one of these, they plead that we do not become anxious to grow in numbers and to be relevant in society, but that we rather enquire about what it means to be faithful to the triune God. A faithful church will prove to be a relevant church.
L. Keck, The Church Condent. Christianity Can Repent, but It Must Not Whimper (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993), 116. 39 S. Hauerwas and W. Willimon, Resident Aliens. Life in the Christian Colony. A Provocative Christian Assessment of Culture and Ministry for People Who Know That Something Is Wrong (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989).
38

254

N. Koopman / Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008) 240-254

Faithfulness to God implies that we recognize our vulnerable essence as churcha vulnerability that is based in the vulnerability of the God whom we worship, and in the vulnerability of the people that he has created. Faithfulness implies that we give priority to the most vulnerable ones. It also means that we fulll our calling in all walks of life in the mode of vulnerability. Exactly where we embark on the journey of vulnerability, which is the only faithful journey for the church, the journey of dependence upon Godof living only from the actions and promises of Godwe may in surprising ways experience the victory of the resurrected Lord who is also the vulnerable crucied Lord.