Theologians do not have to believe. Believers do not have to do theology. What I take for granted is not so everywhere. There are believers who think theologians are the better believers. Quite a few theologians think they are in a certain position above the rest of the faithful. Of course, this is not true for all people, but some live their role with dedication and have built a self-image that is linked to that role. This can become problematic.

Professionalization of faith

Faith can only be personal. Faith has nothing to do with a profession. There were times when the profession of “pastor” was advertised as being financially attractive. If you wanted to earn money, you should become a pastor. In some countries, such as Switzerland, this may still be true here and there. This fortunate circumstance is defended with a reference to similar training and what one earns there. I get that.

However, money and faith are also always in a field of tension – if one follows the biblical narrative. Paul says about the composition of the church:

“Look at your calling, brothers; there are not many wise men according to the flesh, not many mighty men, not many noble men; but the foolish things of the world God chooses, that He may put to shame the wise; and the weak things of the world God chooses, that He may put to shame the things which are strong. The lowly of the world and that which it spurns God chooses, even that which is of no account with it, to dismiss that which is of account with it, that no flesh at all may boast in the sight of God.”
1Cor 1,26-29

With such statements, neither wisdom nor wealth, neither high positions nor strength are frowned upon. It is not an advantage to be weak in this world. On the contrary, it is advantageous to have plenty of money, achieve a certain status and build on it.

In context, it’s about highlighting a contrast. In the community, as a contrast to the “world,” things are different. This is not a rejection of wealth and power. Both remain recognized. However, neither has the importance in the community as it has in our society. In the community, some things work differently than in the “world” outside the community. Therefore, Paul is referring to a contrast. It is not a rejection of wisdom, wealth and other things.

Some examples: Paul, for example, was a trained rabbi, taught by Gamaliel (Acts 5:34; Acts 22:3), the grandson of the famous Hillel the Elder. He was a theologian, had also acquired wisdom. Moreover, he was of the best Jewish descent. He realized that his lineage and education could bring him many advantages, but he deliberately blocked all that out in the light of his faith and trust (Phil 3:3-21). Likewise, Abram (later: Abraham) was very wealthy (Gen 13:2). Wealth did not prevent Him from becoming the “Father of all believers” (Rom 4:16), namely, both the circumcised and the uncircumcised. Abraham was not even a Jew or a Christian. His importance came not from his lineage, but from what he did.

What I am getting at is that the professionalization of faith has benefits, but they are not in wealth and power. Those who focus on this are merely building an institution and their own goals, not the community. What I want to get at is that the professionalization of today and the difference between “preachers and laymen” causes a large paying lower class, from which the upper class profits. We see before our eyes how the churches are crumbling apart and how this system has no future. The question, therefore, is how to proceed.

Church 2.0

This question is not new and is not being asked for the first time on this website. We are in the middle of a period of upheaval. Thinking about this is important to me and to many others, because faith can only develop richly in community. We learn and believe in each other, with each other, and not infrequently for each other.

In this paper, I am concerned with faith communities of the future and how theology can be present in them in a supportive and formative way. I would like to encourage you to think about this. The professionalization of faith to date has created a situation that will probably soon be barely tolerable in the Western world. In terms of content, it is no longer sustainable (as the departures from the church confirm), and financially it will probably soon be unsustainable as well (as is widely recognized and is already true in many places). In my opinion, anyone who tries to revive the old structures has already lost.

The “old” form of the church seems to be a discontinued model. I have already referred to the previous form as “Church 1.0”. I have no doubt that people will continue to believe and continue to want to learn from the Bible. However, the structure for this is changing. We are on the way to a new situation, which we can call “Church 2.0”. Different relationships and dependencies apply to this new structure.

I suspect the present division into preachers and laity will have to be given a different basis. Perhaps it will be less hierarchical, perhaps there will have to be other financing models and – as in the old days – the professionals in the faith community will additionally pursue quite normal professions for their own livelihood.

Here’s what will happen with the Church 1.0 structure:

• People will continue to leave (customers run away)
• Money will become less (with consequences for services, communities and tasks)
• Municipalities will have to merge due to financial hardship
• Pastors and preachers will have to serve larger congregations
• Pastors and preachers will often have to preach several times on Sunday, in different places
• The pressure to perform for professionals is getting higher
• The service for laymen is reduced
• Community building will become more difficult

All in all, this is not a solution in the long term. This development is nothing other than what happens in the economy every day. These are mechanisms that arise from the compulsion of financial dependencies. A church 2.0 must be able to free itself from these financial dependencies and old patterns of thinking in order to be able to think of new forms.

Before you can grasp and understand new things, you often have to let go of old ones. If you are active in a church or free community today, you can try this as a thought experiment. Like this: Imagine that there are only believers in the community, no theologians, and neither salaries have to be paid nor other things have to be financed. The only thing that counts is the common faith, the common trust in God and the desire to develop a new community from it.

What can this look like? One recognizes that the Bible has a function, that one is all called by Christ, and this logically seeks an expression in life. What does that mean? You can next ask yourself what gifts and vision you have and what it takes for the community. You can brainstorm together about these things so that you can develop the community’s very own ideas. It helps to formulate such ideas so that a new picture gradually emerges.

Maybe it indicates that it is not so simple to think new ideas. The pull of old thoughts will be high. How can we avoid a relapse into Church 1.0 and what resources are needed for bold further development?

Faith and theology

Today, the term “theology” is largely equated with a profession of theologians. They do an important and often appreciated job, for which they are also princely remunerated here and there. In view of current developments, this profession will not be able to continue to exist in the same way. When funding breaks away, the fabric falls apart. Suddenly, other skills are in demand, a different type of person is required who is willing to invest in the community and, for example, also earn part of his or her own living.

Theology as an education that teaches people to deal with questions of life and faith in a differentiated way remains important, of course. However, the profession of “theologian” is likely to change. Maybe it needs to become something more of a vocation than a profession. Already today there are more and more theologians working outside the institutional churches. Under the term “public theology,” a growing group of theologians is working directly in society. They no longer have to belong to a church, nor are they on a church or free church payroll anywhere.

The same requirements apply to the previous “laymen”. Gone are the days where you can only consume, where you cherry-pick for yourself and see the community only as the task of the church and the professionals (the “others”). Gone are the days of “playing church”. Crucial will be the ability to “live church actively and responsibly with others” and to consider what that can look like.

Some people can only imagine “faith community” in a “real” church building. They are attached to rituals and previous structures. But what happens when these buildings and structures can no longer be maintained because there is no money for them? What then? How then do you want to shape your faith?

Faith is not the same as theology. The Church exists not because of theology, not because of theologians, but because of believing and seeking and asking people. A church is primarily a community of believing people. Faith can hopefully be lived and shared by all. Theology is practiced by only a few. Theologians have a job to do for the community. How exactly that happens may be the subject of an honest debate.

• How is the change of the church to be understood (positively)?
• What consequences does this have for previous structures?
• What can a faith community of the future look like?
• What task can theologians have in the future?
• What are the implications of these changes for believers and theologians?
• What is the goal of a faith community?

Questions about questions! One should set corner points, move forward questioningly. Being a Christian, for example, can only be linked to Christ. If this reference is missing, it is no longer being a Christian. The understanding of who Christ is can logically be fed only from the Bible, or one settles for an entirely different definition. Here, too, one should set the cornerstones consciously. The self-evidence of the references, the interpretation and the resulting belief systems will probably be questioned again and again in the future. New faith communities (Church 2.0) will develop from other paradigms. What are they and how can we think, design and shape them together?

The difference between theology and faith is significant. They may belong together. How these terms are shaped in times of upheaval and in light of a new kind of faith community is a task we can only think about in the here and now.