{"id":46689,"date":"2026-09-02T06:34:00","date_gmt":"2026-09-02T04:34:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kernbeisser.ch\/theology-and-faith-are-different\/"},"modified":"2026-09-04T12:30:56","modified_gmt":"2026-09-04T10:30:56","slug":"theology-and-faith-are-different","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kernbeisser.ch\/en\/theology-and-faith-are-different\/","title":{"rendered":"Theology and faith are different"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row][vc_column width=”1\/1″][vc_column_text text_lead=”yes” uncode_shortcode_id=”908615″]Quite a few people look up to theologians with awe. In doing so, they reinforce a system that thrives on division and in which people are assigned specific roles. There are the \u201cprofessionals\u201d and the \u201claity.\u201d This structure and division were once introduced for good reason. Perhaps, however, this structure was once more valuable than it is today and needs to be reoriented.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”199996″]Theologians don\u2019t have to believe. Believers don\u2019t have to practice theology. What seems obvious to me isn\u2019t obvious everywhere. There are believers who think theologians are better believers. Quite a few theologians or Bible teachers believe they hold a special position that sets them above other believers. Of course, this does not apply to everyone, but some embrace their role with dedication and have developed a sense of identity that is more closely tied to this role and position than to their beliefs. This can become problematic.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”156068″]<\/p>\n

The Professionalization of Faith<\/h3>\n

Faith can only be personal. Faith has absolutely nothing to do with a profession. There were times when the profession of \u201cpastor\u201d was promoted as if it were financially attractive. Anyone who wanted to make money was supposed to become a pastor. I also saw pastors who would have liked the security of a steady income, a 13th-month bonus, and fixed vacation times. Just a job, really. That\u2019s neither good nor bad, but it reflects a certain mindset and\u2014as I realized\u2014also a certain set of expectations. <\/p>\n

Whatever the reasons may have been for establishing this, there are several grounds for asking critical questions. And let me say right off the bat: this structure has nothing to do with faith. That doesn\u2019t mean that a structure or institutionalization is wrong. Every gathering will, over time, become organized and institutionalized. That\u2019s how things work in this world. One can view the structure as a neutral foundation for community. It becomes problematic when this structure takes on a life of its own. Then it becomes the church or the institution of the Free Church, which stands for certain positions, where expectations apply, and the functions of the institution are given high priority. <\/p>\n

Institutionalization and everything associated with it are always a source of tension\u2014if one follows the biblical narrative. Paul says, for example, regarding the composition of the church: <\/p>\n

\u201cJust look at your calling, brothers: there are not many who are wise by human standards, not many who are powerful, not many who are of noble birth; but God has chosen what is foolish in the world to put the wise to shame, and God has chosen what is weak in the world to put the strong to shame. God has chosen the lowly things of the world and the things it despises\u2014yes, the things that are nothing\u2014to nullify the things that are something, so that no flesh may boast before God.\u201d<\/em>
\n1 Cor. 1:26\u201329<\/p>\n

Such statements do not condemn wisdom, wealth, high positions, or strength. There is no advantage to being weak in this world. On the contrary: It is advantageous to have plenty of money, to attain a certain status, and to build on that. <\/p>\n

What this is about: It simply highlights a contrast. In the church, in contrast to the \u201cworld,\u201d things work differently. This is not a rejection of wealth and power. Both are still recognized. However, in the church, neither has the same significance that they have in our society. In the church, some things work differently than in the \u201cworld\u201d outside the community. That is why there is a contrast, which Paul points out here. However, this is not a rejection of wisdom, wealth, and other things, nor is it a rejection of institutions. After all, today\u2019s structure serves a purpose. This does not mean the structure is sacrosanct; rather, it served a specific goal. Is this still relevant today, and in what way? <\/p>\n

Here are a few examples: Paul, for instance, 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 and had also acquired wisdom. Furthermore, he came from a distinguished Jewish lineage. He recognized that his lineage and education could bring him many advantages, but he consciously set all of that aside in light of his faith and trust (Phil 3:3\u201321). Likewise, Abram (later Abraham) was very wealthy (Gen 13:2). Wealth did not prevent him from becoming the \u201cfather of all who believe\u201d (Rom 4:16)\u2014that is, of both the circumcised and the uncircumcised. Abraham was not even a Jew or a Christian. His significance did not come from his ancestry, but from what he did. <\/p>\n

What I\u2019m getting at is this: The professionalization of faith has its advantages, but they do not lie in wealth and power. Those who focus on these things are merely building an institution and pursuing their own goals, not the congregation. What I\u2019m further getting at is this: Today\u2019s professionalization and the distinction between \u201cpreachers and laypeople\u201d rely on a large, paying lower class from which the upper class profits. We are seeing with our own eyes how the churches are crumbling and that this system has no future. The question, therefore, is how we should move forward.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”147877″]<\/p>\n

Church 2.0<\/h3>\n

This question is not new, and it is not the first time it has been asked on this website. We are in the midst of a period of upheaval. Reflecting on this is important to me and to many others because faith can only truly flourish within a community. We learn from and believe in one another, together\u2014and quite often, for one another as well. <\/p>\n

In this article, I\u2019d like to focus on the religious communities of the future and how theology can play a supportive and formative role within them. I\u2019d like to encourage reflection on this topic. The increasing professionalization of faith has created a situation that will likely soon become untenable in the Western world. It is no longer sustainable in terms of content (as evidenced by the exodus from the Church), and it will likely soon be unsustainable financially as well (as is widely recognized and is already the case in many places). In my view, anyone who tries to revive the old structures has already lost. <\/p>\n

The \u201cold\u201d model of the church seems to be a thing of the past. I have previously referred to this model elsewhere as \u201cChurch 1.0.\u201d I have no doubt that people will continue to have faith and want to learn from the Bible. However, the structure that supports this is changing. We are moving toward a new situation that we can call \u201cChurch 2.0.\u201d Different relationships and interdependencies apply to this new structure. <\/p>\n

I suspect that the current distinction between professionals and laypeople will have to be based on a different foundation. Perhaps it will be less hierarchical; perhaps there will also need to be different funding models; and\u2014as in the old days\u2014the professionals in the religious community will also pursue ordinary jobs to earn a living. <\/p>\n

With the Church 1.0 structure, the following will happen:<\/p>\n