Book Review: Lohfink, Gerhard., trans John Galvin, Jesus and Community (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982)

Gerhard Lohfink has been Ordinarius Professor for the New Testament on the Catholic Theological Faculty at the University of Tubingen since 1976.

In the preface to his book, Lohfink asks what he calls “the ultimately decisive question of what the church should look like today.”  And in his introduction, he first answers this question in the negative by criticizing Adolf von Harnack’s conception of Christianity as ”the rule of a holy God in individual hearts.”  Rather Lohfink’s central thesis is that Christianity, that is the Church, should be a concrete expression of the beginning of God’s reign in a gathered people.   And as the title of his book suggests, Lohfink is essentially concerned with establishing the communal nature of the Church. 

Lohfink’s first concern in supporting his thesis is to ground the Church’s essential nature in what Jesus preached about the Kingdom of God.  In the book’s first section titled, “Jesus and Israel,” Lohfink makes the case that in preaching about the Kingdom of God, Jesus was, in effect, gathering
Israel anew to be the eschatological community, which the prophets described.  Jesus’ calling of 12 disciples, then, symbolizes his calling to all 12 tribes of
Israel.  Also, by making connections between Isaiah’s vision of healing in 33:24 and 30:26 and the gospel miracles, for instance,  Lohfink calls Jesus’ healing work signs of God’s reign in the eschatological age. 

  In the next section, titled, “Jesus and His Disciples,” Lohfink describes another sign of God’s reign—the ethical nature of the community that Jesus is calling
Israel to be.  Because this reign implies that God is the only one who is dominant, society’s power structures are undermined and, therefore, there is no longer violence under God’s reign.  What’s more, Lohfink envisions the possibility of meeting the ethical standards laid out in the Sermon on the Mount.  Although, he admits to the difficulty of the demands, Lohfink contends that part of what makes Jesus’ words so difficult is that so often they are read individualistically.  Instead, Lohfink offers that Jesus’ words were never meant for individuals alone, but only in community can there be any possibility of heeding those words.  Finally, although Lohfink repeatedly described Jesus’ mission as intended for Israel alone, he points out the universal aspect of Jesus’ message by referring to the Old Testament conception of
Israel’s posture to the rest of the world as “a light to the nations.”  That is, in calling Israel, Jesus is ultimately calling all nations because in the eschaton all nations will be drawn to this renewed
Israel. 

  In his third section titled, “The New Testament Communities in the Discipleship of Jesus,” Lohfink shifts his view from Jesus’ message about the coming kingdom to Paul’s work in bringing the gospel to the Gentiles and in establishing the first churches.  He takes care, however, to establish the continuum between Jesus’ message and Paul’s.  The salvation of Israel is as much of as a concern for Paul as it is for Jesus, but Paul needs to rework the gospel message in light of Christ’s atoning death and in light of
Israel’s stubbornness.   Whereas the Old Testament depicts Israel’s light attracting the nations, Paul describes in Rom 9-11 how Israel will finally turn towards Jesus Christ when it can finally see the true light of Christ shining in the Gentiles.  In this section, Lohfink also describes the unique position of the Church living in the age of the Spirit.  This is the age described by Joel where all  Israel will prophesize no matter any social distinctions.  Lohfink, then, discusses how Paul’s theological claim that there is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female plays out in his letters.  Finally, Lohfink describes the ethical nature of the church envisioned in the New Testament letters—it is to be a “contrast society.”

In the last section of the book, “The Ancient Church in the Discipleship of Jesus,” Lohfink describes how the early church strived to be this “contrast society.” It was a time when the presumption against violence was still integral to the gospel message, and when profound generosity was considered an essential part of Christian practice. 

In summation, by tracing the connection between the biblical conception of Israel and that of the Church, Lohfink can draw out the essential communal nature of the Church, and hence, Christianity.  And he can begin to describe what this community should look like as a “contrast society.” 

 Lohfink’s book seems to me to be an excellent critique of certain shifts that have taken place in the Church since its early history.  In his Postscript, Lohfink identifies the beginning of this shift in Augustine’s City of God.  Here he is talking about the regrettable road that the Church has walked in throwing in its lot with political players and makers of war.  I drew much spiritual comfort from reading his summary of the Church Father’s views of war, actually…that there was once a time when the boundary between the Church’s message of peace and societies’ messages were crisp and clear.  I also appreciated his assessment of how the Church has, in the recent past, encouraged an individualistic, inner appropriation of the gospel message.  Lohfink’s discussion of neighborly love was trenchant.  If Christianity is about loving everyone in this sort of universal, unexamined way, then it can become watered down into not really loving anybody.  We become caught up in the Christian ideal of loving our enemies, which just seems too hard, that we don’t focus our attention on really loving those with whom we go to church.  And his insistence that if Christianity is to begin the work of reconciliation in the world, then the Church should begin at home before taking her message to the streets seems worth considering.  Although, I wonder about the balance that Christians would have to walk between attending to the needs of those within, while still recognizing its ultimate mission to be in service to those without.  It seems that there’s plenty of naval gazing that goes on in evangelical churches without effecting the kind of changes Lohfink envisions.  Overall, I really appreciated Lohfink’s vision of the church, although his vision boarded on being naively idealistic at points.  His discussion of the reality of sin in the church was a concession, but he didn’t really grapple with how sinners, though redeemed, can effectively be the light he envisions.