Introduction
Richard BauckhamInpublicationsspanningfiftyyears,JürgenMoltmannhaspursuedwhathecalls anadventureintheologicaldiscovery.Itallbeganinprisoner-of-warcamps inthelate1940s.AsayoungGermansoldierfacedwiththenewlyrevealed horrorsoftheNaziregime,hefoundGodinthegiftofunexpectedhope andinthecompanionshipoftheChristwhosufferswithus.Overtheyears hehaswrittenfrequentlyofthisdeepexperientialrootofhistheology,but when,inthe1960s,hisfirstmajorbook, Theology of Hope,becameatheological phenomenon(evenonthefrontpageofthe New York Times),whatdrew somuchattentionwasthewayitseemedtochimewiththemoodofthat remarkabledecade.InwesternEuropeandNorthAmerica,itwasatimewhen unlimitedpossibilitiesofradicalchangeforthebetterseemedwithinreach.But Christianchurchesfocusedonindividualsalvationbeyondthisworldlacked thetheologicalresourcesforpositiveengagementwiththesecularhopesofthe time.Moltmann’sworksoughttorestorethefulldimensionsofChristianhope. SweepingasidetheaversiontofutureeschatologyintheGermantheological tradition,Moltmannshowedhowthebiblicalhistoryofpromiseprojectsa newfutureforthisworldanditshistory.WithinthehorizonofGod’scoming renewalofGod’swholecreationtherewasplentyofroomforproximatehopes ofsocialandpoliticaltransformation,awakenedandsustainedbyultimatehope. Thiswasaprogrammaticreorientationoftheologythat,inasinglemove, turnedthechurchtowardboththefutureandtheworld.Ofcourse,itwasfar fromtheonlywayinwhichChristiansworldwidewererecoveringanimpetus toseektransformationinalldimensionsofhumanlife,butitwouldbehardto exaggerateitsinfluence.
Ifirstread Theology of Hope whenitwasstillMoltmann’sonlymajor work.NodoubtIwasnotimmunetotheoptimisticmoodofthetime,but whatimpressedandexcitedmewasthatMoltmannwasnotgivingtheological supporttosomegeneralnotionofhope,stilllesstooptimism.Thecenterof histheologywas(andhasalwaysremained)thebiblicalhistoryofJesusChrist, crucifiedandrisen.AgainstthebackgroundoftheOldTestamenthistoryof God’spromises,MoltmannreadthehistoryofJesusasmessianichistory,fullof promisefortheall-embracingkingdomofGod.Christianeschatologyspeaks
ofJesusChristandhisfuture,whichistheworld’sfutureonlybecauseitisfirst ofallthefutureoftheworld’sMessiah.ThisnotonlyinspiresChristiansto joinwithothersinpursuingpresentpossibilitiesofchangethatcorrespondto thecomingkingdom.ItalsogivesChristianhopeacriticalpotential,especially whenitisrememberedthattheresurrectiongavenewlifetothe crucified Christ, theonewhoinhisabandoneddeathwasidentifiedwiththemostwretchedand themosthopeless.Christianhopehasnothingincommonwiththecomplacent optimismofthesuccessful.Solidaritywiththevictims—includingthevictims of “progress”—alone gives it Christian authenticity. While those who saw in Theology of Hope littlemorethanatheologicalglossontheprogressivist optimism of the modern age were surprised, even shocked, by the turn Moltmann’s theology took in his next major book; those attuned to the christological heart of his early work were somewhat less taken off-guard. Whereas Theology of Hope foundGod-givenhopeintheresurrectionofthe crucifiedChrist, The Crucified God foundthesufferingloveofGodinthecross oftherisenChrist.Adialecticofcrossandresurrectionwasatworkinboth.
Thereiscontinuityandcoherencebetweenthetwobooks,butnoteven Moltmannhadanticipatedwherehewouldbeledbyhisattempttoretrieve the “profane horror and godlessness” of the cross from interpretations that disguiseitsoffensiveness.Itrequireda“revolution”intheconceptofGodthat thentookagoodpartofseveralmorebookstobedevelopedfully.Ineffect, MoltmannputJesus’dyingcry,“MyGod,myGod,whyhaveyouabandoned me,” at the center of his understanding of God. Taking this cry seriously requiresboththatGodmustbeunderstoodtosuffer,withconsequencesforthe traditionalunderstandingofdivineimpassibility,andalsothatthecrossasan eventofdivinesufferingbeunderstoodasanevent“betweenGodandGod,”a trinitarianevent.Atthecross,Jesus,thedivineSonincarnate,identifiedwith theworldinallitsgodlessnessandgodforsakennesssoastotakeitwithin the love between the Son and the Father. In their love for the world, the FatherabandonedhisSontodeath,sufferinghisloss,andtheSonvoluntarily sufferedabandonmentbyhisFather.Theirmutuallove,theHolySpirit,united thematthispointofagonizingseparation,suchthatthewholeoftheworld’s painwastakenupintoatrinitarianhistoryinhopeoftheovercomingofall evil.Thiswas“revolutionary”becauseitmadethecrossaneventinternalto God’sowntrinitarianrelationshipsandaneventthataffectsnotonlytheworld, butalsoGod.Fromthisbeginning,Moltmannwastodevelopatrinitarian understandingoftheworldinGodandGodintheworld.
Theology of Hope and The Crucified God are undoubtedly classics of twentieth-centurytheology.Onecouldapproachthembylocatingtheminthe
historyofGermantheology.Moltmannwasoneofseveraltheologianswhoin the1960stookupthethemeofeschatologicalhopeasawayofopeningup theologytotheworldandthefuture. The Crucified God wasoneofthefirst bookstotakeupthetaskofChristiantheology“afterAuschwitz”—thatis,inthe lightofwhattheHolocausthasmadetheologicallyunthinkable.Moltmann’s radicalprobingofthemeaningofthecrossforourunderstandingofGod has much in common with the work of his Tübingen colleague Eberhard Jüngel,whilethetrinitariantheologiesofbothbelongtoawiderrenaissance oftrinitariantheologyinthelaterpartofthetwentiethcentury.Yetclassics areclassicsbecausetheytranscendtheirowntime.Ifthesetwobooksseemless remarkablenowthantheydidintheirtime,itispreciselybecauseofthehuge influencetheyhavehad.Yetsuchisthepassionandthevigoroftheirargument, thatnewreaderscontinuetofindthemprofoundlyinspiringinwayswhichare certainlynotavailablethroughmerelysecondhandacquaintance.
Theology of Hope and The Crucified God wereprogrammaticworksor,one mightsay,“orienting”works,whichservetogivetothewholeoftheology aparticularkindoforientation.Eschatologicalhopehasremainedadecisive characteristicofallofMoltmann’stheologyandthecrosshasremainedfor himadecisivecriterionofanadequatelyChristiantheology. The Church in the Power of the Spirit completed this early trilogy, and performs a similar role, not so much through its understanding of the church as through its developmentof The Crucified God’sratherrudimentaryaccountoftheSpirit, makingmorefullyviablethenotionofatrinitarianhistoryofGodwiththe world.ThenMoltmann’sworktookanewturn.Heembarkedonwhatbecame aseriesofsevenplannedvolumes,fiveonclassicChristiandoctrines(Trinity, creation,Christology,pneumatology,eschatology),oneontheologicalmethod (Experiences in Theology,notrepresentedinthisvolume),andoneontheological ethics. They have something like the traditional shape of a dogmatics or systematictheology,buthepreferredtocallthem“contributionstotheology,” characteristically stressing their open and dialogical character as one theologian’scontributiontotheongoingtask.Earlyinhiscareer,Moltmann hadthoughtKarlBarth’sachievementwassomethingthatleftnothingmore tobesaid,andhehadnotbeenabletowritecreativetheologyuntilhesaw thatBarth’streatmentoffutureeschatologywasseriouslyreductive.Inhisown work,hehasnoambitiontosaythelastword.
Moreover, while his early works created a fundamental structure of thoughtthathassupportedallhislaterwork,Moltmann’sthinkinghasproved constantlyabletointegratenewinsightsandtodevelopinfreshdirections. Throughout his career, he has traveled frequently and extensively, and
whereverhegoeshehasattemptedtoengagewiththechurches,thetheology, andthepolitics.Asaresult,itwouldbehardtothinkofatheologianwhose work has benefited from such a wide and diverse range of ecumenical influences.Inhistrinitariantheology,heengagedwithOrthodoxtheology,and inhispneumatology,withPentecostalism.Inhisemphasisonthediscipleship ethicsoftheSermonontheMount,hecameclosetothechurchesoftheRadical Reformation. Fromfeministtheology, especiallythrough hiswifeElisabeth Moltmann-Wendel,herselfaleadingfeministtheologian,cameanaffirmation ofbodilyexperienceand,insomeofhislatestwork,aturnfromprofessorial objectivity to a more personal form of expression. A dialogue with Jewish theologyhasbeenimportantthroughouthisworkinglife.Atthesametime, hehasconstantlyreturnedtothetheologicaltradition,retrievingitsinsights, learningfromitsmistakes,andcontinuingitsdebates.
ThisisnottheplaceforadescriptiveaccountoranalysisofMoltmann’s maturetheology.Instead,bywayofinvitingreadersintotherichexperience ofengagingwithhiswork,Iwouldliketohighlightthreekeythemesor characteristics:
1. Passion Thisword,initsmultiplemeaningsanddimensions,isahelpful cluetoMoltmann’sunderstandingofGod.Inhiswork,God’sloveisnotthe dispassionatebenevolenceoftheGodoftraditionaltheism,whoisimpassible in the sense that he not only cannot suffer but cannot be affected by the worldheloves,whetherinsufferingorinjoy.Rather,forMoltmann,God’s loveishispassionateconcern,hiscommittedandcostlyinvolvementwiththe world.InthepassionofChrist(inthetraditionalsenseofhissuffering),we findthecom-passionofGod,God’sfellowsufferingwithallwhosuffer.The apatheticGod(where“apathetic”istheGreektermforimpassible,unmoved byanythingoutsidehimself)hashiscounterpartinapathetichumanity,people whoholdbackfromlifeandlove,commitmentandinvolvement,forfearof suffering.Thecontemporaryworldrespectscompetitivenessandsuccess,not vulnerability.ButinthecompanyofthepassionateandcompassionateGod, apathetichumansbecomeopenforlove,suffering,andjoy.
2. Mutuality and Perichoresis. ForMoltmann,Godislovebecausethethree personswhoareGodconstitutetheirunityinanintimatereciprocityofloving relationships.IntheterminologyoftheGreekFathers, perichoresis meansthat thethreepersonsare“in”oneanother.Moltmannabandonsthetraditional idea of a fixed “order” of the persons in favor of a dynamic of changing relationships,inwhichthedivinepersonsengagewitheachotherinthecourse ofengagingwiththeworld.FortheTrinityisnotaclosedcircleoflove, butanopenandinvitingunity.InGod’shistorywiththeworld,theworldis
drawnintothelovingrelationshipsoftheTrinity.Moltmannhereextendsthe applicationof perichoresis,usingittodescribetherelationshipbetweenGodand theworld.GodisintheworldandtheworldisinGod.AsintheTrinity,this mutualindwellingdoesnotobliteratedifference,butconstitutesrelationshipin-difference or difference-in-relationship. The parallel is not complete, however,becauseintheTrinityGodisinunitywithGod,likewithlike, whereasinGod’srelationshipwiththeworldGodisunitedwithwhatisnot God,God’sother.God’screationparticipatesinthedivinelife,butdoesnot becomeGod.
In discarding the traditional idea of an “order” within the Trinity, in whichtheFatherhasacertainsortofpriority,MoltmanngroundsinGod hisrejectionofhierarchicalrelationshipsinfavorofrelationshipsofmutuality. While hierarchy expresses dominance and suppresses freedom, relationships of loving mutuality are liberating. In the “kingdom” of God, the lordship ofGodisaprovisionalimageandfriendshipwithGodthemoreadequate one.InMoltmann’spoliticalthought,thenondominatingrelationshipswithin theTrinitygrounddemocraticfreedomsinsociety,whileinhisecclesiology, hierarchy gives way to the reciprocity of different gifts exercised by equal participants.Moltmann’spreferredmodelofthechurchistheimageofopen friendship,whichdoesnotformaclosedcircleoffamiliarityamongthosewho arelikeeachother,butisopeninlovefortheoutsiderandtheunlike.
Thenotionofmutuality,opposedtohierarchyanddomination,alsocomes intoitsowninMoltmann’secologicalunderstandingoftheworld.Heseesthe creation,humansincluded,asacommunityofGod’screatureswhosharethe earthinmutualinterdependence.Creationitselfisaperichoreticcommunity constitutedbyrelationshipsofmutuality.Inthefaceofecologicalcatastrophe, humansneedtomoveawayfromtheexploitativedominationthatisdestroying thenaturalworldonwhichtheyareinescapablydependent.Theyalsoneed tomodifythepurelyobjectifyingformofknowledgethathasaccompanied dominationofnature,aformofknowledgeinwhichtheknowingsubject mastersitsobjectbyisolatingandanalyzingit.Anecologicaltheologyrequires insteadaparticipatoryformofknowledge,inwhichthingsareperceivedin thetotalityoftheirrelationshipsandthehumansubjectperceivesitselfasa participantintheinterdependenceofallthings.
3. Life. Moltmann’sbookontheSpirit,notinitiallypartofhisplanforthe series,testifiestothegrowingimportanceoflifeasaunifyingorembracing terminhistheology.Itisentitled The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation. HeunderstandstheSpiritas“thedivinewellspringoflife”—sourceofalllife, continuallyrenewingalllife,aswellasultimatelysourceofeternallifeforall
creation.ThismakesitpossibleforthewholeoflifetobeexperienceofGod andforGodtobeexperiencedinallthings.TheSpiritoflifeisGodexperienced intheprofundityandvitalityoflifelivedinGod.Inanimportantmoveto overcomethepersistentdualityofthe“spiritual”andthe“material,”Moltmann insiststhat,astheSpiritof life,theSpiritofGodisnotrelatedtothe“spiritual”as opposedtothe“material,”nortothehumanasopposedtotherestofcreation. LifeintheSpiritisnotalifeofwithdrawalfromthebodily,social,andnatural world,butischaracterizedbyaloveoflifeandanaffirmationofalllife.This isafreshformofMoltmann’scharacteristicconcernforatheologyofpositive involvementinGod’sworld.Inthefaceofaccumulatingthreatstolifeinour time,Moltmanngivesan“ethicsoflife”animportantplaceinhisfinalwork, Ethics of Hope.
Ofcourse,thetitleofthisconcludingstudyoftheologicalethicsreaffirms Moltmann’sstartingpoint.Itisan Ethics of Hope thatfinallyfulfillstheethical promise of his Theology of Hope. Moltmann’s fifty years of theological explorationhavetakenhimthroughtimesinwhichithasbecomemuchharder tohopethanitseemedinthe1960s.Hehascometoseethecontemporary worldasanincreasinglyperilousexperiment.Soithasbecomeevenmore importantthatChristianhopemeansresistingandanticipating—resistingthe normativeforceofwhatdominatesthepresentandanticipatingthenewand liberatingfuturethatcomesfromGod.