flying.farther

Rumor has it that Prof. James Cone of Union Theological Seminary will be on CNN soon. Apparently he wasn’t on earlier because classes come first, or so fellow students say. I like him, even if I don’t like R. Niebuhr much.

The subsumed, or sometimes overt racist overtones (heres to looking at you Limbaugh - asinine is too charitable a word), coupled with the media’s profound ignorance of Black Liberation theology has put out some amazingly ill informed content to put it kindly. Pretty much a bunch of sound bites and the most superficial punditry nonsense. Journalism here sucks, especially when it comes to theology. This kind of reminds me of the whole William’s fiasco not too long ago.

So keep a look out on CNN by TV or internet, because Cone should be on soon and finally help bring some clarity to this whole fiasco.

I have to admit, I’m disappointed in Obama and the whole political process, but the latter doesn’t surprise me. Neither did Rush Limbaugh’s categorically false and woefully misinformed response: calling Mr. Wright “a race-baiter and a hatemonger.”

It is also safe to say that the media gets absolutely none of this as it did with the Williams row, or what the Pastor Wright really drives at. They should be ashamed of themselves – just as white as part of the church in America. Again, no surprise.

One aspect about theological study and discourse is that it is fundamentally dialogical. It is conversational, which is why I have no qualms about what I’ve done to follow in this post (other than that this may seem rather arrogant - Posting your own conversation? Well, I’m not going to post someone else’s am I?). I had a conversation with Chris Layton, a friend of mine, and it went something like this:

Me: None of this is good, as far as I can see right now. The first black president we might have and he’ll go with American innocence other than slavery? Publically, as far as I have seen, he hasn’t brought up slavery much, or the effects that still strongly linger today and doesn’t extend that critique beyond the “black experience” like most black liberation theology does. However, it was the potential to do so that was the most interesting things about Obama, him coming from a black liberation church and embodying the critique. I was quite excited to see it and how his presidency would turn out. I suspect it’d be rather Niebuhrian, but still, better than other stuff.

My “politics” or favorite candidate are quite different than Obama, I’m more of a Kucinich person if anything (but not really a Kucinich person either), but I figured some black liberation from the presidency would do this country a lot of good. Now I’m not sure it’ll actually be that; now he’s kind of like Clinton, Hillary that is, and what good is that?

Chris: I think that the nation-state is not the route by which justice will be enacted.

Me: I suppose there is an upside, there isn’t the bastardizing of Christian hope by making it American hope (although I do admit I haven’t read the book, but it still strikes me as Reagan-esque). As for justice enacted by the nation-state? Sure, it won’t fully, but if there can be some change in the state, peacefully, it’ll at least begin a discussion. Having a Christian in the presidency actually bringing up issues that the church needs to deal with, I could live with that. There are other aspects I object to, but at least he’d do things I don’t see Hillary or McCain doing, but now, in some respects, I’m not so sure.

Chris: I don’t know that someone who occupies that office can speak to the church about churchly affairs. Its a kind of idolatry.

Me: Oh no, I’m not saying he could speak to the church, however, if the society is talking about it, it makes it an easier issue to raise in the church.

Chris: I think it makes it harder. If society talks about it, it will be too easy to let society set the terms of the conversation. For us to talk about these things we have to be free to choose the vocabulary. We have a habit of letting the terms of a social debate be handed to us

Me: True, but we’re always free to choose the vocabulary, just sometimes we don’t.

Chris: I think the times we do are in fact really rare.

Me: That is our problem though, that is not a problem with the debate per se. We need to be that Christian body in the debate.

Chris: Its an endemic problem for us, though. I think wishing for the circumstances that perpetuate the problem is … not good.

Me: I’m wishing for the debate, otherwise some people won’t even talk about it no matter how much we say anything. Its our task to make our voice heard and how we understand such a debate to take place.

Chris: To have a Christian in the white house, no matter how much we hope for him/her, we invite the sorts of mistakes we have been making these past decades - mistaking America’s interests for Christ’s. I would rather a non-Christian in the white house, so we are not tempted to displace our political responsibilities onto the nation-state.

Me: Yes, this is true. I have the same criticism of Huckabee, as I would of Obama. I certainly object to a lot, but I think it would be helpful to have black liberation spoken from the presidency, insomuch that it would bring up a discussion about white America - instead we just assume whiteness isn’t racialized itself.

Chris: We need first to take up those responsibilities before we can “enter the debate” but its so much easier to say “that guy is a Christian and an American and the leader of the free world.” We need to be marginal before we can summon the energy to speak in a way that will reflect the values of the church. See - I am not completely ignorant of liberation theology!

Me: True, but I wasn’t originally talking about our responsibilities, I was talking about the opportunity of Obama could’ve brought, while at the same time living the downsides as well. I figured out of the three, Obama was the most interesting and helpful, but now he really is starting to sound like the other two.

Chris: That may be true, but I remain very doubtful of any move to place hopes in a person who is aiming at such a position.

Me: The other two seem to look like typical presidential contenders and will simply use Christian language to pull from a niche for votes. I wasn’t placing much hope, especially now. It wasn’t like I was gunning for him from the beginning, more than wanting to see a black president. I didn’t think even then, that would bring salvation or make the country un-racist. Its just that Obama would be the healthiest of the three and by that virtue alone, the most interesting. Perhaps he still is, although I don’t follow everything that closely, but when he severs ties with something I know a bit of, I’m seeing something that disappoints me.

Me: And then I think, we’re screwed no matter what, and really that’s the whole idea of the church. We can’t really control the machinations of the world - like violence brought upon ourselves - instead we react strongly as Jesus for the hurting as the church no matter the consequences. I think again, as I am often reminded, of Oscar Romero and martyrdom.

Chris: This is better, methinks, those last two, not being able to control the machinations of the world and so on. If we vote, it is as a subversive.

Me: Yeah, a lot of liberation theologians may only like part of that.

Chris: Well, I’m not much of a liberation theologian.

Me: Cone, as a Niebuhrian (or taking a lot from Niebuhr), is okay with seeking power. While Niebuhr’s conception of power is complex, it still is rooted in the idea of not letting the oppressor oppress. Of course I’m simplifying it, but that is the general gist. So he might half like what I said, but certainly not all of it, as I’m so critical of the “liberal” project of working in the state (ironically, a great deal of conservatives/evangelicals/fundamentalists buy into the “liberal” project, but deny its affects). While I think he would like the idea that the white church would have to give up its privilege to do what I described: to be with, rather than “speak for” the hurting (thats an incredibly incredibly important distinction). I’m not a fan of some ways we speak of in empowerment here at Union, but if we are empowering when we chose to live with and support the poor as they speak, then I’m all for that. None of this representation crap, that so many people advocate – it keeps people in the same position and does little to change the systemic problems.

And then we digress.

Prof. James H. Cone is on Bill Moyers’ Journal tonight at nine. Woo hoo. From looking at the website, I expect it to be about the man, his work in Black theology, and not so surprisingly to those of us at Union, discussion on R. Niebuhr. Give it a watch on the screen or the net - its always interesting to see the person at work behind the theology.

Edit:
Here is the video of the Cone interview by Moyers. While it does touch some on Cone himself, Black theology, and R. Niebuhr, the interview is largely a platform for Black theology to have a voice, specifically on the subject of lynching and the cross. Give it a look.

This is a professor of mine here at Union. I’ve really only taken one class of his, I wish I could take more. Give it a watch, he only starts to warm up towards the end.

“Ya’ll don’t want none of this. Ya’ll ain’t ready for this. Don’t sleep on James Cone.”This theoblog is inherently a blog on political theology because the church - the body of Christ - is inherently political. I do not think we can rightly understand and critique the way we are right now, much less move to a greater future without the black voice and other “minority” voices. The church is not white, so our economy, our eucharist and our politics should not be white. So don’t sleep on James Cone.

Note: I wrote this paper some months back for a Cone class on Liberation theology. It was part of my attempt to get credit for a study I really wanted to do - to find a Christology that answers questions from both my conservative undergrad and my current liberal gradschool. Here is my logic for why the Christological dialectic of Moltmann is so helpful to me.

Suffering, Hope, Blood, and Guts: The Suffering Christ of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Jürgen Moltmann in Conversation with Liberation Theology

Given that theology has shifted from a focus upon the believer/atheist dichotomy to the person/non-person, Professor Cone has made the point in recent classes that many theologies have lost their relevancy insomuch as they address an old question. However, there is a motif within European-born theology that was only hinted at in the readings for class that holds promise for continuous relevancy between old and new theology: the suffering Christ.1

Two strikingly similar theologians of recent importance – Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Jürgen Moltmann – center their theology upon a suffering Christ. This paper compares the two theologian’s contexts, views of Christ, and the influences a suffering Christ has on their ecclesiology to depict their pertinence to both the theology of old and the theology of today.

Suffering Christ
The theme of the suffering Christ is a rich vein within Christianity and is crucial for Christology, both in abstract and pragmatic thought. Importantly, a Christ who suffered can be both transcendent and immanent; within a strong trinitarianism a suffering Christ is socially rooted in transcendence, while at the same time entirely immanent and receptive to the pain inherent in the human world. It is this immanent Christ – whipped, bruised, and crucified – who extends understanding and hope – “justice, truth, humanity and freedom.”2

A suffering Christ is also important for shaping and informing other aspects of Christianity, beyond the human suffering within Christology. The church universal, an extension of Christ to the world, is shaped by an understanding of who Christ is. Thus, a suffering Christ shapes a church towards sensitivity to human suffering, therefore creating a space in which Christ tangibly exists and from which Christ can then reach the world and its distress.

Bonhoeffer’s Context
While Bonhoeffer lacks the cohesive direction of a grand systematic theology, his thought is still consistently characterized by a focus upon the centrality of Christ.3 In the late 1930s Bonhoeffer helped lead a seminary for the Confessing Church at Finkenwalde that was declared illegal by the Nazis. The school “followed the innovative format of engaging in theological education within the context of a close-knit community.”4 Beyond regular theological courses, “the participants in the school sought to learn to live the Christian life in genuine brotherhood and in total dedication to the Lord.”5 It was out of this marginal and oppressed experience that Bonhoeffer wrote Life Together and The Cost of Discipleship, both of which are works heavy with a focus on relational community born from a suffering Christ.

To read Bonhoeffer outside of his context or as a systematic theology would be problematic at best, at worst it would do injustice to his writings. To view Bonhoeffer’s Christology of a suffering Christ is to view a suffering church and amazing grace, for Bonhoeffer inextricably ties together the identity of Christ and the church. Christology is ecclesiology; the two cannot be split or considered separately: Christology is inherently wound into the themes of “creation, community, and costly discipleship.”6

Bonhoeffer’s Christology
Bonhoeffer is perennially concerned with answering the question, “Who is Christ for today?”7 His answer is simply that God suffered for us.8 “If we speak of Jesus Christ as God…we must speak of his weakness, his manger, his cross. This man is no abstract God.”9 Thus the incarnate one is humiliated and exalted, and yet, in between lies the hope of the empty tomb.10 His flesh is like our flesh; however, Bonhoeffer does not leave much room to talk simply about Christ suffering, but leads into the suffering as relevant for humanity. “The Law of Christ is a law of forbearance. Forbearance means enduring and suffering.”11 Thus Christology, Christ’s nature and actions, ushering in the Kingdom of God, informs the church.12

Bonhoeffer has a specific idea of the make-up of the body of Christ. Importantly, “the Church is not a religious community of worshippers of Christ”; rather, the church is a space within a community of humanity where “Christ has really taken form.”13 However, the church’s hope or the appearance of Christ in church is not based on only a messiah or even a human messiah, but specifically a suffering messiah. “‘Christians stand by God in his hour of grieving’…thus creating Christ in us by participating in his suffering.”14 It is because Christ suffered that the church can visibly extend Christ and his hope and justice to the world because the church is Christ. It is here that Bonhoeffer’s answer for the question “Who is Christ for today” is found, not only for him over half a century ago, but still the answer is relevant for today. Christ, as his church, suffers for creation. Because of Christ’s suffering, death, and resurrection, the church’s hope and call for justice never dies.

Moltmann’s Context
While Bonhoeffer was “probably the most influential German theologian of the generation immediately following Barth’s,” Moltmann is “probably the most influential German theologian active at present.”15 Moltmann is largely known for reviving eschatology from the trash bin of theology, as it were. It is slightly lesser known that he was also “one of the first theologians seriously to study Bonhoeffer’s work” – it is in fact this is one of the sources from which Moltmann inherited his focus upon incorporating both social ethics and the dialogue between the church and the world.16 As a prisoner of war (not unlike Bonhoeffer), Moltmann experienced both “God as the power of hope and of God’s presence in suffering,” two themes that made their way later into his works.17 Also like Bonhoeffer, Moltmann retains a theological core of themes and through the rest of his life’s work progressively addresses them to create a mature theology in contrast to Bonhoeffer’s inchoate theology.18

Moltmann has found a sophisticated, mature theological voice open to multiple influences, writing volumes, with at least nearly 20 works translated into English, and teaching scholars like Miroslav Volf. Nine major works comprise Moltmann’s theology: the first set, a trilogy, comprised of Theology of Hope, The Crucified God, and The Church in the Power of the Spirit; and the second set of six, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, God in Creation, The Way of Jesus Christ, The Spirit of Life, The Coming of God, and Experiences in Theology. The first set is described as “complementary perspectives on Christian theology”; however, he chooses to see the second set, though it is similar to a systemic theology, as “‘contributions’ to theological discussion.”19

The themes Moltmann addresses are numerous. Aside from eschatology and suffering (also related to theodicy), he produces a complete Trinitarian view of God, formulates “the relationship of God and the world as reciprocal and as internal to God’s own Trinitarian relationships”, and departs from “the modern paradigm of reality as human history and giving theological weight to the reciprocal relationship of humanity and the rest of Nature.”20 Despite the diversity of the themes, the controlling, meta-theme lays within the trilogy – the dialectic between Jesus’ suffering death of cross and the hope filled resurrection – only to be rooted within the thorough trinitarianism of his later work. In fact, Stanley Grenz and Roger Olson state, “Taking his cue from Bonhoeffer’s statement that ‘Only the suffering God can help,’ Moltmann opened up a veritable new chapter in theology, in which the suffering of God is almost a new orthodoxy.”

Moltmann’s Christology
As already stated, Moltmann views Christology dialectically, holding in tension the cross and resurrection – both the suffering and hope inherent to God in history. The cross represents the current condition of humanity of “subjection to sin, suffering and death,” while the resurrection is God’s promise and humanity’s hope of redemption or creation made anew.21 Thus Moltmann grasps the suffering Christ of Bonhoeffer, and builds upon it the dimension of a hopeful future.

For Moltmann, Jesus is the Christ of both God and the human race. “The Christ of God represents God himself in a still unredeemed world.”22 And speaking in Trinitarian terms, “the Son of God represents the Father in a godless and forsaken world.”23 It is only through the resurrection that Jesus could be “the Christ of God.”24 Thus the suffering and death of Jesus is the “suffering and death of the Christ of God.”25 Simply put, the identity of Jesus as Christ is only fulfilled in hope; a suffering Jesus without the resurrection would not have embodied the fullness of God. Nevertheless, the resurrection does not wrap the cross in glory; instead, the cross is always the point where God suffered, filled “with eschatology and saving significance.”26

In Christ’s resurrection preceding the resurrection of all humanity, the Christ of God becomes Christ for humanity.27 “Thus the cross of Christ modifies the resurrection of Christ under the conditions of the suffering of the world so that it changes from being a purely future event to being an event of liberating love” – Christ anticipates the future bodily resurrection and so ushers in the kingdom of God.28

The relevance of Moltmann is just as clear as Bonhoeffer, if not more so. Moltmann frankly declares that the Crucified God is for all people: the divine is “stateless and classless” – “He is the god of the poor, the oppressed and the humiliated.”29 This is a God who is clearly accessible to the non-person, and yet at the same time transcendent; He/She is located in a lofty position operating in the suffering world through the body of Christ (the church) as part of the basileia.30

Answering the Needs of Liberation Theologies
It may appear on first glance, that the Christ of Bonhoeffer and Moltmann do not meet the needs of black, feminist, and womanist liberation theologies. Not only do they not address the particular needs of liberation theologies, but as is typical of older theology, Bonhoeffer and Moltmann in their silence do not even mention the possibility of an either black or female Christ. Presumably, this Christology remains white and inaccessible to liberative modes of Christian thinking; however, little could be farther from the truth.

It is exactly the suffering nature of Bonhoeffer and Moltmann’s Christology that makes it relevant to these newer particularized communities. Indeed, when Cone formulates a Christology around a black Christ, he does not require a physically black Jesus; rather, Cone is describing a suffering Christ contextually in light of current oppression.31 In fact, Cone explicitly asserts that it is the suffering nature of Christ that enables him to be a “black Christ.” In A Black Theology of Liberation he states, “The Jesus of history is… the Christ of today as interpreted by the theological significance of the death-resurrection event.” When he declares “Black theology certainly agrees with this emphasis on the cross and resurrection,” Cone is confirming the consonance between Moltmann’s Christological focus and the needs of liberation theologies.32

Theology of Hope
Insomuch as they are theologians of hope, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Jürgen offer a focus as desperately needed in Nazi Germany and its aftermath as in our contemporary culture of cynicism and oppression. Bonhoeffer first sketched out a theology of God’s suffering which was able to speak to the suffering of many particular situations, but which lacked a necessary second dimension – future. Moltmann completed this view of the cross by raising the hope of the resurrection to equal prominence in this suffering Christology. The suffering Christ – and subsequently the church, when it focuses upon this Christ – is able to engage, share, and heal the pain of even the most oppressed, both with an existential understanding and a tangible eschatological hope for the future.

_______
1.Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God, translated by R. A. Wilson and John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), xi.

2.Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, translated by Neville Horton Smith (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995), 61.

3.Stanley Grenz and Robert Olson, 20th-Century Theology: God and the World in a Transitional Age, 149. Wayne Whitson Floyd, The Modern Theologians: An Introduction to Christian Theology since 1918, edited by David F. Ford and Rachel Muers (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1992), 56.

4.20th-Century Theology, 148.5.Ibid., 148.6.Wayne Whitson Floyd, The Modern Theologians, 55.

7.20th-Century Theology, 149. John W. De Gruchy, “Bonhoeffer, Dietrich (1906-45),” The Dictionary of Historical Theology, edited by Trevor A. Hart (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 81.

8.Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together; Prayer Book, edited by Geffrey B. Kelly, translated by Daniel W. Bloesch and James H. Burtness (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 100. Also see footnote 14: “The sufferings of God in Jesus Christ and Jesus’ sufferings in and for God’s people are major themes in Bonhoeffer’s theology.”

9.Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center, translated by Edwin H. Robertson (New York: Harper and Row, 1978), 104.

10.Ibid., 112.

11.Life Together,100.

12.Christ the Center, 111.

13.Ethics, 84 and 85.

14.Letters and Papers from Prison, 361.

15.Justo L. González, A History of Christian Thought: From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century, vol. 3, revised ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1987), 447 and 452.

16.Richard Bauckham, “Jürgen Moltmann,” The Modern Theologians, edited by David F. Ford and Rachel Muers, ed. 3 (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005), 147.

17.Ibid., 147.

18.The Dictionary of Modern Historical Theology, 376.

19.Richard Bauckham, The Modern Theologians, 148.

20.The Dictionary of Historical Theology, 376.

21.The Dictionary of Historical Theology, 377.

22.The Crucified God, 179.

23.Ibid., 179.

24.Ibid., 182.

25.Ibid., 182.

26.Ibid., 182.

27.Ibid., 184.

28.Ibid., 185.

29.Ibid., 329. Also see the quote a few lines below, “Christians will seek to anticipate the future of Christ according to the measure of the possibilities available to them, by breaking down lordship and building up the political liveliness of each individual.”

30.In using the Greek word for the “kingdom of God” (basileia), I hope to avoid master/slave presumptions that feminists have pointed out are connoted by the phrase, while still retaining the sense of transcendence that the alternate “kindom” seems to lack. All previous uses in the text of the term “kingdom” have been part of the process of quoting and in the spirit of retaining the author’s language.

31.James H. Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation (New York: Orbis, 2006), 119-120.

32.Cone, 118.

33.The Crucified God, xi.

A friend of mine some weeks ago asked me for a book list. In fact, he said, “Just give me a list, I don’t care whats on it, I just need to start reading again.” Well, I didn’t take him too literally, but I did come up with a book list for the lay person. These books are generally rather readable and well written, but more importantly, could be interesting instead of boring theology.

1. Risks of Faith by James Cone. This book is from a prof here at Union and is actually my go-to book for exposing someone to black theology or maybe even liberation theology in general. Its very readable, and spans Cone’s career as it is a selection of essays, but the text also hits at what Cone is known for, starting “Black Liberation” theology. The work will get you/or keep you thinking on race, gender, poverty - you know, the important things.

2. Myths America Lives By by Richard T. Hughes. While at times I do have some criticisms about the work on certain points (and I may or may not agree entirely with his conclusion, hint, probably not), this book is very readable and hits at the general heart of what the hell really is going on with what we believe as American Christians. Once thats all sorted out, we can finally address if we really should be believing any/some/all the myths.

3. Theopolitical Imagination by William T. Cavanaugh. This book is short and expensive (read here, the publisher is being a jerk), but damn worth it if you can keep up. I would recommend Torture and Eucharist by Cavanaugh, but thats denser and bigger. Theopolitical Imagination may be one of the biggest stretches in terms of reading accessibility on the list, but in this case, that shouldn’t matter - struggle through this book five times if you have to (though I don’t see it being nearly that hard to understand, I think most people could understand it well enough with one reading and some discussion) - just read the damn book. It changed me in such a fashion that my whole theological world-view will never be the same. Ever.

4. God Is Not: Religious, Nice, One of Us, An American, A Capitalist edited by Brent Laytham. This collection has a good spread of essays on negative theology (negative theology is saying what we know God not to be) which in this case strikes at the very nature of what we assume God to be, and sometimes, we assume wrongly. Hence this book.

5. Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ’s Childhood Pal by Christopher Moore. Possibly one of the funniest books I’ve ever read and I would often times find my self laughing out loud quite often, but also at times is incredibly well researched, in fact if I were teaching a Gospels class or intro to New Testament, I would use excerpts from this book.

6. Dracula by Bram Stroker. The book is riveting and I love the style, but also it is incredibly mature in how it deals with corruption and death. Rather astute I think. One of the most interesting things of note is what happens when a vampire dies - they sigh in peace, in fact, its not a horrible death at all. The vampires are finally allowed to rest and the evil is purged - they become people again in a very real sense. Perhaps we should look at our enemies like this - that there are people underneath all that evil, except we don’t need to use the violence. I used to not be a vampire fan, and I’m still not really, but this book I really like and it seems to have all sorts of theological ideas.

7. Anything by Dorthy L. Sayers, particularly the Lord Peter Wimsy Stories, they’re good mysteries.

8. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther by Roland H. Bainton. This work is one of the definitive biographies on Luther by a very respected historian, but it is also incredibly readable and personal. In fact, any good reformation class in college that I’ve seen uses this book as one of the big texts. Its just that good.

9. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business by Neil Postman. Brilliant, just brilliant and it was written in 1984…ish.

10. The Kingdom of God is Within You by Leo Tolstoy. Something to get ya thinking about pacifism, it certainly did me, and it should also be noted that this book had a large impact on Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi. You know, some of the real, successful people.

11. The Orthodox Way by Bishop Kallistos Ware. Here is a well written introduction to Eastern Orthodox Theology, well, some of Eastern Orthodox Theology. I’m not sure they’re quite as unified as they say they are. Nevertheless, Ware puts forth clearly certain Eastern Orthodox views that I found rather valuable during my freshman year in college.

12. Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology by Rosemary Radford Ruether. If you want to put your toe into feminist theology, this would be one of the works to start with. Apparently it is also still one of, if not the only, feminist systematic theology text written (this means that the book deals with the typical categories of theology - the nature of the text, method, language, humanity, Christ, evil, eschatology and a few others that are brought up by feminists). Even if you don’t agree with a large majority of feminism, or are even someone who reacts to feminism negatively, if you haven’t read this book, you can shut up or give this book your open mind. Why? Because this is one of the biggest voices for the past 20 years and this is one of the texts for theological feminism.

This is a rather late response to halden’s meme - critique a favorite theologian.

Edit: Looking back, I did do a post on Hauerwas that might also apply to Halden’s challenge. While Hauerwas is technically an ethicist and not exactly systematic, he does collapse the categories of theology and ethics into one category and has covered a great deal of territory in his many writings. So I suppose the reader can take their pick between Moltmann’s lack of method, or Hauerwas’ faulty use of history.

This challenge exposes a weakness I have, for all the reading I have done, I have rarely focused on one person’s systematic theology. And this limits the choices I feel even somewhat confident enough to talk about. However, if I were to pick someone, it would be Jürgen Moltmann. Given that theology in some areas (most prominently seen in liberation theology) has shifted from a focus upon the believer/atheist dichotomy to the person/non-person, James Cone has made the point that many theologies have lost their relevancy insomuch as they address an old question. However, there is a motif within European-born theology that holds promise for continuous relevancy between old and new theology: the suffering and hopeful Christ. This is why I have chosen Moltmann (no matter how much Halden might dislike him. heh.). Moltmann seems to be able to bridge the gap between many aspects of liberal, liberation, and conservative theology, but still retain a Christocentrism and this strength of Moltmann is very important for me right now.The truth be told, I’d begun writing a rather lengthy response to this meme sometime ago, only to realize that I should read more to adequately critique and thus I kept putting this off. So now as I actually write this, in an effort to not come off crazy or extend beyond myself, I’ll attempt to level one solid of crititque that I have noticed myself, but have also been vocalized by others as well, particularly by some faculty here.

Despite all that Moltmann has accomplished (helped revive Trinitarian work, helped revive eschatology, a great deal of thought on theodicy, a theology of Creation and even “opened up a veritable new chapter in theology, in which the suffering of God is almost a new orthodoxy” says Grenz and Olson in 20th Century Theology), Moltmann is not flawless - far from it.

In my book the most difficult flaw to deal with, is the lack of method. Moltmann simply does not line out a hermeneutical method (although I hear he says that he will finally write one). I like his writing and understand it well enough, but as far as he approaches the Biblical text or theology as a whole, there is next to no information on method from what I have seen. In fact, this is also a gripe I have heard from a few professors here at Union. So for me, to access Moltmann’s conclusions, I sometimes have to construct my own arguement, an argument that satisfies me and reaches his conclusion, because it just does not exist in his writings. With a lack of method, the rest of his writings seem to take on a whole other level of difficulty.

For instance, Moltmann came by Union for a Q and A while giving lectures in the city. We were given the lectures ahead of time to read. Here is a section:

The justice which Christ will bring about for all and everything is not the justice that establishes what is good and evil, and the retributive justice which rewards the good and punishes the wicked. It is God`s creative justice, which brings the victims justice and puts the perpetrators right. The victims of injustice and violence are first judged so that they may receive their rights. The perpetrators of evil will afterwards experience the justice that puts things to rights. They will thereby be transformed inasmuch as they will be redeemed only together with their victims. They will be saved through the crucified Christ, who comes to them together with their victims. They will `die` to their evil acts against their victims and the burden of their guilt in order to be born again to a new life together with their victims. Paul also expresses this with the image of the fire through which every human work is proved: `If any man`s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire` (1 Cor. 3.15). The image of the End-time `fire` is an image of the consuming love of God and not an image of the wrath of God. Everything which is, and has been, in contradiction to God will be burnt away, so that the person who is loved by God is saved, and everything which is, and has been, in accord with God in that person`s life is preserved.

The purpose goal of erecting the victims and correcting the perpetrators is not reward and punishment but the victory of God`s creative justice over against all that is godless in heaven, on earth and under the earth. Victorious divine justice will not separate humankind into blessed and condemned at the end of the world, but will unite them for God`s great Day of Reconciliation on this earth. On this day all the tears will be wiped away from their eyes, the tears of suffering as well as the tears of remorse, for there will be no more suffering and pain nor crying (Rev 21, 4). The earth will than be cleaned up from the dirt of sin and death. The shadows of sin will disappear together with the night of death: “And death shall be no more”. Annihilated are the powers of annihilation.

Now, I was curious as to how this plays out in light of the scriptural text, Matthew 25, specifically about the sheep and the goats. I asked him and he said we are misreading the text. Well of course we are reading the text differently, but the only answer he gave to the question was that we are both the sheep and the goats - we are at least one point in our life, the person in prison, the visitor and the one who does not visit. Alright, I got that, but how does this work with the surrounding text? I would love to arrive at his conclusion (and kinda do actually), but he has not voiced well his hermeneutical method. So, the only way I can reach some of his conclusions is by creating my own theology and determining my own method with some goal in mind. Right. ‘Cause thats easy, especially with all the other hermeneutical problems to consider. Sigh. So in the end, until he lines out his method, Moltmann in my book will be someone with great insights and a visionary, but not a very good theologian in the professional sense.

I am excited to hear that at my undergrad, Multnomah Bible College, Dr. John Perkins is giving lectures. Coming to Union last semester was dramatically different to say the least (though it was something I was looking for) and in that difference I found myself reading and listening to critiques, some solid and others flimsy. Here following is part one of three responsorial writings to three books I read for Social Ethics as Social Criticism dealing with race, as I presume some of Multnomah is going through too.

Part 1 – Risks of Faith: The Emergence of a Black Theology of Liberation, 1968-1998, by James H. Cone (Boston: Beacon Press, 1999).

James Cone’s book Risks of Faith, I have to admit, was convicting. I come from the evangelical tradition and a fundamentalist home. While I left the literalist roots, the evangelical doctrine continues to hold some sway. During my time in undergrad, under the influence of authors and friends, I came to hold a quasi-Mennonite stance. Also Kingdom theology, championed by Moltmann, Pannenberg and others, has largely shaped me, and fits well (in my mind) within the Anabaptist tradition. Kingdom theology leads to Kingdom ethics; thus when I think ethics, I think to care for the poor and the widow.

I was so focused on the poor and the widow, I neglected other aspects of theology; I was too simplistic. It felt like Cone specifically talked to me when he addressed hope theology: “white American theologians have been virtually silent on black liberation, preferring instead to do theology in the light of a modern liberalism that assumes that black people want to integrate into the white way of life” (27). I was and am fully aware that the poor are stuck at the bottom in a system of power structures; nevertheless, for all intents and purposes, I saw it as merely economic injustice – not also racial. Kingdom theology can cohere with Liberation theology, and to some degree it had for me, but I lacked the color dimension.

However, the book was far from done with me. As pitiful an excuse as it may sound, I felt that I was not allowed previously into the discussion. Whether it is culture, my up bringing, or whatever, I felt that since I was not black, I had no right to speak. I’ve been silent. Cone, however, has called me out. I felt invited into the discussion of racism, particularly in the chapter “White Theology Revisited.” My theology should reflect the richness of all the Christian traditions. I can and should include black theology right along side Yoder, Grenz, and Hauerwas. If I aim to teach theology at a college somewhere and one of the first classes I want to do will incorporate the non-white, non-male, and non-heterosexual theologies – essentially, liberationists. I especially see the need to do this at the Bible College I went to, not to be the token class that covers recent movements (for they already have one that briefly glosses over black theology and feminism), but to interact with the traditions that the evangelical world has marginalized. I want to balance out the white theology and incorporate the other voices.

I do have a concern though: violence. I first want to preface that I have come to hold some sort of loose pacifism, or better described as, peace ethic. My value of peace and non-violence stems from Kingdom ethics – the Kingdom is here but not here, however, as Christians we should endeavor to spread the Kingdom through Kingdom acts (i.e. non-violence). Also, the Kingdom liberates people and contradicts earthly power structures. Cone allows for violence, but I do not…I think. I understand that the oppressed should not work within the oppressor’s paradigm, yet at the same time, I believe the Kingdom not only liberates, but addresses the world and its evil in entirely different ways than the world acts. For now I disagree with Cone on the tactics of liberation, not because I am white and worried about the status quo, rather because I think the Kingdom ethics include non-violence and liberation together.