Tonight I attended a lecture by one of my theology heroes, Jurgen Moltmann. It is now the fortieth anniversasry of Theology of Hope, and a short conference has been convened in his honor. Moltmann gave us some background as to where he was coming from when he wrote it, and tomorrow he’ll speak to where he sees it playing out now.
Even now as a Unitarian Universalist I find Moltmann helpful. He urges (preaches, really) that we should focus on what god is doing now and about to do to bring about koinonia. For him, the resurrection of the crucified god is the seat of living in hope. He pointed to the peaceful falls of the Soviet Empire and apartheid as manifestations of that hope in history, even as he warned that we should never expect to experience more than an anticipation—not a manifestation—of koinonia.
But he also said something curious. He said (to many amens) that without the reality check of the crucifixion and the hope of the resurrection, “messianic hope is uncertain and nameless.” I take this to mean that hope is still possible outside Christ, but that it is partial and incomplete. Perhaps it is also a nod to univeralist theology.
Still, what’s wrong with the “nonChristian’s” nameless hope? Not a damn thing for this Taoist. And to say that our hope is uncertain is either rude or meaningless. Rude, because as a non-nonChristian he has no way of judging the certainty of our hope, so that his allegation is just an insult. Meaningless, because the hope of experiencing the anticipation of koinonia must always be uncertain.
Hey. Good thoughts.
I don’t think you understand exactly what he’s getting at. You are getting half the equation – the suffering of God which identifies and envelopes human suffering – but without the crucial element of the resurrection. Therefore, though God can sympathize and identify with human suffering, he cannot do anything about it. He cannot offer any victory or promise of victory, nor can he suggest any real solution. The resurrection is God’s Yes! to the No! of suffering and death, so that we who live in him will also reign with him. There is nothing in secularism that can promise this kind of overturning. Everything is but a balance between this and that. One’s suffering is meaningless against the vast tapestry of the impartial and cold universe. That is why Moltmann can say that those whose hope derives from the resurrection of Christ have a hope unlike any other. It is not dependent upon human beings, or the natural courses of the physical world, but upon the power of God who is able to resurrect the dead and to make living something from nihil nothingness.
Thom,
Good to hear from you. I ended up being able to come to the conference after all. Wish we could have got together.
There is nothing in secularism that can promise this kind of overturning. Everything is but a balance between this and that. One’s suffering is meaningless against the vast tapestry of the impartial and cold universe.
But I’m not relying upon secularism. I’m coming from Taoism, for instance. I guess I fail to see why “natural processes” aren’t a ground of hope. To me, the workings of Tao are endlessly meaningful, and it perplexes me that others don’t find them full enough.
I’m not particularly interested in being resurrected myself, so that whole symbolism is lost on me. I also don’t believe in nihil emptiness — I’m much more partial to sunyata emptiness.
So I suppose my point is that you have to swallow the whole Christian story for Moltmann’s point about “uncertain and unnamed hope” to gel. I reject the Christian story, so it feels to me like he’s just preaching to the choir.