Tag Archives: theology

Jesus and the Kingdom

This Monday morning’s Moltmann minute, from the opening chapter of Jesus Christ for Today’s World:

Anyone who gets involved with Jesus gets involved with the Kingdom of God. This is an inescapable fact, for Jesus’ own concern was, and is, God’s kingdom. Anyone who looks for God and asks about the kingdom in which ‘righteousness and peace kiss one another (Ps. 85:10) should look at Jesus and enter into the things that happened in his presence and that still happen today in his Spirit. That is obviously and palpably true; for who is Jesus: Simply the kingdom of God in person.

The two belong inseparably together: Jesus and the kingdom of God–the kingdom of God and Jesus. Jesus brings God’s kingdom to us human beings in his own unique way, and guides us into the breadth and beauty of the kingdom. And God’s kingdom makes Jesus the Christ, the savior and deliverer for us all. So if we want to learn what that mysterious ‘kingdom of God’ really is, we have to look at Jesus. And if we want to understand who Jesus really is, we have to experience the kingdom of God.

-Jesus Christ for Today’s World, p.7

Most of us are familiar with the concept of Jesus being the Word incarnate, as the Gospel of John tells us.  He is the word made flesh, the words of the prophets and the judges and the kings fully realized in human form.  ”And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).  I love that Moltmann expands this idea to its theo/logical conclusion.  Jesus is not only the Word made flesh, but is also, simply, the kingdom of God in person.  In this one person, we see the fullness of God’s realm.  And from his kingdom fullness, we have received “grace upon grace.”

There’s always a lot of debate about the kingdom in theological circles–what it is, where it is, how it is, and perhaps most ardently, what we should call it–and perhaps this is why I’m so drawn to the elegant simplicity of Moltmann’s words.  All of those things are worth discussing (and of course M himself does so at more length in other places) but it’s very helpful to start by reminding ourselves that this idea is not some abstract strange possibility looming in the universe.  It has come to us through the person of Jesus, who definitively showed us what it is, where it is, and how it is.  If we want to get anywhere at all in our discussions about the mysterious kingdom, we have to look at Jesus.

Comments { 0 }

The Problem with Generalizing Sin

Another quote from Elisabeth Moltmann-Wendell, this from the concluding pages of I am My Body:  A Theology of Embodiment.

“Reflection on embodiment as a central Christian topic prompts mistrust of a Western Augustinian theology which begins with the fall instead of creation and the pleasure which God took in this creation.  It does not see sin as a general fate which is suffered as a matter of principle, and which for many theological traditions is still rooted in sinful human flesh, in the structure of its drives.  It does not fail to recognize the potential for destruction in human beings, but sees this far more strongly as the problem of a lack of relationship, beginning in an earlier phase of life, a lack of relationship between human beings, between human beings and animals, between human beings and their environment.  Sin must be made clear and identified in particular, different conflicts.

A theology of embodiment mistrusts all abstract spirituality which is dissociated from the body, life, earth and social relationships.  It trusts all embodiment which speaks from a concrete, involved spirit.”


This is one of the most succinct and clear descriptions of why I have a problem with the doctrine of original sin.  It negates the power of God’s goodness in the creation accounts by assuming that a bite of fruit can somehow override all that goodness and impose upon the image of God an indelible blemish that gets passed down forever.   I don’t care what theological gymnastics someone tries to do to counter that conclusion.  Original sin devalues God’s declaration that creation is good.  Secondly, it places sin inside our own bodies, which can lead to all kinds of unhealthy responses and rebellions and misunderstandings and miserableness, rather than seeing sin as something that arises in the context of our relationship with others and with the world.  This is no small distinction.  If we are the faith that is founded upon an embodied God, any doctrine that pulls us away from our bodies or keeps us from relating to our bodies in a way that is life-giving is BAD. NEWS.  As Moltmann-Wendel says, none of this is to say that sin isn’t real, or true, or consistently present among us.  It is to say that if we care about facing sin honestly, it’s far better to do so in the context of “particular, different conflicts” than some blanket wish-washy statement about some hidden blemish we all have.  Thirdly, original sin has the characteristic of being dissociated and abstract, two things no good theology should ever have said about it.  Talking about sin is of critical importance, which is why we shouldn’t be sloppy about the way we talk about it.

Comments { 0 }

The Theologian of the Future is You

I recently finished a series of essays by high-profile (mostly German) theologians entitled How I Have Changed.  The idea came from Jurgen and Elisabeth Moltmann, who wanted to hold a symposium of their theological generation and share the overarching themes of their work over the past thirty years and how they were changed.  The symposium happened in June of 1996 in conjunction with Moltmann’s 70th birthday.  Participants included Eberhard Jungel, Dorothy Soelle, Johann Baptist Metz, and Hans Kung.  I found the essays themselves very interesting, and the dialogue between theologians (often heated) was quite insightful.  There is no arguing that this generation of theologians is quite remarkable, and the idea to get them all into one room to talk with each other about their life’s work is wonderful.  If you like this sort of theological insider conversation, you’ll love the book.

However, I have been positively stewing over the foreword, written by John Bowden, for days now.  I know nothing of Boden other than what I learned through Google; he is an Anglican priest, the former Editor and Managing Director for SCM Press, and has translated many books, including this one, from German into English.  What I can definitely tell you is how I feel about what he wrote in his foreword.

Bowden described how he can’t help but compare his experience at this symposium with his first trip to Germany nearly 30 years prior, where as a publisher he met with Rudolf Bultmann, Gerhard von Rad, Hans Conzelmann, Ernst Kasemann, and other well-known biblical scholars and theologians.  He made two observations about what he has seen that has changed.  First, the symposium’s theologians were far more personal in their work, using stories from their lives and describing how theology intersected with their own senses of identity.  He said this kind of personal rapport between the speakers and the audience would have been “unimaginable” in relation to the first group.  He said this with a benign sort of interest, but I got the feeling that he wasn’t entirely comfortable with it.   I find it to be a step in a hugely positive direction, because in my estimation the single worst element in biblical studies or theology is lack of spirit, or presence, or vitality.  Every reader knows it when a scholar is approaching the text like a surgeon rather than a friend.  Personally, I have a hard time giving weight to arguments of people who seem so apparently bored and disdained by what they are studying.  (I realize there are generational cultural factors involved here; my point is that I see the prevalence of “deeply personal accounts” in theological studies as a good thing, and not a bad one.)

Secondly, he bemoaned what he called “the retreat from biblical criticism.”  He said, “This absence of the critical method still troubles me.”  Certainly, compared to Gerhard von Rad and Rudolf Bultmann, everyone has left the building of biblical criticism entirely.  I don’t personally lose ANY sleep over this.  This is a classic example of academic modernity assuming that other forms of academic inquiry are somehow less intellectual, informed, or important.  I run into this assumption more often than I’d like, but that still isn’t what infuriated me most.

The zinger came in the very last line:  ”Will a future generation see again the like of those appearing here?”

Look, we all know I think Moltmann is one of the most fantastic people walking the planet.  (Because he IS.)  And I don’t expect there will be anyone else like him.  However, it irritates me to no end when I hear people in academic theological circles bemoan the end of all the great thinkers of our time.  Did people not think the early church fathers were the best thinkers we’d ever have, and that Aquinas was the last great theologian, or Calvin, or Barth?  And were any of them right?  (Well, no doubt some of you would argue yes.)  My point is:  The mere assumption that just because systematic theology may be dead (dear God, please) and that disinterested, from-a-distance biblical studies may be dead (oh Lord I hope so), we are resigned to some  horrible fate of a future with endlessly bad ideas and small thinkers…well, that’s the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

When has the world ever been that stagnant?  When has the Spirit ever been THAT uninspiring?

John Bowden may be right that we will not have some huge symposium in Tubingen in 50 years to celebrate the next generation of (German) theologians.  But that is because, in my estimation, theology has now gone viral, and has extended beyond the confines of the ivory towers of our seminaries, and is now being done, thoughtfully and creatively, by a whole slew of people that will for the most part remain unknown.   When I look into the future, I still see some academic scholars and theologians doing creative work.  But I also see moms, artists, authors, church planters, new monastics, justice-driven entrepeneurs, bookstore owners, nonprofit workers, public service officials, and a lot of other everyday people who are doing the most important work of theology there is:  living a well-intentioned and thoughtful life.

Comments { 2 }

Salvation on the way

Happy Moltmann Monday!  In honor of my friend who is reading The Way of Jesus Christ today, here’s an excerpt from that work:

“The gospel is the light which salvation throws ahead of itself.  It is nothing less than the arrival of the coming God in the word.  We have to put it in these emphatic terms in order to be able to discern the gospel’s sacramental character:  salvation runs ahead of itself and appears in the gospel; and the gospel is the beginning in word of the epiphany of the coming God.  In the very act of its announcement, the messianic era is already put into force.  This means that the gospel is not a utopian description of some far-off future.  It is the daybreak of this future in the pardoning, promising word that sets people free.”

-The Way of Jesus Christ, p.95-96

Two things I’m contemplating today about this paragraph.  First, I really love that Moltmann doesn’t speak of salvation as property.  It isn’t something we own, like a Scout badge.  It’s more like a destination we’re running toward, because it is entirely bound up in the coming Kingdom of God.  In this way we can talk not about “having” salvation but as having glimpsed and experienced salvation on its way to something even bigger.

Secondly, I think there’s a lot to be explored in this couplet of pardoning and promising, and also in the triplet of pardoning/promising/being set free.  There is such radical and unexpected love evidenced here.  One would expect, after being pardoned, to move along quietly and humbly, attempting not to press our luck to ask for anything else.  But what does God go and do after pardoning all the ways we have been lousy excuses for human beings?  God promises us huge things, like salvation on its way to the even bigger coming Kingdom of God.  And what else would such an exchange do but set us free in a way we could hardly fathom beforehand?  We’re now without guilt, and filled up with love, and sent out to do worthwhile and right and good things in the world.  We become salvation on the way.  That, my friends, is good news.

Comments { 0 }

Does the Church come through the salvation of the world?

One of the traits I love most about Moltmann’s work is that he has the unbelievable knack of turning a question on its head.  I tend to call these moments “WWF smackdown” moments, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere.  In reframing a question, Moltmann puts on his superhero cape and rescues us from the tangled mess of stuck theology and gently places us down in a clearing where everything once again makes sense. This morning’s WWF smackdown moment comes over the navel-gazing argument many theologians have had over how wonderfully supreme the Church is and how the Church will singlehandedly save the world. OK, so perhaps that’s exaggerating a bit…but some ecclesiology does tend to place the Church upon a pedestal that seems far too high in my opinion.  The pedestal becomes most obvious and most dangerous when the Church attempts to speak in a totalizing voice, as if only we are allowed to speak with finality about the universe.  In more benign forms, the Church (or more usually, the little “c” local church) lets the pedestal keep them from seeing their own brokenness, and that isn’t exactly following the cross, either.

Much of this debate begins at the question of the role of the Church in history.  Moltmann discusses in thef The Church in the Power of the Spirit his understanding of the Church’s place and role in history (both past and future) in light of the person of Jesus Christ.  Moltmann distinguishes from the onset that the church’s history is a Trinitarian history.  In being so, the church’s history is not abstract (Barth would, no doubt, concur here) but is grounded in the revelation of Christ, as well as the overarching work of God and the Spirit in and through the world.  The church participates in the ongoing movement of God, and therefore knowledge cannot be seen as fixed but as partaking in this divine movement.  (As I quoted last week, ours is a tradition in which it is impossible to rest.)  So here comes the WWF smackdown question.  Rather than trying to search history to find examples of how the Church has saved the world  (“Does the salvation of the world come through the church?”) Moltmann rather asks, “Does the church come through the salvation of the world?”

In my opinion, there is a “rightness” in asking how God’s work in the world actually beckons the church into its very existence.  We are BECKONED, you see, all of us, when we see the salvation of the world poking out from under all the rubble.  We are called.  But we cannot be so bold as to think we are the only ones who have received this special calling, or that we have received it in a higher form than anybody else.  (No totalizing ecclesiology, people.)

The church is to see itself as a vehicle for God’s mission for the world and as a proclaimer of God’s action within the world.  Moltmann writes, “If the church understands itself, with all its tasks and powers, in the Spirit and against the horizon of the Spirit’s history, then it also understands its particularity as one element in the power of the Spirit and has no need to maintain its special power and its special charges with absolute and self-destructive claims…We cannot therefore say what the church is in all circumstances and what it comprises in itself.  But we can tell where the church happens…The church is present wherever ‘the manifestation of the Spirit’ (1 Cor. 12:7) takes place” (64-65).

I also really love the shift from “what” church is to “where church is, don’t you?  Isn’t that a MUCH better question?  A less navel-gazing, we-are-so-important-and-nobody-else-can-do-what-we-do question?  The Church comes where the salvation of the world is taking place, and that can be- and often is- in the most unexpected locations.  No need to make every place look the same.  (Isn’t this the primary argument of post-colonialism?) Trust that the Church has come, is coming, and will come where God is working out the salvation of the world.  No need to own it or control it or domesticate it.  Just point, joyfully join in, and say “Amen.”

Comments { 0 }

The Wide Space of the Spirit

Pentecost is probably my favorite day of the year.  My Journey peeps joke that I say that when every single Christian holiday comes around, but seriously, Pentecost is my favorite.  I will not waste an hour of your time rambling as to why.  As it’s Monday, I thought I’d pass along a true Moltmannian metaphor that explains it well:  The Spirit of Life gives us ROOM.  Room to live, and to breathe, and to love, and to find meaning.  The Spirit is the very force of life that makes life worth living.

“When the heart expands, we can stretch our limbs and feel the new vitality everywhere, then life unfolds in us.  But it needs a living space in which it can develop.  Life in the Spirit is a life in the ‘broad place where there is no cramping’ (Job 36:16).  So in the new life we experience the Spirit as a ‘broad place’- as the free space for our freedom, as the living space for our lives, as the horizon inviting us to discover life.  ’The broad place’ is the most hidden and most silent presence of God’s Spirit in us and round about us.  But how else could ‘life in the Spirit’ be understood, if the Spirit were not the space ‘in’ which this life can grow and unfurl?  We explore the depths of this space through the trust of the heart.  We search out the length of this space through extravagant hope.  We discover the breadth of this space through the torrents of love which we receive and give.  God’s Spirit encompasses us from all sides and wherever we are (Psalm 139).  Christ’s Spirit is our immanent power to live- God’s Spirit is our transcendent space for living.”  -The Spirit of Life, p.178-179

Too often we have wrongfully believed that spiritual things are “otherworldly,” that they take us away from our physical present lives and move us into some cloudy atmosphere of abstraction.  The Spirit of God is not an abstraction.  She is not some force that distracts us from our “real lives” by transporting us into another more “spiritual” one.  The Spirit of God given to us at Pentecost is the force for life which makes us recognize where our feet are standing, and pay attention to what our eyes are seeing, and awaken to what our hearts are feeling.  And this feeling of being fully awakened to our present and rich reality very truly transforms us, because it gives us space to breathe so deeply that everything becomes possible.  Love becomes possible, and justice, and peace, and forgiveness.  We don’t feel cramped for space and choked for air, because we are surrounded by the Spirit of God that breathes upon us the very force of life.  When transformation happens in any and every way for us, it is because somewhere deep within us we have, even if only for a moment, believed this to be true, and felt it to be true, and acted knowing it is true.  And when we act from that place, the whole world can change.  When we act from that place, we claim that the whole world IS changing, even now, and we are called to be part of it.

Comments { 1 }

Moltmann Mondays!

If you haven’t heard, my favorite theologian (understatement of the year) has recently had a book published in English entitled Sun of Righteousness, Arise!  God’s Future for Humanity and the Earth.  This is one of his more pastoral works, which means it’s written not for theologians but for all of us who are trying to practically live out our faith.  It’s a great summary of much of his more dense works of theology, with some new material as well.  I am BEYOND excited.  So much so, in fact, that I have decided to begin a new little tradition on my blog called Moltmann Mondays.  Every Monday, I’ll pick an idea or paragraph or quote from Moltmann’s work and talk briefly about it.

To kick off, here are some sentences from the preface of Moltmann’s latest:

“When I think back, I discover with some surprise that I have always understood Christian theology as a unity, irrespective of the persons who have thought it and maintained it.  From Orthodoxy to the Pentecostal movement in Europe, Asia, Africa and America, all theologians belong to the whole of Christendom on earth and to the thousand-year-old communio theologorum.  In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither Greek nor barbarian, neither master nor servant, and neither man nor woman.  All become one because the frontiers that divide them have been broken down.  And the same is true in Christian theology…Christian theology reaches out beyond denominational frontiers and cultural barriers.  Its discussions do not run parallel to confessional boundaries…I believe that the only future for a divided Christendom before God, and hence on earth too, is a common future.”

To understand Christian theology as a unity is easier said than done.  One of the reasons I was so attracted to Moltmann’s theology is because while most theologians I read were whittling ideas of God down into smaller and smaller bits (and therefore more and more splintered factions that required defending), Moltmann was stretching out wider and wider to bring more pieces in.  This makes intuitive sense to me, as one who recently described my appreciation in the emerging church conversation on what we call “big tent theology.”  We are not attempting to create a new faction, but rather attempting instead to widen our listening to include a more whole and holistic voice of Christian theology, spanning time, denominations, continents, and other perceived borders.  Good theology ought to move OUT and not IN.  (And if you haven’t heard me beat this drum enough, I believe the story of God in Scripture only works that way, too.)

Certainly, I also LOVE his recurring refusal to pay attention to boundaries drawn by humans in favor of the God who so loves breaking them. (See:  The Boundary-Breaking God)

And I also love his beautiful declaration that if we are to have a future at all, it is to be a shared future.  And this future must be held together by the One who alone is able to bring us into unity.  I wrote that “Any human dictator can control a homogenous society.  Only the living God can hold together a diverse global world in love.”  This is the difference between our desire to shrink God/people/the world into easily understandable and controlled splinter categories, and God’s desire to free up people/the world to flourish in creative ways outside of our controlling categories.  This is why we have a common future that must be grounded not in our own whittling and splintering work, but in the unifying work of God.  That’s as true for theology as it is every other work we do as humans living together in this world.  How can we gather rather than shatter?

Comments { 1 }

A Peacemaking Kingdom

“We are called not to be a peaceable kingdom but a peacemaking kingdom”- Moltmann (in response to what he thinks of Stanley Hauerwas)

For the past few years I’ve been thinking through the relationship between church and nation/state/political powers. It’s a tricky affair. Truthfully, I haven’t figured out how to navigate those worlds together without feeling I’m rejecting one or the other. One trend that bothers me is what I think Moltmann meant by the peaceable kingdom. It is peaceable, but it is also removed. All of us agree it would be easier to pull away from society and live in our own little communities of justice. But then we would cease to be a peacemaking kingdom where it’s needed most. So the question is- without leaving our very complicated ties to political realities in favor of an isolated community, how do we live as people who seek God’s reconciliation?

If there’s one conviction I have, it’s that much of our action has more to do with our presence than anything else. I don’t mean just showing up- I mean the WAY in which we show up, the way we interact with others, the way we speak our words. Part of my frustration I shared yesterday is that we’ve seemingly lost the ability to be present in ways that aren’t selfish, egotistical and even violent toward others. As God’s people, we need to be incredibly thoughtful and intentional about how we seek change. They will know we are Christians by our love, no?

While “peaceable” describes a state of being, “peacemaking” implies movement and action. It’s the far more complicated of the two- but it also happens to be the one that God commands of us. Anybody have good examples or stories of how we can do this? Any tips?

Comments { 10 }