A new theological architecture for environmental care by demandside

Foundationsof‘EcologicalReformation’: ACriticalStudyofJürgenMoltmann’s Contributionstowardsa‘NewTheological Architecture’forEnvironmentCare

AThesisSubmittedfortheDegreeofDoctorofPhilosophy CardiffUniversity

BenDare 2012

Abstract

JürgenMoltmann’sdesiretoseetherelationshipbetweenhumansandour naturalenvironmentimproveislong-standing.Inlateryearshecalledfor a‘newtheologicalarchitecture’tohelpfacilitatean‘ecologicalreformation’ ofChristianityandsociety.WhileMoltmanndidnotclaimtohavecreated thisnewarchitecture,oneofhiswork’saimshasclearlybeentocontribute towardsit.TowhatextenthasMoltmannbeensuccessfulinthisaim?Firstly, hisdoctrineoftheTrinityprovidesthethemesofloveandrelatednesswhich pervadeandcolourhiswholeproject.Thesethemestheninteractwithother keyareasofMoltmann’sthoughtthatinformthisarchitecture:creation,God’s ongoingcareandopennesstowardscreation(largelypneumatologyand christology),andeschatology.Eachoftheseareascontributetoatheological architectureinwhichnon-humancreation,past,present,andfuture,isafull recipientofGod’sunitingloveandopenness.Naturallythisleadstowards aconsiderationoftheecologicalreformation.Lesspositively,Moltmann’s discussionofGod’screatingthroughself-restrictionpresentssomeproblems forthisarchitecture’scoherence,althoughMoltmann’sdevelopingviewson thisdohelpprovideasolution.Furthermore,analysisofthecriticismsmade byvariouscommentatorssuggeststhatseveraldebatedareasareactuallyparticularlyproductiveforMoltmann’scontributionstothearchitecture.Other criticismsdohighlightareasofconcernandpossibledevelopment,butdonot presentterminalproblems.Thepotentialforthisarchitecturetoaddresspractice,notsimplytheory,increasesthroughelementsofMoltmann’stheological anthropologythatchallengehumanity’sbehaviour.Thoseelementsthusform alensthroughwhichMoltmann’swidercontributionstothearchitecturemore powerfullyspeakoftheneedforcreationcare.Therefore,whileMoltmann’s contributiontowardsanewarchitectureforecologicalreformationwouldbe helpedbycertainmodiﬁcations,neverthelessitishighlysigniﬁcant.Itswide scopemakesitfertileforfurthercontributionsanddevelopment.

TheSpiritandCreationinEarlyMaterial...........50

TheSpiritoftheChurch..............51

TheSpiritofCreation...............53

Moltmann’sInterpretationof‘AllFlesh’............55

EarlyTheology...................56

1980-89.......................58

1990Onwards...................60

InterpretationProblems?.............63

4.3CONTINUOUS LOVE:THE SPIRIT .................67

TheSpirit’sPresence......................67

TheSpiritin All Creation.............68

ADevelopingEmphasis..............69

FurtherCriticismsoftheSpirit’sUniversalPresence 70

TheSpirit’sActivity.......................72

TheSpiritofLife..................73

TheMoverofEvolution..............75

TheSpiritofDeath?................80

TheCreatorofFellowship.............82

TheEnablerofCo-Creativity...........85

FurtherCriticismsoftheSpirit’sUniversalActivity88

4.4CONTINUOUS LOVE:THE SON ..................93

TheSonofLife..........................93

SeparatingChrist’sandtheSpirit’sRole............95

4.5CONCLUSIONS ...........................98

5God’sOpennesstoCreation101

5.1INTRODUCTION ..........................101

5.2THE OPENNESSOF GODTO CREATION ..............102

TheOpennessoftheTrinity..................102 OpennessofRelationships.............102 OpennesstotheWorld...............103 OpennessthroughtheSpirit..................105

AFellowshipMarkedbyReciprocity.......105 DrawingCreationintoGod............106

OpennessthroughtheSon...................107 TheCross......................107

ChangingRealityandRevealingEternity.....108 ProcessConcerns........................109

GodinProcess?..................110

5.3THE CASEFOR DIVINE SUFFERING ................112 OpennessandSuffering.....................113

TheIncompatibilityofImpassibilityandLove.........116

TheCrossandDivinePassibility................120

5.4GOD’S SUFFERINGAND CREATION ................121

TheSufferingoftheSpirit With and In Creation.......122

6.4C

TheRoleofFaithinParticipation.........188

IncompleteParticipation....................190

InclusiveNon-ConsciousParticipation......190 LimitedConsciousParticipation..........191

DeeperParticipation.......................192

7.5LIVINGIN HOPE ..........................193

Love,Hope,Love........................194

LovingHopeProducesAction..................194

RevealstheDistancebetweenFutureandPresent195 SeekstoBridgetheGap..............196 GivesaSureness..................198

Hope:ThePoweroftheFutureinthePresent........199

7.6CONCLUSIONS ...........................200

InterconnectednessofThemes:AFourfoldApproach.....200 IdealismversusRealism.....................201

PotentialfortheEcologicalReformation............202

8The‘EcologicalReformation’205

8.1INTRODUCTION ..........................205

8.2RESTORING ALL CREATION’S IMPORTANCE ............205 OneCommunity.........................206 God’sCreation..........................207 IntrinsicValue..........................209 Vulnerability...........................210

8.3CORRESPONDINGTO GOD’S LOVEFOR CREATION ........211 God’sTrinitarianLove......................211 God’sLoveforCreation.....................212

8.4PARTICIPATINGIN GOD’S LOVEFOR CREATION ..........215 UniversalandIntimateLove..................215 GivingandPreservingLifeandFellowship..........216 TheComingFuture.......................217

8.5LIVINGIN HOPEFOR CREATION ..................218 EngendersLoveforCreation..................218 SuppliesanAimforCreation..................219 MotivatestoActforCreation..................220

8.6CONCLUSIONS ...........................220 9Conclusion223

9.1THESIS AIMS ............................223 ReviewofAims.........................225

9.2CONTRIBUTIONSTOTHE ‘THEOLOGICAL ARCHITECTURE’....226 SummaryofContributions...................229 ProblematicIssues........................230

Acknowledgements

Thisprojecthasbeneﬁtedhugelyfromthesupportofmanypeople.Firstmy thanksgotoDrRoyKearsley,mysupervisor,whoseundergraduatecourses ﬁrstawakenedmyinterestfortheissuescontainedwithinthesepages.He hassinceworkedhardtoguideandsupportmyresearch,andhaspatiently helpedmetonavigatethechoppywatersofdoctoralstudy.

Myappreciationalsogoestoallthewriterswithwhomthisthesishas engaged.ParticularlyIamgratefultohaveencounteredtheworkofProfessor JürgenMoltmann,whichhasstimulatedmythoughtandchallengedmy engagementwithChristiantheologyand,inparticular,itsengagementwith ecologicalconcerns.

EdwinMellenPressgraciouslyagreedtothereplicationofoneoftheir volumes,whichotherwisewouldhavebeeninaccessibletome.Muchhelp wasalsogivenbytheteachingandadministrativestaffatboththeSouth WalesBaptistCollegeandCardiffUniversity.Tothesethreeinstitutions,Iam indebted.ParticularthanksareduetoRevdDrCraigGardinerandDrNic Baker-Brian,whotookthetimetoreadthisthesisandofferfeedback.

Icouldnotthankallthefriendsandfamilywhohavehelpedmein differentwaysthroughoutthistime.ThemembersatCalvaryBaptistChurch, Cardiff,andBroadHavenBaptistChurch,Pembrokeshire,haveofferedthe supportandfreedomnecessarytoundertakemystudies.Specialthanks, however,mustbegiventomywife,Helen.Herassistanceinboththeﬁnalpreparationofthismanuscriptandenjoyinglifeingeneralhavebeen invaluable.

ListofAbbreviations

TheabbreviationsofMoltmann’smajorworkslistedbelowwillbeusedin thefootnotes.Thepatternbelow,thatMoltmann’snameisomittedfrom referencestohisworks,willbefollowedthroughoutthetextandnotesofthis thesis.Allotherauthorswillbenamedconsistently.

BP ABroadPlace:AnAutobiography,trans.byMargaretKohl(London: SCM,2007)

CJF CreatingaJustFuture:ThePoliticsofPeaceandtheEthicsofCreation inaThreatenedWorld,trans.byJohnBowden(London:SCM,1989)

CoG TheComingofGod:ChristianEschatology,trans.byMargaretKohl (London:SCM,1996)

CPS TheChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit,trans.byMargaretKohl,2nd edn(London:SCM,1992)

CrG TheCruciﬁedGod:TheCrossofChristastheFoundationandCriticism ofChristianTheology,trans.byR.A.WilsonandJohnBowden,2001 edn(London:SCM,2001)

EthH EthicsofHope,trans.byMargaretKohl(London:SCMPress,2012)

ExH TheExperimentHope,trans.byM.DouglasMeeks(London:SCM, 1975)

EiT ExperiencesinTheology:WaysandFormsofChristianTheology,trans. byMargaretKohl(London:SCM,2000)

EoGExperiencesofGod,trans.byMargaretKohl(London:SCM,1980)

FC TheFutureofCreation:CollectedEssays,trans.byMargaretKohl (London:SCM,1979)

GiC GodinCreation:AnEcologicalDoctrineofCreation,trans.byMargaretKohl(London:SCM,1985)

GSS GodforaSecularSociety:ThePublicRelevanceofTheology,trans.by MargaretKohl(London:SCM,1999)

HP HopeandPlanning,trans.byMargaretClarkson(London:SCM, 1971)

HTG HistoryandtheTriuneGod:ContributionstoTrinitarianTheology, trans.byJohnBowden(London:SCM,1991)

IEB IntheEnd–theBeginning:TheLifeofHope,trans.byMargaretKohl (London:SCM,2004)

JCTW JesusChristforToday’sWorld,trans.byMargaretKohl(London: SCM,1994)

OC TheOpenChurch:InvitationtoaMessianicLife-Style,trans.by M.DouglasMeeks(London:SCM,1978)

OHD OnHumanDignity:PoliticalTheologyandEthics,trans.byM.Douglas Meeks(London:SCM,1984)

PP ThePowerofthePowerless:TheWordofLiberationforToday,trans. byMargaretKohl(London:SCM,1983)

RRF Religion,Revolution,andtheFuture,trans.byM.DouglasMeeks (NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1969)

SpL TheSpiritofLife:AUniversalAfﬁrmation,trans.byMargaretKohl (London:SCM,1992)

SRA SunofRighteousness,Arise!:God’sFutureforHumanityandtheEarth, trans.byMargaretKohl(London:SCM,2010)

SW ScienceandWisdom,trans.byMargaretKohl(London:SCM,2003)

TJTheologyandJoy,trans.byReinhardUlrich(London:SCM,1973)

TKG TheTrinityandtheKingdomofGod:TheDoctrineofGod,trans.by MargaretKohl(London:SCM,1981)

ToH TheologyofHope:OntheGroundandtheImplicationsofaChristian Eschatology,trans.byJamesW.Leitch(London:SCM,1967)

WJC TheWayofJesusChrist:ChristologyinMessianicDimensions,trans. byMargaretKohl(London:SCM,1990)

Chapter1 Introduction

Inrecentyearsnotonlyhasawarenessgrownoftheimportanceofhumanity’s relationshipwiththenaturalworld,butalsothevolumeofattemptstooffer somemeasureofasolutiontourgentproblemsorfurtherunderstanding oftheissues.TheﬁeldofChristiantheologyisnotanexception.Jürgen Moltmannjoinedthiswidermovementrelativelyearlyinitshistoryandhas continuedtoconnectwithitasapriorityinhiswork.Hehasaddressedthese concernsfromavarietyofdirectionswithinhislargertheologicalsystem. Forthisreasonhehaslongbeenknownforhisoutspokendesiretoseethe relationshipbetweenthehumanraceandtherestofcreationimprove.

Moltmann’sbackgroundhasbeenexploredindepthelsewhere.1 However, abriefsummarywillbeuseful.JürgenMoltmannwasbornin1926near Hamburg,Germany.HebecameinvolvedintheSecondWorldWartowardsits conclusionandwascapturedandtakenasaprisonerofwartoBelgium,and thenScotland,fornearlythreeyears.Duringthistimehedecidedtobecomea pastor.HereturnedtoGermanyin1948whereforthenextdecadehetrained andthenservedasapastoruntilhetookupateachingpostataseminaryin Wuppertalin1958.FromtherehemovedtoteachinBonnin1963andsoon aftertoTübingenin1967.Hetaughtthereuntilhisretirementin1994and eversincehasremainedProfessorEmeritusofSystematicTheologyatthat university.

Inlatteryears,Moltmannhasobservedtheriseofhumanity’sacknowledgementoftheworld’secologicalpredicamentandtheglobaldesiretotake action.Hehastermedthisneededchangeamovementtowardsan‘ecological reformation’(or‘revolution’);anewwayoflifewhereearthandecology,not economyandprogress,aretheprimaryguidesofhumanity.Alongsidethat insightMoltmannassertsthatacontributionChristiantheologycanmaketo suchaprocessistoﬁndthe‘newtheologicalarchitecture’thatisneededto

1 Seeespeciallyhisautobiography(BP),althoughmanystudiesofhisworkcontain biographicalinformation.

helpfacilitatetheecologicalreformation/revolutionwithinbothChristian cultureandsociety.2

WhereMoltmannusesthephrasesconcernedhemakesthefollowingA, B,Cargument:

A: Societyneedsan‘ecologicalreformation[ökologischenReformation]’3 or ‘ecologicalrevolution[ökologischenRevolution]’.4 Therelationshipbetween humanbeingsandtheirworldhasbrokendown,alreadywithdisastrous resultsforbothnatureandhumanity.Areformationisneededforsurvival.

B: Likewisean‘ecologicalreformationofChristianity’isneeded.5 Hisuse ofthebroadterm‘Christianity’inthisinstanceisbestunderstoodtomean Christianthoughtandbehaviour.Suchareformationisneededforthe Christiancommunity’sownrelationshipwiththeearthaswellastoaid reformationinsocietyingeneral.ThelatterisimportanttoMoltmannbecause hebelievesthattherearedeepreligiousandculturalrootsinsocietythat guideitsactionsandattitudes.HeseesJudaeo-Christianthought,particularly intheWest,aspartofthecontributiontoanattitudeofdominationtowards nature.HisclaimsappeartobelessthatChristianideaswillbethedeﬁnitive shapingforceofsocietyandmorethatChristianitypartlyhelpedcreatethis crisisandsoChristianityneedstodoitsparttohelprelieveit.

Asseenhere,Moltmannusestheterm‘ecological reformation’toreferto thechangeneededinbothChristianthoughtandsociety.Itis,therefore,an idealtermtousethroughoutthecurrentprojecttodescribethetransformation of all humanity,Christianorotherwise,forwhichMoltmannhopes.

C: Moltmannarguesthata‘newtheologicalarchitecture[neuetheologische Architektur]’willbebeneﬁcialtobothAandB.

AlthoughMoltmann’sdescriptionofthenatureofthetheologicalarchitecturewasminimal,hedidgivecertaindetail.Thiswas:aGod-centred,rather thananthropocentric,viewoftheworldwhichrecognisesGod’spresencein, andfuturefor,thewholeofcreationofwhichhumanityisonlyapart.6 The

2 GSS,pp.21-22,224.Thesearetwodifferentarticlesreprinted,amongothers,inone volume.TheyarealsoessentiallytheonlyplaceMoltmannusestheseterms.Theearlier articlealsoappearsinasimilarformas‘TheologyintheProjectoftheModernWorld’,in A PassionforGod’sReign:Theology,ChristianLearning,andtheChristianSelf,ed.byMiroslav Volf(GrandRapids,MI/Cambridge:Wm.B.EerdmansPublishing,1998),pp.1-22.The phrase‘ecologicalreformation’alsoappearsin CJF,p.15,butitisnotanexplicitsubjectof thediscussion,norisitfollowedbyanymentionofthe‘theologicalarchitecture’.

3 GSS,p.21.

4 Ibid.,p.224.

5 Ibid.,p.224.

6 Ibid.,pp.21-22,224-25.

followingpages,however,willdrawoutfurthersubstancefromMoltmann himself,summarisedasfollows: thenewtheologicalarchitecturereassesses God’srelationshipwithcreationandhumanity’spositionwithinthisrelationship. IthelpstofacilitatetheecologicalreformationofChristianthoughtandaction, andsociety,asitcreatesthethinking-spaceinwhichhumanitycanre-imagine itsrelationshipwith,andresponsibilitiesfor,thenaturalworld.Thatisthebasic understandingofthephrasewhichthestudyshallemploy,thoughothersmay yetdiscoveradditionalinsights.

ThisprojectdealsmainlywithC;thepossibilitiesforthemake-upof thisnewtheologicalarchitectureasitlookstotheecologicalreformationof Christianityandsociety.Illustrativeexamplesof practical possibilitiesforthe reformationwillappearoccasionally,butthetasktackledinthefollowing pagesisnotthatofexploringthepreciseshapeoftheseconsequentreforms.

Whilethephrase‘theologicalarchitecture’onlyappearsafewtimesin Moltmann’swritingsthedescriptionaboveusefullyencapsulatesthevarious themesinwhichheengageswithenvironmentalconcerns.Therefore,itis asuitableumbrellatermforthecurrentenquiry’sfocus.Thetermdoesnot refertoMoltmann’swholesystemofthought.Rather,thisresearchgathers speciﬁcelementsofhisworktogethertoformanewconstruction.

Whilehedidnotclaimtohavecreatedthisnewtheologicalarchitecture, norexplicitlystateitasagoalofhiswork,evensoitisclearthatMoltmann hasjoinedintheproject.Hiswidersystematicworkremindsusthathe seeshisgoalgenerallytoprovide‘contributionstotheology’thatencourage conversationandcriticalthinking,nota‘system’or‘dogmatics’whichhefears ‘enforcetheirownideas’.7 ThesamegoalencompassesMoltmann’semerging questforatheologicalarchitecture.Accordingly,theresearchundertaken herehasexpectationfromMoltmannonlyfor contributions toatheological architecture,notacompletedenterprise.

Thequestionwhicharises,andthequestionwhichthethesisexplores, is: inwhatwayandtowhatextenthasMoltmannachievedhisaimand contributedtoatheologicalarchitecturethatcallsfortheecologicalreformation ofChristianityandsociety?

TherelationshipsbetweenthetheologicalarchitectureandChristian thoughtandbehaviourontheonehand,andsociety’sontheother,are notsimple,noraretheyguaranteedtobefruitful.NoteveryChristian willagreewiththetheologicalassumptionsorconclusionswhichMoltmann makes.ThecriteriabywhichaChristianjudgesthearchitecturewillbe 7 TKG,pp.xi-xiii.

variedbutsomearereasonablylikely,forexample:theinnercoherenceof Moltmann’swork,itscompatibilitywithtradition,thebiblicalevidencefor hisarguments.Thosethreecriteriahaveanelementofsubjectivityinthat theyareopentointerpretation(aslaterdiscussiondemonstrates).Therefore thisstudycanonlyassessthestrengthofMoltmann’sargumentintheseareas andnotdeclarethateveryonemustagree,forexample,withhisbiblical interpretation.Ifhisassertionsareconvincingthenhecanexpecttohelp facilitatetheecologicalreformationofChristianity,namelyinthelivesof persuadedpersonsandcommunities.Inaddition,hecouldhopetobringsome measureofreformationtowidersocietythroughtheinﬂuenceofChristians onthatsociety(whetherthroughactivity,lobbyingorprotest).

Thelinkbetweenthetheologicalarchitectureandsocietyisdifﬁcultto quantifybutalmostcertainlynotallofthoseoutsideofChristianfaithwill necessarilydismissinstantlyallofMoltmann’sideas.Ofcoursetherewill alwaysbethoseforwhomhisworkisfallaciousortotallyunconvincing.Even so,theremaybeinsightsthatareofgeneralinteresttothenon-theological, orevenanti-theological,readeronsuchsubjectsasthevalueofnature,the stressonrespectfulrelationalityandlovewithincreation,andtheimportance ofaction.ForMoltmannhimself,thedesiredtheologicalarchitectureisof usetosocietybecausehebelievesthereisan‘implicittheologyofmodern times–atheologyalwaysalreadyexistent,butnotcriticallythoughtthrough’. Forhimthen,a‘publictheology’isneeded;thatis,onewhichchallengesand converseswithsociety’simplicitviewsonenvironmentcare.Inthiswayhe seeksthe‘publicrelevance’whichhebelievesChristiantheologyneedson thisissue,andindeedsocietyingeneralneeds.8 AsinthecaseofMoltmann’s work,whatfollowsisnotadogmaticassertionofthewaytheworldmust respondtothisissue.Ratheritisintendedasanexplorationinlinewith Moltmann’spurposeofengenderingconversation.

Tosummarise,thepurposeofthefollowingresearchisnottoargue thatMoltmann’stheologyislogicallycompellingfor all Christians,norisit toarguethewayinwhichChristianbeliefsandvalueswillhaveanimpact onwidersociety(thelatterinparticularhaspotentialforfurtherresearch). Also,toclaimthatMoltmanncouldcreateatheologicalarchitecturethat couldcompletelytransformChristiancultureorsocietywouldbetoexpect toomuch.Itisbeyondtheabilityofanyoneperson.Ratherthethesis, withinthetermsofmainstreamChristianthought,will exploreandanalyse thepotencyandcoherenceofMoltmann’scontributionstowardsthetheological

8 GSS,p.1.

architecture,whichhehopeswillspeaktobothChristianityandsociety.With thisquestcomestheacknowledgementthatthepreciseimplicationsforany givenpersonwilldifferaccordingtotheirownsituation.

ThestudywillthusoperateacknowledgingMoltmann’sdualapproach:

A: Moltmann’scontributionstoanewtheologicalarchitecturepresentacall toChristianstoreformtheirviewstowardstheenvironment.

B: Hiscontributionsalsogive,admittedlylargelyintheologicalterms,acall tosocietyatlargetohearanywisdomthatmightbefoundwithinhiswork andlikewisereassessitsrelationshipwiththenaturalworld.

Thisapproachmeansthattheworkaheadwillrarelyspeakexclusivelyof anecologicalreformationintermsof‘Christianity’alonebutwillratherspeak simply,andinclusively,of humanity

1.1STANDING ON THE SHOULDERS

ThisprojectstandswithinarichandongoingstudyofMoltmann’sworkon boththeologyandecologicalissuesamongmanyscholars.Thisfactalone necessitatesabriefliteraturereview.TotheparticularsubjectofMoltmann’s theologyandenvironmentcare,manyhavebroughtananalyticaleyeto discretetopics,morethancanbelistedhere.Afewhavesoughttoexplorehis workwithasystematicapproachtothefullrangeofhisideas.TimothyHarvie mentionedthetwomostprominentofthesewhenherecentlystatedthat environmentalconcern‘hasbecomeaprominentfeatureinMoltmann’slater writingsandhasreceivedmuchattention.Becauseofthis,[...]thiswork willnotdealexplicitlywithecologyexceptwhereitspeciﬁcallyintersectsthe politicalandeconomicspheresofdiscourse’.9 Heactuallycitedthreeworks: thedissertationsofCeliaDeane-Drummond,10 StevenBouma-Prediger,11 andDouglasJ.Schuurman.12 Harvie’sstatementabovequestionstheneed forfurtherstudieslikethese.Yetthisprojectdevelopstheworkwhichhe

9 TimothyHarvie, JürgenMoltmann’sEthicsofHope:EschatologicalPossibilitiesforMoral Action (Farnham:Ashgate,2009),p.138.

10 CeliaDeane-Drummond, EcologyinJürgenMoltmann’sTheology (Lampeter:Edwin MellenPress,1997).

11 StevenBouma-Prediger, TheGreeningofTheology:TheEcologicalModelsofRosemary RadfordRuether,JosephSittlerandJürgenMoltmann (Atlanta,GA:ScholarsPress,1995).

12 DouglasJ.Schuurman, Creation,Eschaton,andEthics:TheEthicalSigniﬁcanceofthe Creation-EschatonRelationintheThoughtofEmilBrunnerandJürgenMoltmann (NewYork: PeterLang,1991).

mentions,withitsownparticularinterestsandtheincorporationofafurther twodecadesofMoltmann’swork.

Deane-Drummond’sstatedaimistoanalyseMoltmann’sdevelopment ofa‘greentheology’,thatis,‘onethatisthoroughlyawareofecological issues,butwithintheframeworkoftheologicalconcerns’.13 Shedescribes Moltmann’swork,uptoandincluding TheWayofJesusChrist,asamove ‘towardsagreentheology’butclaims‘itisonlyafirststep’.14 However, thisstudygoessomewaytogiveevidenceofa‘furtherstep’,throughan explorationofMoltmann’ssubsequentwork,andhisearlierworkinthe contextofthewhole.Deane-Drummond’sapproachhassimilaritiestothe presentwork,yetthepresentstudyreachesdifferentconclusions,aresult ofamixtureofinterpretationsofspecifictopicsanddivergentdirectionsof exploration.Furthermore,shehasamorescientific,specificallybiological, perspectivewithassociatedlinesofenquiry,andherownfociandemphases drawherinparticulardirections.

Bouma-Prediger’soverallaimistoshowhowChristiantraditioninitsentiretycontains‘considerableresourcestodevelopanecologicallyinformedand afﬁrmingtheology’.15 Hethuschoosesthreeauthorsasdialoguepartnersand Moltmannreceivesonlyathirdofhisattention.Crucially,Bouma-Prediger’s scoperestrictstheamounthecanengagewithMoltmann’swork.Inaddition, theresearchwhichfollowsdisagreeswithcertainelementsofthatengagement.Bouma-Predigermakesimportantcontributions,yettheyaredifferent tothisthesisinthatthelatterconcentratesmorewhollyonMoltmann’swork andthusexplorestogreaterdepthandgiveswiderresults.

Harvie’sinclusionofSchuurman’sstudyisgenerous.Whileithas‘creation’and‘ethics’initstitle,‘creation’refersmainlytotheoriginalactof creationand‘ethics’tosocialethics.16 Itisthuslargelyastudyofcontinuity anddiscontinuitybetweenpast,presentandfuture,anditsimplicationsfor moregeneralhumanactivity,notspeciﬁcallyenvironmentalissues.Thisdoes havesomeramiﬁcationsforcertainelementsofthisthesis,butitsvaluefor theoveralltaskislimited.

Aswellasthesespeciﬁcreasons,thereisalsothequestionofdate.All threeoftheabovestudiesarethesesfromthe1980sandveryearly1990s. Moltmannhasdoneextensiveandsigniﬁcantworksincethisdatewhichadds to,interpretsandcomplementsmuchofhisearliermaterial.Moltmann’s

13 Deane-Drummond, Ecology,p.296.

14 Ibid.,p.300.

15 Bouma-Prediger, TheGreening,p.10.

16 Schuurman, Creation,p.2.

contributiontothenewtheologicalarchitecturehasnotbeenstatic.In addition,theamountofsecondaryliteratureonmanyareasofhisthought hasalsogrown.ThishasgeneratednewcritiquesanddefencesofMoltmann’s worktotakeintoaccount.

1.2METHODOLOGY

WhatfollowsisprimarilyastudyofcertainaspectsofMoltmann’stheology thatcanhelpfullycontributetothenewtheologicalarchitecture.Successive chapterswillextractdifferentthreadsofhisthought,andbydoingsowill buildupthesubstanceofthisarchitecture.Thegreaterpartoftheresearch isthusanexplorationandanalysisofMoltmann’swork.Eachdiscussion containsaclosefocusontheprimarytexts,followedbyanalysisandpurposefulengagementwithsecondaryauthors.However,astheinvestigation ofMoltmann’sownexplicitclaimscontinues,sotoodoesattentiontothe potentialtomakenewconnectionsandconclusionsfromhisworkwhichhe himselfdoesnotmakeexplicitly.

Inordertogivedueattentiontothemostproﬁtablethemes,thescope ofengagementfocusesonselecteddoctrinesrelevanttothetask,andoften onlycertainareaswithinthosedoctrines.Thisisnotastudyofeveryfacet ofMoltmann’sentiresystem.Ratheritexploreshowcertainaspectsof Moltmann’sworkcanbedrawntogethertooffercoherentcontributionstoa speciﬁcarchitecture,astructureofthoughtpertinenttothereformationof ecologicalviews.Itisimportanttorememberthatthethesisevaluatesthe potentialofMoltmann’s contributionsto thistheologicalarchitecture.The thesiscannotclaimtodiscoverthecompletedarchitectureinMoltmann’s work.The‘new’theologicalarchitecturewillinfactbean‘emerging’one.

Furthermore,thisresearchcannotclaimtoanswerallthequestionsthat pertaintoeachtopicthatisdealtwith.Itsinterestliesinthecoherenceof thenewarchitectureanditspotentialasitseekstofacilitateanecologicalreformation.Thethesis,therefore,hasnotsettledonceandforallcontroversial topicssuchasGod’ssuffering,ortheexactmake-upoftheinnertriunelife. Theseareasareaddressedinsofarastheytouchthesubjectofatheological architecturewhichlookstofacilitateanecologicalreformation.Inaddition, whilethethesisisthoroughlyinterestedintheecologicalreformation,itis notpossibletogiveequalattentionanddetailtoboththisandthetheolo-

gicalarchitecture.Itisthelatterthatmainlyoccupiesthiswork’senergies inordertoillustratethefoundationforpracticalearth-careactivitythatcan begatheredfromMoltmann’stheology.Somepossibilitiesfortheecological reformationwillemerge,butonlyinlimitedway.

Tofacilitatethisthestudywilltakeanessentiallysystematicapproach toMoltmann’sworkfromthe1960stothepresentday.Almostallpublished monographsareincluded,withonlyminorexceptions,sothereisnoneed tolistthemall.Forclarity,areferencetohisearlyworkgenerallyalludes tothatofthe1960sand70s,whilehis‘systematiccontributions’arethesix bookswhichareatthecentre,chronologicallyandoftentheologically,of histhought: TheTrinityandtheKingdomofGod (1981), GodinCreation (1985), TheWayofJesusChrist (1990), TheSpiritofLife (1992), TheComing ofGod (1996),and ExperiencesinTheology (2000).Therearemanyother monographsscatteredthroughouthiscareer.Journalarticlesandchapters fromeditedvolumesarealsoincorporatedwhentheyhelptoilluminatea giventhemeordemonstratetheevolutionofhistheology.

Inaddition,anEnglishlanguageresearcherisverygratefulfortheextent andqualityofthetranslationofMoltmann’sworks.Thereislittlewhich MoltmannhaswrittenthathasnotfounditswayintoEnglishinaclearand understandableformat,provokingfewcomplaintsaboutaccuracy.Forthat reasonthisprojecthasproceededwiththeworkinitsEnglishtranslationwith conﬁdence.Whenthereiscausetopauseoverthemeaningofatranslation, orgivedepthtoaparticularwordorphrase,theGermanoriginalisconsulted.

Asfarasispracticabletheprojectgivesseparatechapterstodifferent areasoftheology.However,thedecisionroughlytofollowatimelinebased onatheologyofcosmichistory(originalcreation,continuouscreation,new creation),hasmeantthatdoctrinessuchaspneumatologyandchristology arenotgivendistinctchaptersbutarespreadthroughdifferenttopics.The presentworkalsospeciﬁcallytracksthedevelopmentofsomeofMoltmann’s ideasthroughouthiscareerwhenthisishelpfultotheinterpretationof theirmorematurestate.Therefore,inordertoappreciatebesttheoverall contributionofMoltmann’swork,eachthemeisaddressedcoherentlyas awholebutoccasionallywithdiscussionofhowitﬁtsintothechronology wherepertinent.

Astotherangeofthemes,thestudyfocuseslargelyonGod’srelationship withallcreation,andhumanity’sresponsetothis.However,asigniﬁcant areaofthegeneralthoughtaroundenvironmentalthemesisconcernedwith theeffectofclimatechangeonhumanity,especiallythepoor.Thestudy

thatfollowsplaceshumanity’spredicamentinthecontextofthelarger,more comprehensive,picture.

UseofTerms

Itwillbehelpfultoincludeabriefdiscussionontheuseofcertainterms, particularlythosewhichconcernthe‘world’:

Environment

Moltmannrecognisesthatthe‘term“environment”whichisingeneraluse isanthropocentric’andspeaksofit‘belongingtous’.17 Theuseoftheword ‘environment’canlendweighttoattitudestowardstheworldwhichemphasise humanity’spossessionofit.Thisistogiveitonlyavalueforhumanity,not foritsownright.Itbecomes‘ourenvironment’.However,inthisworkit referssimplytotheworldinrelationtohumanity.Thisisnotanexpression ofownershiporsuperiority,butarecognitionthattheworldgiveshumanity itssurroundings.

Nature

ForMoltmann,neitheristheword‘nature’thepreferredwordfortheworld; itdoesnotcarrythesamerespectandrecognitionofGod’sownershipas doestheword‘creation’.18 Healsoindicatesthathefeelsthetermseparates humanityfromtherestofcreation.19 Thetermisusefultothisstudy,however, preciselybecauseofthisseparation.

Creation

Theword‘creation’frequentlycarrieswithitcertainassumptions.InChristian writingsitoftenrefersexclusivelytonon-humancreationandisasynonym fornature.Thisisnottheintentioninthisthesis.‘Creation’isjustthat,all thatis‘created’.

Giventheseconsiderations,thisstudyreferstothenon-humanpartof creationsometimesas‘nature’,‘environment’,‘world’or‘earth’.Itrespondsto Moltmann’swarningabouttheimportanceofdeﬁnitions:‘Inecologicalethics toowedon’tknowwhetherweoughttotalkabouttheenvironment,theworld weshare,ornature.Ifanethicsallowsitsconceptstobepredeterminedbythe

17 ‘TheScopeofRenewalintheSpirit’, TheEcumenicalReview,42:2(1990),98–106 (p.104); EthH,p.107.

18 GSS,p.112.

19 EthH,p.107.

dominantworldview,itcannotbeinnovative.’20 Givenhismisgivingsabout theseterms,Moltmannseemstofearthattheuseoftermswithassociated negativemeaningscanbindthosemeaningsrestrictivelyintothediscussion. However,thisneednotbeso.Awidercontextofafﬁrmationoftheworld’s valuecanrehabilitatetheseterms.

1.3STRUCTURE

ThethesisjourneystartswithabriefexplorationofMoltmann’sdoctrineof theTrinityinChapter2.Thenthesubsequentfourchaptersdevelopamore detailedstudyofhisunderstandingofGod’srelationshipwithcreationfrom itsbeginningtonewbeginning.Next,inChapter7,isananalysisofthe connectionsbetweentheologyandhumanity’sresponse,whichleadsﬁnally toChapter8andanappreciationofthemultipleimplicationsforecological reformationofatheologywhichplacesgreatimportancebothoncreationin itsentiretyandwholeness,andonhumanity’sresponsestothisimportance.

Havingbrieﬂyoutlinedthemainpillarsofthisstructurealittlemore detailfollows,beginningasdescribedabovewithMoltmann’strinitarian doctrineofGodinChapter2.Moltmann’sworkonthedoctrineofthe Trinityprovidesthethemesofloveandrelatednesswhichareaguidetothe theologicalarchitecture.WhilethetopicoftheTrinitycanbeanabstractone, Moltmann’sformulationofitderivesfromhisobservationsoftheconcreteness ofGod’srelationshipwithcreation.

Chapter3discussesMoltmann’stheologyoftheoriginalactofcreation. GodcreatessomethingotherthanGod’sownselftorelateto,consistent withthethemesofloveandrelationshipintroducedpreviously.Alongside thisitconsidersdivergentexpressionsofGod’s‘makingspace’forcreation inMoltmann’sworkandsettlesonthepreferrednotionof‘livingspace’. Moltmannalsoafﬁrms,withnuances,God’sfreedominthecreativeprocess.

Chapters4and5followthepatternofcosmichistoryandexamine Moltmann’sunderstandingofGod’scontinuousloveforcreationasitlivesand grows.Chapter4paysparticularattentiontoGod’soutgoinglove.Through theSpiritandSon,Moltmanncontributestoatheologicalarchitecturein whichthereisauniversalpresenceandinvolvementofGodwithincreation. TheSpiritisagift,pouredoutontheworldwhiletheSoncomestoearthas

20 Ibid.,p.xiii.

ahuman.Bothworkforthewholecosmos,tobringlifeandfellowship.As thetopicofpneumatologyandcreationhasbeenaparticularlyimportantone forMoltmann,thiswillcomprisethebulkofthechapter.Alsotheenthusiasm withwhichMoltmannhastackledthesubjectofthe‘SpiritofLife’meansthat thischapterisofgreaterlengththantheothers.

Chapter5turnstoGod’sopenandvulnerablelovethatallowscreationto affectthedivinelife.ItexploresGod’srelationshipofopennesswithcreation intermsofGodasTrinityandthespeciﬁcrelationshipsoftheSpiritandSon. FromtherethestudymovestoMoltmann’stheoryofdivinepassibility,which enablesadiscussionaroundhowGodsufferswithandforcreation.

Chapter6concernsitselfwiththefutureofcreationandGod.Creation’s futureincludeseverypart,humanorotherwise.Furthermore,thisfuture iseternalinterrelatedlifewithGod.Inaddition,thechapterconsidersthe dynamicofcontinuityanddiscontinuitybetweenthepresentandthefuture inMoltmann’swork.Thebalancefoundherebringsbothconﬁdenceand responsibilityforhumanity’sconsiderationofaction.

InChapter7thefocusshiftsfromtheschemeofthepreviousﬁvechapters (namelyGodandGod’srelationshipwithcreation)toconsiderMoltmann’s workonanthropology,particularlythoseaspectsthatchallengehumanity’s responsetotheology.ThepotencyofMoltmann’scontributionstothetheologicalarchitecturegreatlyincreasethroughattentiontothisparticulararea. Thereisamultifacetedapproachbywhichtheologycanhelpdetermine attitudesandactions.

InChapter8thestudybringsMoltmann’ssystematicschemeoftheology intodialoguewithhisemphasisonhumanity’sresponse,theecologicalreformation.TheimportanceofthewholeofcreationinMoltmann’stheology correspondstoanimportanceofthecareforthewholeofcreation.

Finally,Chapter9concludesthatthroughthevariouscontributionsthat Moltmannhasmade,hehasgiventheChristiancommunityaformidable resourcetowardsthenewtheologicalarchitecture.Hiscontributiontothe newarchitectureisambitiousinitssweepandhasahighlevelofcoherence withinitself,andfaithfulnesstotraditionalviews.Mostimportantly,itrelentlesslyandpersuasivelyseekstore-envisionhumanity’sattitudetowardsits relationshipwithnature:the ecologicalreformation.

Chapter2

TheTrinitarianFoundation

2.1INTRODUCTION

ThisexplorationofMoltmann’ssearchforanecologicalreformationbegins withthedoctrineoftheTrinity.Thisisanimportantstartingpointforhim ashebelievesthatthedoctrineoftheTrinityshouldhaveagreatereffect ontheChristianlifeanditspracticaloutworkings.Hisaimisto‘develop andpractise’trinitarianthought.1 Heconsidersliberationtheologytoshow thistobepossiblebecauseofthe‘theologicaldepthandpracticalaimsfor churchandsociety’givenbythesocialdoctrineoftheTrinitysothat‘people arebecomingcapableofsurvivingwithoneanotherandwithnature’.2 All thisservestoopposethefamousstatementbyImmanuelKant:‘Virtuallyno practicalconsequencecanbedrawnfromthedoctrineoftheTrinitytaken literally[...]Thussuchabelief,becauseitneithermakesabetterman norprovesonetobesuch,isnopartofreligion.’3 Moltmann’strinitarian work,withtherichnessitcontributestohistheologyofcreation,presentsan alternativetoKant’sclaim.

ThischaptersetsthesceneforMoltmann’scontributionstothetheological architecture.ItﬁrstfollowsthegrowthofhisdoctrineoftheTrinityas hispublishedworksgrowmorenumerous.Thencomesanoutlineofthe doctrine’smorematurestateinMoltmannandaselectionofthecriticisms broughttobearbyothers.Certaincriticismsofhistrinitarianworkare omitted.Onenotableexampleisthewide-rangingreactiontoMoltmann’s aversiontohierarchyandsubordinationwithintheTrinity,andhisrejection oftheterm‘monotheism’.4 Thisisaninterestingdebatebutthethesisfocuses

1 TKG,p.20.

2 HTG,p.xiii.

3 Citedin CrG,p.246.

4 See,forexample,A.J.Conyers, God,HopeandHistory:JürgenMoltmannandthe ChristianConceptofHistory (Macon,GA:MercerUniversityPress,1988),pp.13,15,175,

moreonhisworkontheloveinthetrinitarianrelationsratherthanthetheme ofhierarchy.

Thechapterisshorterthanmostfortworeasons.Firstly,muchofMoltmann’sdiscussionoftheTrinityistiedintowiderdiscussionsofGod’srelationshipwithcreationwhichcomelaterinthisproject.Secondly,itheeds WernerJeanrond’scautiontobecarefulnottotaketoomanyconclusionsfrom ‘God’sinnerdialogue’,whichislessknowablethanGod’srelationshipwith creation.5 InsteadMoltmann’strinitarianworkhereservesasapreliminary discussionbeforelaterchapterssurveyindepthmanyofitsimplicationsfor God’srelationshipwithcreation.

2.2THE DEVELOPMENTOF MOLTMANN’S DOCTRINEOFTHE TRINITY

ThedoctrineoftheTrinityisarelativelyweakthemeinMoltmann’searlier theologyofthe1960s,particularlyinregardstoalackofdiscussionofthe HolySpirit.6 ThisdoesnotmeanthattheTrinitywasofnointeresttohim, onlythatitdidnotplayanovertpartinhisdiscussionsofthattime.In addition,thereisagreaterattentiontothetopicoftheHolySpiritinhisearly workthanmanypeoplenotice.7

ThebeginningsofMoltmann’smoredevelopeddoctrineandin-depth discussionoftheTrinitybecamevisibletoalargedegreeﬁrstinanarticle fromtheearlyseventies.8 Thisarticleaboveallseekstoanswerthequestion: 185,193-94;RandallE.Otto,‘MoltmannandtheAnti-MonotheismMovement’, International JournalofSystematicTheology,3:3(2001),293–308;RyanA.Neal, TheologyAsHope:Onthe GroundandtheImplicationsofJürgenMoltmann’sDoctrineofHope (Eugene,OR:Pickwick Publications,2008),p.98,n.14.

5 WernerG.Jeanrond,‘TheQuestionofGodToday’,in TheChristianUnderstandingofGod Today:TheologicalColloquiumontheOccasionofthe400thAnniversaryoftheFoundationof TrinityCollege,Dublin,ed.byJamesM.Byrne(Dublin:TheColumbiaPress,1993),pp.9–23 (p.16).

6 Trinityisabriefsecondarytopicinoneconversation(ToH,pp.50-58).Italsoappearsin apiecefrom1969whichappearsinanEnglishtranslationas:‘PoliticalTheology’, Theology Today,28:1(1971),6–23(pp.12-13)).Ithasabriefmentioninsomeotherearlywork(HP, pp.14-15,chapteroriginallyfrom1966).SeealsoRichardBauckham, TheTheologyofJürgen Moltmann (Edinburgh:T&TClark,1995),p.152;Neal, TheologyAsHope,p.73,n.24(who identiﬁessomefurthersourcesofcriticism).

7 SeeespeciallyChapter4ofthiswork,‘TheSpiritandCreationinEarlyMaterial’,p.50.

8 ‘The"CruciﬁedGod":ATrinitarianTheologyoftheCross’, Interpretation,26:3(1972), 278–99.

‘HasGodhimselfsuffered?’9 Thismeansthathelocatesthediscussionfirmly intheeventofthecrucifixionandabandonmentofChristanditisherethat theconsiderationoftheTrinityoccurs.ForMoltmann,‘theconcept“God” isconstituted’fromthiseventthatinvolvedFather,SonandSpirit.10 Here Moltmannintrinsicallyconnectsthedoctrinetoboththesufferingandthelove ofGod,lovethatisbothfortheworldandbetweenthetrinitarianpersons. Moltmannalsospeaksofthe relationalcharacter ofGodasseeninthe cross,‘inwhichthesepersonsareconstitutedintheirrelationshiptoeach otherandsoconstitutethemselves’.11 Inthecryofabandonmentonthecross, Jesus‘laysclaimtohisownbeinginthisspecialrelationshipwiththeFather, inwhichheistheSon’.12 Butinthismomentofabandonmentthereisalso profoundunityasboththeFatherandtheSonsurrendertheirrelationship witheachotherbecauseoftheirlovefortheworld.13 HereMoltmann’strinitarianworkalreadyhassignificantimplicationsforatheologicalarchitecture whichincludesthewholeworld.

Moltmanntakesupthisthemeanddevelopsitfurtherin TheCruciﬁed God. 14 However,thecriticismremainsthathespeaksoftheTrinitybutineffect giveslittleattentiontotheSpirit.15 Thiscriticismtakescredencefromsuch statementsas:‘AndwehavenotinterpretedthedeathofJesusasadivinehumanevent,butasatrinitarianeventbetweentheSonandtheFather.’16 TheSpiritisconspicuouslyabsentfromthisstatement.InMoltmann’sdefence, inhisworkthereareotherdiscussionsoftheSpiritpriortothispoint.17 This indicatesthatwhilethisdiscussion,andotherslikeit,mayneglecttomention theSpirit,histheologyasawholedoesnotentirelyneglectthesubject.18

9 Ibid.,pp.278,282.ThisparticularquestionreturnsinChapter5ofthiswork,p.112.

10 Ibid.,p.296(cf.‘theTrinitarianconceptofGodwasdevelopedoutoftheunderstanding ofthecruciﬁedChrist’,PinchasLapideandJürgenMoltmann(eds), JewishMonotheismand ChristianTrinitarianDoctrine:ADialogue,trans.byLeonardSwindler(Philadelphia,PA: Fortress,1981),p.47).

11 ‘The"CruciﬁedGod"’,p.295.

12 Ibid.,p.285.

13 Ibid.,p.293.

14 CrG,esp.Chapter6,pp.206-303.

15 Harvie, JürgenMoltmann’sEthics,p.109,n.43;T.DavidBeck, TheHolySpiritandthe RenewalofAllThings:PneumatologyinPaulandJürgenMoltmann (Eugene,OR:Pickwick Publications,2007),p.243.SeealsoNeal, TheologyAsHope,pp.178(n.25),182-83(n.57), whereagainNealgiveslistsofsecondarysources.Beckevensuggeststhat TheChurchinthe PoweroftheSpirit ismoreabouttheChurchandnotstronglypneumatological(Beck, The HolySpirit,p.95).

16 CrG,p.254.

17 AndindeedtheremaybemorediscussionoftheHolySpiritinMoltmann’sworkthan Englishreadersareledtobelieve.Nealpointstotheunpredictabilityofthetranslationof ‘derGeist’into‘Spirit’or‘spirit’(Neal, TheologyAsHope,p.183,n.60).

18 Inotherwords,theaccusationthathistheologyis‘binitarian’isexaggerated(seeBeck,

Fromthebeginningofthe1980sexplicitlytrinitariandiscussionbecomes thestandardforMoltmann’stheology.Oneofthehallmarksofhistrinitarian workisthewayhegrappleswiththesigniﬁcanceofthethreepersonsofthe Godhead.Hemakesitclearthathedoesnotwishtooveremphasiseeitherthe three-ness(tritheism)ortheone-nessofGod(modalism),butnevertheless hefeelshemuststartthediscussionfromoneendoranother.Hedecidesto beginwiththreepersonsandaskhowtheymightbeonebecauseheconsiders thehistoryofChristtopresentuswiththreedivineactors.19 Nealquestions whetherMoltmannoverstatesthenecessityofhisparticularapproachand arguesthatstartingfromthree-nessorone-nessisacceptable.20 PaulMolnar, ontheotherhand,claimsthatitisafalsechoice,thatwemustbeginwith ‘thetriuneGodwhoissimultaneouslyoneandthree’.21 However,thisactually matchesMoltmann’sownmethod.HemaystartthediscussionfromthethreenessoftheTrinityyettheoriginofthatdiscussionwashisdesireprecisely torespectthesimultaneityofthreeandoneintheTrinity.Helaterexplains thathebeganwithGod’sthree-nessasacountertowhatheperceivedtobe modalistictendenciesinWesterntheology.22 Hisenthusiasmtostartwith, andretain,thethree-nessofGodhasleadhimtoclaimthattheone-nessof theTrinityisnot‘numericalunity’.ForMoltmannthisdoesnotmeanthat Godismultiple,butneitheristheDivinesimplymathematically‘one’.23

Hisquestionis,therefore:howistheGodwhois‘three’alsounderstood tobe‘one’?InMoltmann’sanswertothis,God’sloveisthekeyconceptfor hisdoctrineoftheTrinity.IfGodislovethen‘hehastobeunderstoodas thetriuneGod.Lovecannotbeconsummatedbyasolitaryobject’.24 The Trinity’sunityissuchthat‘[b]yvirtueoftheireternallovetheyliveinone anothertosuchanextent,anddwellinoneanothertosuchanextent,that theyareone’.25 ItishereinthisworkthatMoltmannemploystheconceptof perichoresis todescribetheinnerrelationsoftheTrinity.26

TheHolySpirit,p.243).

19 TKG,p.149(cf. EiT,p.322).

20 Neal, TheologyAsHope,p.104,n.52.

21 PaulD.Molnar, DivineFreedomandtheDoctrineoftheImmanentTrinity:InDialogue withKarlBarthandContemporaryTheology (Edinburgh:T&TClark,2002),p.232.

22 ‘ForewordtoMcDougall,J.A.,PilgrimageofLove’,in PilgrimageofLove:Moltmannon theTrinityandChristianLife (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2005),pp.xi–xiv(p.xii).

23 Lapideetal., JewishMonotheism,p.64(cf. TKG,p.95).Becauseofthisapproach,Moltmann’scorrectiveemphasisofGod’sthree-nesshasappearedtosometobetheoveremphasis towardstritheismwhichhewishedtoavoid.Thisproblemisaddressedinthenextsection.

24 Ibid.,p.57.Herehesetstrinitarianismagainstmonotheism.

25 Ibid.,p.175.

26 Ibid.,p.150.ItdoesseemthatthewordandconceptwasalreadyinMoltmann’smind in1972fromhisownreﬂectionsonhistheology(BP,p.171).However,hemightpossibly

2.3UNITY THROUGH RELATIONSHIPS

In TheTrinityandtheKingdomofGod Moltmanncontinuestodescribemore clearlyhisviewoftherelationsoftheTrinitywhichhestartedwithhis earlierdiscussionsonatrinitariantheologyofthecross.Hedoesnotwish tolocatetheunityofGodsolelyinonesubstance,oronesubject.Heputs moreimportanceonaunionofloveandfellowship.27 Forwhiletheclassical foundationsforthisunitystartwithaunityofonesubstanceoronesubject, heiskeentolookbeyondboththeseideasastheydonotfitwiththe‘concept ofunitycorrespondingtothebiblicaltestimonyofthetriuneGod,theone whounitesotherswithhimself’.28 Inotherwords,forMoltmann,conceptsof divineunitybasedsolelyonasinglesubstanceorsubjectdonotallowGodto beopentounificationwithcreation,whichisneitherthesamesubstanceor subject.29 ThisdesiretoincludeallcreationdemonstratesthatMoltmann’s trinitariantheologyalreadyhaspossibilitiesforanecologicalreformation. Attimeshisrhetoricseemstorejectcompletelytheideaofanyunityof substanceorsubjectwithintheTrinity.However,thecontextexplainsthat thisisnotso:hisconcernistheprimarydefinitionofGod’sunity,notwhat elsetheTrinitymightshare.Todemonstratethis,elsewherehestatesclearly thathisintentionisnottoclaimthereisnounityofsubstanceorsubject:

[T]heunityofthetriuneGodisnottobefoundsolelyinthesingledivine substance,ormerelyintheidenticaldivine subject;itconsistsaboveall intheunique community ofthethreePersons.ThetrinitarianPersons possessincommonthedivineessence,andexerciseincommonthe divinesovereignty.Thismeansthattheirtrinitariancommunityprecedes theirsubstantialandtheirsubjectiveunity adextra. 30

haveusedawordfromhislatervocabularyretrospectivelytonamethisconcept.

27 TKG,pp.95,150,157.

28 Ibid.,p.150.

29 Ibid.,p.150.

30 ‘TheFellowshipoftheHolySpirit–TrinitarianPneumatology’, ScottishJournalof Theology,37:3(1984),287–300(p.289).Seesimilarsentimentsin TKG,p.58; GiC,pp.8586; HTG,p.59.SomeofthosewhoengagewithMoltmann’sworkalsonotethis:Linwood Urban, AShortHistoryofChristianThought:Revised&ExpandedEdition (Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress,1995),p.69;Beck, TheHolySpirit,p.106,n.6;Harvie, JürgenMoltmann’s Ethics,pp.114,117.

Thereareotherswhoseemtomiss,oratleastnotmention,thesubtletyofhisargument: GaryD.Badcock, LightofTruth&FireofLove:ATheologyoftheHolySpirit (Cambridge: Eerdmans,1997),p.242;RandallE.Otto,‘TheUseandAbuseofPerichoresisinRecent Theology’, ScottishJournalofTheology,54:3(2001),366–84;TimChester, Missionandthe ComingofGod:Eschatology,theTrinityandMissionintheTheologyofJürgenMoltmannand ContemporaryEvangelicalism (MiltonKeynes:Paternoster,2006),pp.36-37;J.Matthew Bonzo, IndwellingtheForsakenOther:TheTrinitarianEthicsofJürgenMoltmann (Eugene, OR:PickwickPublications,2009),pp.24-33,37,77.

TheremaywellbefoundationsfordivineunityotherthantheTrinity’s innerrelationships,butMoltmann’sprimaryunderstandingofthisunity,the unitywhichhebelievesGodwantstosharewithcreation,isfellowship.By ‘theireternallovetheyliveinoneanothertosuchanextent,anddwellin oneanothertosuchanextent,thattheyareone’.31 ForMoltmann,thisis ‘perichoresis’.32 Asigniﬁcantpartofitsrelevanceforecologicalreformation istherelationshipbetweenGodandcreationitdescribesinMoltmann’s handlingofthatsubject.33

AccusationsofTritheism

Moltmann’sformulationof perichoresis raisesanissueforPaulMolnar,given thewayinwhichMoltmanndevelopshistheologyofthecross:‘Onthecross theFatherandtheSonaresodeeplyseparatedthattheirrelationshipbreaks off.’34 Withthisclaim,MolnarfeelsthatMoltmann’ssocialdoctrineofthe Trinityshowscleardangersoftritheism.35

ItisapertinentquestiontoaskwhathappenstotheTrinity,whichﬁnds itsunityinrelationship,whenthoserelationshipsarebroken,whenone personis‘forsaken’byanother.Iftherelationshipscan‘break’perhapsthe divineunitycandolikewise.Ifthedifferentsubjectssurviveoutsideofthe unionthen,asnotedabove,thechargeoftritheismwillnotbefarbehind. Yet,asnotedabove,hespeaksofthemixtureofabandonment andunity in thecrossevent.OnthecrosstheSonandtheFatherareseparatedbut‘areat thesametimemostinwardlyunitedthroughtheSpiritofsacriﬁce’.36 Thisis aunitythatsurvivesabandonment.37

Theclaimsabovearenottheonlybasisforthechargeoftritheismagainst Moltmann.HealsoattractedattentionwithsuchstatementsasthattheTrinity’sunityis‘notintheirnumericalunity’.38 ForAlanTorrance,‘theslightly individualisticnuancesin[Moltmann’s]interpretationoftrinitarianperson-

31 TKG,p.175(cf.pp.95,150; GSS,p.101).

32 TKG,p.157.

33 Thisissueisconsideredthroughoutthisthesis,butseeespeciallyChapter5,p.101.

34 Ibid.,p.82.

35 PaulD.Molnar,‘TheFunctionoftheTrinityinMoltmann’sEcologicalDoctrineof Creation’, TheologicalStudies,51:4(1990),673–97(p.694).DouglasFarrowmayalsorefer tothisproblemalthoughhedoesnotfollowupthequestion(DouglasB.Farrow,‘IntheEndis theBeginning:AReviewofJürgenMoltmann’sSystematicContributions’, ModernTheology, 14:3(1998),425–47(p.431)).

36 ExH,pp.80-81(cf.‘The"CruciﬁedGod"’,p.293; TKG,p.82).

37 ForfurtherexplorationsofthecruciﬁxionseeChapter5ofthiswork,pp.107,128.

38 TKG,p.95(cf.Lapideetal., JewishMonotheism,p.64).

hoodand[...]“community”,meanthatheisarguingfromastandpoint whichmaybearguedtobesailingtooclosetotritheism’.39 Othersshare thisdiscomfortwithMoltmann’slanguageofthree-nessandcommunity.40 TimChesterevenclaimsthathemakesthegeneralunityoftheTrinity‘volitional’.41 Thisisastrongclaim,yetChestergivesnoevidencetosupport it.

Itishelpfultorealisethestandardstowhichoneisrequiredtoadhere whendiscussionoftheTrinityisattempted:‘Iamnothappywithsome ofMoltmann’sterminologyhere!Thenotionsofunionandcommunion areclearlypreferabletothoseofunitednessandat-oneness,whicharetoo individualisticandhenceerrinthedirectionoftritheism.’42 Itseemsitisvery difﬁculttoﬁndlanguagewithwhicheveryonewillagree.Inaddition,itis importanttorememberthatMoltmannhasalsochosentouseprovocative languageinordertore-balanceaperceivedoveremphasisonGod’soneness.43 Forthisreasonhislanguagewillundoubtedlyappeartoleaninone direction.44

Moltmannisawareofthesedangersandsees perichoresis asananswer tothem‘becauseitcombinesthreenessandonenessinsuchawaythatthey cannotbereducedtoeachother,sothatboththedangerofmodalismandthe dangerof“tritheism”areexcluded’.45 Thismutualindwellingisnotatrivial onewhichcanbediscarded(thatwouldsuggestthreegods),butneitherdoes itresultinalossofalldifferentiationbetweenthemembersoftheTrinity.

ProblemswithPerichoresis?

Moltmannisbynomeanstheﬁrstpersontoemploytheword perichoresis to describetherelationsoftheTrinity.HehimselftracesitsusebacktoGregory ofNazianzusandJohnofDamascus.46 However,Moltmanndevelopsthe

39 AlanJ.Torrance, PersonsInCommunion:TrinitarianDescriptionandHumanParticipation (Edinburgh:T&TClark,1996),p.248.

40 JamesP.Mackey,‘SocialModelsoftheTrinity’,in ReadingsinModernTheology:Britain andAmerica,ed.byRobinGill(London:SPCK,1995),pp.123–30(p.126);Urban, AShort History,p.69;JoyAnnMcDougall, PilgrimageofLove:MoltmannontheTrinityandChristian Life (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2005),p.158.SeealsoRichardSwinburne, The ChristianGod (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1994),p.189,n.26,whoisnotexactly uncomfortable,butdoesquestiontheadequacyofthedivineunityinMoltmann’stheology.

41 Chester, Mission,p.45.

42 Torrance, PersonsInCommunion,p.257,n.115.

43 ‘ForewardtoMcDougall’,p.xii.

44 AconsiderationwhichChesteralsonotes(Chester, Mission,p.45).

45 EiT,p.322.

46 Ibid.,p.316.

word’suseinthathespeaksofitastheprimarybasisforGod’sunity.47 As suchtherearethosewhodisagreewithhisparticularapproach.

Onecriticismofhisdevelopmentof perichoresis ismadebyDavidCrump whoﬁndsfaultwiththescripturalbasisofMoltmann’sthoughtinthisarea. Crump’saccusationisthatMoltmanntakesthereferencesinJohn’sGospel whichconcernthethreemembersoftheTrinityand‘fuses’themwiththesame Gospel’saccountsofthemutualindwellingoftheFatherandtheSon.48 Crump pointsoutthattheselaterreferencesdonotmentiontheSpiritandobserves thatMoltmannseemstoassumethattheSpiritisincludedanyway.He givesawarning:‘ScholarssuchasMoltmannwoulddowelltoacknowledge that,inusingJohnastheydo,theyareconstructingasizeabletheological conclusiononanargumentfromsilence.’49 JoyMcDougallasserts,however, thatMoltmannusesawiderbiblicalbasisthanjusttwosectionsofJohn’s gospel.Ashistheologyhasdevelopedshecanidentifymoreandmore connectionstodifferentthemesoftheChristianScriptures.50 McDougall’s observationsstrengthenherclaimthatMoltmannisdeeplycommittedtoa biblicalbasisforhistrinitarianwork.51 Also,thescripturalwitnessasawhole showsthathiscombinationoftwothemesfromJohn’sgospel(Trinityand indwelling)isdefensible.CirilSorcgoessofarastosay:‘Onlyinlightofthe perichoreticlovecanweunderstandJohn14-17.’52

AfurthercriticismofMoltmann’suseof perichoresis ismadebyRandall Otto.HeoutlineshowheconsidersMoltmanntohavealteredthemeaning of perichoresis whenhemadeittheTrinity’sprimarysourceofunityinstead ofthedivinesubstance.HealsogivesMoltmannadubiousprivilege:‘[He] standsasthevanguardoftheologianswhohaveengagedinsuchmisuse, invoking perichoresis whiledenyingitsbasisintheonedivinenature’.53 Ottocitesadictionarydeﬁnitionof perichoresis whichcontainsthephrases ‘necessarybeing-in-one-anotherorcircumincessionofthethreedivinePersons oftheTrinitybecauseofthesingledivineessence’and‘thethreePersonsare

47 TKG,p.150.

48 DavidCrump,‘Re-examiningtheJohannineTrinity:perichoresisordeiﬁcation?’, Scottish JournalofTheology,59:4(2006),395–412(p.396).

49 Ibid.,pp.400-01.

50 McDougall, Pilgrimage,p.157.

51 JoyAnnMcDougall,‘TheReturnofTrinitarianPraxis?MoltmannontheTrinityandthe ChristianLife’, TheJournalofReligion,83:2(2003),177–203(pp.7,182).

52 CitedinHarvie, JürgenMoltmann’sEthics,p.117.Passagesthatspeakofthe‘fellowship oftheHolySpirit’(2Cor.13.14)andofhowJesusofferedhimselftotheFatherthrough theSpirit(Heb.9.14)areexamplesthataddtotheargumentthattheSpiritshouldbe understoodtohavethesameclosenessofrelationshipasbetweentheFatherandtheSon.

53 Otto,‘TheUseandAbuse’,p.372.

distinguishedsolelybytherelationsofoppositionbetweenthem’.54 From thisOttoquestionswhatgoodcanoccurfortheconceptof perichoresis ifitis ‘divorcedfromitsbasisinonedivineessence’.55 ForOttothisbasisisnecessary fora‘real andnotmerely conceptual relationship’betweenthesubjectsofthe Trinity,henceMoltmann’suseofthewordis‘vacuous’.56

InresponsetoOtto’scriticism,asfarasthetrinitarianrelationshipsare concernedinMoltmann’swork perichoresis sitsalongsideaunityofsubstance. ForMoltmann,‘perichoresismeansthemutualindwellingofthehomogeneous divinePersons,Father,SonandSpirit’.57 Asnotedabove,itisamistaketo claimthatheremovestheunityofsubstancefromtheTrinity’sidentity.Rather hehassuggestedthatitisnotthe only sourceofunity.58 Therefore,under Otto’sownunderstandingof perichoresis,Moltmannhasnotasdrastically separatedtrinitariansubstancefromtheirrelationshipsasOttosuggests.59

FearsofaPriorSocialAgenda

TorranceclaimsthatMoltmann,alongwithothersocialtrinitarianthinkers, projectsanthropologicalconcepts,suchas‘person’,‘social’and‘community’, ontoGod.60 InparticularthefearisthatMoltmannletshisparticularview oftheidealsocietyshapehistrinitariantheology.61 KarenKilbymakesa particularstudyofthedifferencesbetweenhimandanotherexponentof thesocialTrinity,PatriciaWilson-Kastner.Kilbybelievesthecontrastthat isfoundreﬂectsthedifferencesintheirattitudestosociety.ForKilbythis demonstratestheinﬂuenceofeachwriter’ssocialexperienceandvalueson theirtheology.ShecomestotheconclusionthatMoltmann’sfocus‘onthe

54 Ibid.,p.366,citing DictionaryofTheology,ed.byKarlRahnerandHerbertVorgrimler, 2ndedn(NewYork:Crossroads,1987),p.377.

55 Ibid.,p.367.

56 Ibid.,pp.368,377.

57 EiT,p.316.

58 Seeabove,p.17.

59 Otto,‘TheUseandAbuse’,pp.372-77.HarviealsoclaimsthatOtto’smisreadsMoltmann (Harvie, JürgenMoltmann’sEthics,p.117).

60 Torrance, PersonsInCommunion,p.248.

61 ClarkH.Pinnock,‘TheHolySpiritasaDistinctPersonintheGodhead’,in Spiritand Renewal:EssaysinHonourofJ.RodmanWilliams,ed.byMarkW.Wilson(Shefﬁeld:Shefﬁeld AcademicPress,1994),pp.34–41(p.40);Torrance, PersonsInCommunion,p.249;Farrow, ‘InTheEnd’,p.427;Ed.L.MillerandStanleyJ.Grenz, FortressIntroductiontoContemporary Theologies (Minneapolis,MN:Fortress,1998),p.122;DavidH.McIlroy, ATrinitarianTheology ofLaw:InConversationwithJürgenMoltmann,OliverO’DonovanandThomasAquinas (Milton Keynes:Paternoster,2009),pp.23,71-72(McIlroycomestothisconclusionthroughseveral otherauthors,includingKarenKilby,RandallOtto,andPaulMolnar).MatthewBonzopoints tothisdangerbutdoesnotaccuseMoltmannofit(Bonzo, Indwelling,p.5,n.10).

excessiveindividualismofthemodernWest’formsmuchofhisthoughton socialtrinitarianism.62 Thedangerintheseaccusationsisthat,iftheyaretrue, theyundermineoneoftheimportantthemeswhichMoltmann’strinitarianism contributestothenewtheologicalarchitecture:theuseoftheTrinityasa patternforhumanlife.

OnecouldarguethatMoltmann’sapproachisinevitableforahuman. EvenKilbyadmitsthat‘anylanguagethatisusedaboutGodisdrawnfrom humanexperienceinsomewayorother’.63 McDougalldefendsMoltmann’s positionandclaimsthattheuseofanthropologicallanguageforGodappears inbothTestamentsoftheChristianScriptures,‘inthePsalms,inthePauline literatureaswellastheGospelaccounts’.64 Itseemsthattouseanthropologicallanguageisdifﬁculttoavoid,andthereisalreadyagoodprecedentfor itsuse.

However,Kilby’scritiqueisnotjustthatMoltmannconstructsadoctrine oftheTrinitythroughhisviewofhumanexperienceandapreferencefor relationality.Morethanthat,sheisconcernedwithwhatresultsfromMoltmann’strinitarianviews.Toexplain,shebelievesthefollowingtotakeplace: thereisanunknownaboutGod(triuneunity);aconceptisusedtonamethat unknown(perichoresis);thatconceptisthenexpandedonwithhumanexperience(relationshipsandrelatedness)asopposedtothebiblicalwitness;the resultisthat perichoresis isthenreflectedbackontothehumancommunityas animportantattributeofGod.Afterthisprocess,Kilbyargues,atheologian maycontendthattheirfindingsonthedivinerelatednessshouldserveasa significantguideforhumanity’sactionandsocialaims.Ifallthisisthecase, asKilbyandotherssuggestitisforMoltmann,thenwhatreallyoccursis thatthetheologianprojectstheirexperienceandopinionontoGodanditis ‘reflectedbackontotheworld’withnewlyreceiveddivinesignificance.65 So ‘whatisatitsheartasuggestion[i.e.perichoresis]toovercomeadifficulty [i.e.divineunity]ispresentedasakeysourceofinspirationandinsight’.66

This,however,isnotthecaseinMoltmann’swork.Hisworkgivestwo reasonswhyitisnotpriorheldsocialvaluesthatdrivehisdoctrineofthe Trinity.

62 KarenKilby,‘PerichoresisandProjection:ProblemswithSocialDoctrinesoftheTrinity’, NewBlackfriars,81:957(2000),432–45(p.440).

63 Ibid.,p.441.

64 McDougall,‘ReturnofTrinitarianPraxis’,p.189.

65 Kilby,‘PerichoresisandProjection’,pp.441-42(cf.Torrance, PersonsInCommunion, p.249,n.94;Molnar, DivineFreedom,p.163).

66 Kilby,‘PerichoresisandProjection’,p.441.

TheﬁrstisthathedemonstrateshissocialdoctrineoftheTrinityto haveabroaderbasethansocialconcernsandhumanity’sexperience.He hasshownhisworktobeconsciouslyledbythebiblicalwitness,asseen above.RyanNealsupportshiminthisinstanceandpointsoutthatitisnot thehumanconditionthatmostspeakstoMoltmannofthedivinenature,it isthecrossandresurrection.67 McDougallalsodefendshisbiblicalbasisfor trinitarianrelationships.68 FromthisstartingpointMoltmannwouldargue thatthemysteryofthetriuneunityisnotacompleteunknown,thattheentire canonofChristianScripturesevidencerelationshipsthatcharacterisethis unity.ThereforetherelationalityinherentinhissocialTrinityisnotprimarily theresultofanthropologicalprojection(eventhoughitmaynaturallyplaya smallpart).

Secondly,itisequallypossiblethatMoltmann’sprioritiesforsocietyare notwherehisthoughtstarts.Itismoreplausibletounderstandtheseso-called ‘priorcommitments’asaresponsetotheGodrevealedthroughJesusChrist, hisincarnation,mission,message,crossandresurrection.Inotherwords, bothMoltmann’ssocialvision,andhissocialtrinitarianismhavethesame fundamentalcommitmenttoabiblicalbasis.

Finally,Moltmanndoesnotbasehumanactivitypurelyonhisconstructionoftheinner-trinitarianunity.Heapproachesthetaskofﬁndingaguide forhumanity’sactionsfromanumberofdirections.Therefore,anypossible weaknesseshehasinthisareawouldstillhaveabalancingforcefromthe restofhisthought.69

2.4CONCLUSIONS

Muchofwhathasbeensaidinthischapterservestohighlightthecoherence andorthodoxyofMoltmann’ssocialdoctrineoftheTrinitybecauseitforms akeycontributiontothenewtheologicalarchitecture.Histrinitarianwork appearstocomemorefromthewitnessoftheChristianScripturesthan purelyfromhisexperienceofsociety.Hisapproachhasalsobeenconsciously trinitarianandnottritheistic.

67 Neal, TheologyAsHope,p.125.

68 McDougall,‘ReturnofTrinitarianPraxis’,p.189.HoweverMcDougallshedoesalso admithishermeneuticsarequestionableforsome.McIlroyalsoconsidersMoltmann’sbiblical worktobeselectiveinthiscase(McIlroy, ATrinitarian,p.72).

69 SeeChapter7ofthiswork,p.173,fortheexplorationofthiswiderbasisforhumanity’s actions.

OverallhepresentsadoctrineoftheTrinitywherelovingrelationshipsare thekeytoitsunderstanding.Moltmann’sworkrepeatsthisclaimmanymore timesinotherareasoftheologyinordertoinfusethemwiththecentraltheme ofGod’slove.Thereissigniﬁcanceinrelationalityitselfforenvironmental concerns.Thethemeofloveisofcoursepresentintheologiesthatdisagree withMoltmann’sspeciﬁcconclusionsbuthisparticularapproachcreatesa fruitfulpathtoanewarchitectureforunderstandingGod’srelationshipwith creationthatleadstoahumanecologicalresponse.Thethesiscannowturn tolookatMoltmann’sperspectiveontheoriginalactofcreation.

Chapter3 OriginalCreation

3.1INTRODUCTION

Theoriginalactofcreationisanessentialpieceofthepuzzletoexplorein ordertobuildapictureofMoltmann’scontributionstothenewtheological architectureforcreationcare.Overallthereisrelativelylittlewrittenby himaboutthe initial actofcreation.Thisresultsfromhisenthusiasmto discussGod’screativeactivitythroughout all ofhistory,alargeproportionof whichfallsunderthetopicsofcontinuousandfuturecreation.Nevertheless, therearesomeimportantaspectstohistheologyoftheoriginalcreative actwhichshapeanddirecttheemergingarchitecturetowardsitsdesired goal.Moltmann’sdoctrineofcreationistheplacewherehespeaksofGod’s motivationsanddecisionstocreatewithoutanypreconditions:‘Thebeginning hasnopresuppositionsatall’,exceptonlytherealityofGod’sself.1

Herethenistheappropriateplacetoaskthequestion:Whatisthe originofGod’screativeact?Moltmannanswersthisquestionandprovides hisfoundationforunderstandingthedivinerelationshipwithcreation,and creation’sownrelationalexistence.Ifthesubjectofthisdiscussionisthe Trinity’snatureandwill,withoutcreation’sexistence,thenthefoundationcan onlybeGod.However,whatexactlyisitaboutGodwhichleadstoacreative act?EvenwiththeworkaboveonthenatureoftheTrinityinMoltmann’s theology,therearestillmorequestionsconcerningpreciselyhowthatpicture ofGodrelatestothecreationoftheworld.

Itisalsoimportanttoask:whatiscreation?Thisisnotascientiﬁc questionaboutthestructureoftheuniverseandtheprocessesofnature, butatheologicalone.Whatchangesattheactofcreation,andwhatisthis creationinrelationtoGod’sself?Thischapterdoesnotexploreallofwhat

1 GiC,p.74.

theTrinitymayhavedoneintheactofcreation;itdoesnot,forexample, discussthetimeperiodforcreation(viewsonwhichrangefromsixdays tobillionsofyears),ormethod(namelywhethercreationproducedfully grownanimalsorinitiatedaprocessofevolution).Theaimistoexplorethose aspectsoforiginalcreationwhichareimportantforMoltmann’scontributions toatheologicalarchitecturewhichwillbuildfoundationsforanecological reformation.

TothisendthisprojectwillexploreGod’sloveandfreedominrelationto originalcreation,andthentheresultofthecreativeactitself.ForMoltmann God,outoflove,freelycreatessomethingotherthanGod.Thischapterexplicates thatstatementthroughthesetopics:thepervasiveprincipleoflove,the Trinity’sfreecreativity,andthecreationofan‘Other’.

3.2THE PERVASIVE PRINCIPLEOF LOVE

InMoltmann’swork,aconstantisthatGodislove.ForMoltmann,ifa theologymovesdownapaththatwouldalterthiscentraldescriptionofGod, thenhewillavoiditandwarnagainstit.2 Therefore,whenheapproaches thedoctrineofcreation,loveplaystheprimaryrole,andheseestwoways inwhichthisroleworksout:intheinnerrelationshipsoftheTrinityandthe outwardloveofGodwhichseeksnewrelationships.3

TherearecertainlyfewerstatementsaboutGod’slovespeciﬁcallyrelated tothe initialact ofcreationinMoltmann’sworkthanthoseaboutan ongoing relationshipwithcreation.Thosethatdoexist,however,areclear:God’slove istheprinciplethatdrivesthiscreativity;theTrinitycreates‘outoflove’.4 Earlierinhiswork,MoltmannexpressedagreementwithBarththatcreation ﬂowsfromthedivinelove,andsoonafterhetellsusthattheoverallscheme ofcreation‘isinaccordancewiththelovewhichisGod’.5

Moltmannalsooftenusestheword‘pleasure’todescribethebasisforthe world.Itis‘thecreationofthedivinegoodpleasure’,‘forjoy’,becauseofGod’s

2 AsseeninhisformulationofthedoctrineoftheTrinity.

3 ThereareotherprinciplesimportantforMoltmann’sdoctrineofcreation,suchas ‘wisdom’(TJ,p.41),althoughitisnotasprevalentas‘love’inhiswork.

4 GiC,pp.75-76.

5 ‘CreationandRedemption’,in Creation,Christ&Culture:StudiesinHonourofT.F.Torrance,ed.byRichardW.A.McKinney(Edinburgh:T&TClark,1976),pp.119–34(p.124); TKG,p.58.Thisquoterefersaswelltocontinualcreationandthedetailofcreation,but deﬁnitelyencompassesinitialcreation.

desire.6 God‘delightsinhiscreation’inawaythat‘makesitunequivocally plain’toMoltmannthatcreationﬂowsoutofthedivinelove.7

InnerLove

In TheTrinityandtheKingdomofGod Moltmannsaysthatcreationdoesnot justﬂowoutofthedivineloveingeneral,butspeciﬁcallyoutoftheloving relationshipsfoundwithintheTrinity,orperhapsmoreaccuratelyoutof oneparticularrelationship:‘Creationispartoftheoftheeternalloveaffair betweentheFatherandtheSon.ItspringsfromtheFather’slovefortheSon andisredeemedbytheansweringloveoftheSonfortheFather.’8

Inwhatwaydoescreationflowoutofthisrelationship?Iscreationagift fromFathertoSonthattheSonthengivesback?Moltmannindeedsaysthat creationsimplyoverflowsfromthislovingrelationship,butwhatexactlydoes thatmean?HespeaksoftheTrinity’sglorificationthroughcreation:‘free creationsofGodforthepurposeoftheself-communicationofhisgoodness, withhisglorificationastheirendgoal’.9 Fromthisitappearsthatcreation flowsoutoftheloveoftheFatherandSonforoneanotherinamutualgift ofglorification.Forthemtocreateandenterintorelationshiptogetherwith creationwouldbringfurtherjoytotheireternalrelationship.Thereforethey begintheprojectofcreationbecauseoftheirloveforeachotherandthe resultswhichcreationwillbring.

OuterLove

However,toconsidertheactofcreationtobeonlytheresultofthetrinitarian persons’loveforeachotherwouldnotbethewholepicture.Thisloveof God’salsofocusesoutwardstocreateanewrelationshipofloveoutsidethe existentdivinerelations.10 Thismeanscreationdoesnotsimplybeneﬁtthe innertrinitarianrelationships.Moltmannmakesitclearthatcreationitselfis anobjectofdivinelove:‘ThelovewithwhichGodcreativelyandsufferingly

6 Man:ChristianAnthropologyintheConﬂictsofthePresent,trans.byJohnSturdy (London:SPCK,1974),p.108; FC,p.98; GiC,p.72.Seealso TJ,pp.40-41;‘Creationand Redemption’,p.124; TKG,p.108.

7 GiC,pp.76,276(cf. TKG,pp.111-14).

8 TKG,p.59(cf.p.112).Moltmann’sdiscussionhereomitstheHolySpirit,amore regularfeatureofhisearlierwork(seeabove,p.14).

9 GiC,p.207.Thismeansthat,forMoltmann,Godalsocreatestoself-communicate.

10 InMoltmann’swork,thelengthstowhichGodgoestoredeemcreationsuggeststhat thisisnotmerelyasecondaryfocus.

lovestheworldisnodifferentfromthelovehehimselfisineternity.’11 And elsewhere:‘InGod’seyesnothingcreatedisamatterofindifference.’12

ThewayinwhichMoltmannpresentsGod’strinitarianlovetoberelationalmakesitunsurprisingthatheconsidersthedivineloveforcreationalso toberelational.Theactofcreationisnotthecreationofatool(asitmight beifnoloveforcreationexisted),orthecreationofapieceofartwhichGod observes(asitmightbeifitweresimplyacaseof‘lookingonwithlove’). Itisratherthecreationofan‘Other’towhichGodcan‘self-communicate’, andthatcanrespond.13 WhattheTrinityself-communicatesisgoodnessand love.ForMoltmann,thisdoesnotincludethegloriﬁcationofpower.14 What isdesiredisa‘responseinfreedom’toGod’ssearchforanewrelationship offreedomandlove.15 Suchaconclusionhasimplicationsfortheecological reformation,inthathumanity’slovingresponsemustembraceallofGod’s creation,notGodalone.

TheSameLove

Itisimportanttoemphasisethat,forMoltmann,thisinnerandouterlove areexpressionsofthesamelove,nottwodifferentloves.MatthewBonzo discussesatlengthhowMoltmanndescribestwodynamicsofGod’slove: loveforlike(philia,innertrinitarianlove)andloveforadifferent‘Other’ (agape,loveforwhatisnotdivine).Bonzodiscussesthisdifferentiationas foundinvariousareasofMoltmann’sthought.16 Hisreadingishelpfuland detailed,yetalsooveremphasisesthedifferencesbetweenthetwoconcepts, andsoviewsthemtohavedifferentcharacteristics.17 Healsonotesanother whomMoltmann’slanguagetroubles,citingHenryJansen:‘[He]wondersif “Moltmann’sdistinctionbetweennecessaryandfreelove(philia and agape)is atallhelpfulinunderstandingthenatureoflove...itisdifﬁculttounderstand howsuchtermswouldclarifythehumanexperienceoflove”’.18 WhileBonzo’s conclusionsmayseeminaccurate,thefactthatheandothershaveperceived

11 TKG,p.59.

12 GSS,p.110.

13 TKG,pp.59,108(cf. SW,p.61).

14 GiC,pp.75-76,207.Moltmannpointsushereto TKG,pp.52-60.Itseemsthathe rejectstheself-communicationofpowerbecausehethinksGodwillnotshowthedivineglory inthatway.

15 TKG,p.59(cf.p.106).

16 Bonzo, Indwelling,especiallyChapter3,pp.36-51.

17 Ibid.,pp.36-41.

18 Ibid.,p.48,n.27,citingHenryJansen, RelationalityandtheConceptofGod (Amsterdam: Rodopi,1994),p.137.

commonproblemsindicatesaneedforclarityinMoltmann’sworkhere. However,despiteacertainpropensitytobemisunderstood,hisworkon theloveofGodonlydescribesonelove:divinelove.19 Theyarenottwo differentloves,butindifferentcontextsthislovecanbeloveforlikeorlove for‘Other’.IfoneacceptstheideathathumanitycanreﬂecttheloveofGod, thenMoltmann’sworkgivesencouragementtoloveboththatwhichislike andunlike.20 Forthepurposesofafocusonanecologicalreformation,this loveincludesnon-humancreation.

3.3GOD’S FREE CREATIVITY

TheplaceofloveinMoltmann’sdoctrineofcreationshowsthatGodcreates forcreation’sownsakebecauseofthelovewhichalreadyexistsintheTrinity’sinnerself.Inaddition,thatselflessloveseekstheother’sfulfilmentina lovingandreciprocalrelationship.ThisisaconsistentdynamicofMoltmann’s generalprojectandhenceausefulcontributiontothenewtheologicalarchitecture.ThediscussionthatfollowsonfromthisflowsfromMoltmann’sview thatGod freelycreates.Tothinkaboutthedivineloveleadstoaconsideration ofhowexactlythisloveleadsGodtocreate.

ThequestionisnecessarybecauseMoltmannpresentsseeminglydeﬁnite commentsaboutbothGod’sfreedecisiontocreate and theabsenceofchoice. Thisleadssometoconcludethathehasdiscounteddivinefreedominrelationshiptocreation,whichinturnasksseriousquestionsofwhatthislove canlooklikeanditsplaceinthesoughtforarchitecture.Thediscussionthat followsconcernshow,forMoltmann,God’screativeactisnotanunavoidable consequenceofdivinelove,noranideathatjusthappenedtocomeabout whichGodcouldhavefreelydismissed.Ratheritinvolvesabalanceofthe two.TheﬁrstissuetoexploreisthewayinwhichMoltmanndescribesthe actofcreationasafreedecisionbyGod.

19 TKG,p.59.AfactwhichBonzorecognises,butwhichheseemstointerprettomean thatthetwolovesonly eventually becomethesamethingwhencreationismadelikeGod (Bonzo, Indwelling,p.65).

20 ThisideathathumanityreﬂectsGod’sloveisoneoftheargumentsputforwardin Chapter7ofthiswork,p.176.

ResolveandDecision

EvenbeforeMoltmannbeginshisdetaileddiscussionofcreationinthe1980s heseemstohavethebasicassumptionthat‘[t]heoriginalcreationwas createdoutofthewillofGod’.21 Forhim,‘Godisfree’andsocreationisnot‘a necessaryunfoldingofGodnoranemanationofhisbeing’buthas‘itsground [...]inGod’s goodwill’.22 Moltmannthenreturnstothisthemein Godin Creation andstatesitjustasstrongly:‘theworldisnot[...]anemanation fromGod’seternalbeing.Itisthespeciﬁcoutcomeofhisdecisionofwill’.23 Thedivinefreedomisstillparamount.Forhim,thatGodcreates‘through whathesays’supportsthisidea.24

ThepassagebelowgivesaclearindicationofMoltmann’sparametersas hespeaksoftheactofcreation.Hereheafﬁrmshisconformity,inthisrespect, totraditionalviewsofGod’screativity:

Thelatertheologicalinterpretationofcreationas creatioexnihilo is thereforeunquestionablyanaptparaphraseofwhattheBiblemeansby ‘creation’.WhereverandwhateverGodcreatesiswithoutanypreconditions.Thereisnotexternalnecessitywhichoccasionshiscreativity, andnoinnercompulsionwhichcoulddetermineit.Noristhereany primordialmatterwhosepotentialityispre-giventohiscreativeactivity, andwhichwouldsethimmateriallimits.25

Creationtrulycomesfromnothing.Thereisnothingthat forces God,from withinorwithout.Thereisnothingthatconstrainsthedivineabilitytocreate. ForMoltmann‘creationmustbebasedonadivineresolveofthewillto create’andisa‘personaldecision’.26 However,atthispointthecomplication concerningthenatureofGod’sfreedomappearsinhisthought:‘whenwesay thatGodcreatedtheworld“outoffreedom”,wemust[müssen]immediately add“outoflove”’.27 Inotherwords,freedomandlovecoincide.Freedom ‘must’includeloveanddoesnotappearwithoutit.

21 RRF,p.36.

22 TJ,pp.40-41.

23 GiC,p.72(cf.pp.79-86,whereMoltmannalsospeaksofGod’sresolvetobeaCreator andtocreate).

24 Ibid.,p.76.

25 Ibid.,p.74.

26 Ibid.,pp.75,80(cf. TKG,p.58).

27 GiC,p.75(cf. EthH,p.122).

FreedombeforeChoice

This‘must’couldpresentaproblem.Doesitimposealimitonthedivine freedom?Theansweris‘no’.Rather,Moltmannsimplyhighlightstheintrinsicconnectionbetweenloveandfreedom.Hestatesthat‘[f]orGodit isaxiomatictolove,forhecannotdenyhimself’.28 Manywouldagreewith thisstatement,andtheco-existenceofloveandfreedom,butitistheway Moltmannappliesthisargumenttohistheologyinthisparticularcontext thattroublescommentators.29 IfGodisfree,yetalsoislove,thenfreedom cannotincludethecompletefreedomtochooseanythingoutsideoflove.At timesMoltmannwritesinmannerthatwouldgenerallybeacceptable,as thoughthiswereonlyalimitonGodnottochooseanythingevil:‘Inhislove Godcanchoose;buthechoosesonlythatwhichcorrespondstohisessential goodness,inordertocommunicatethatgoodnessashiscreationandinhis creation.’30 Moltmann’swordselsewhereexplainthisview:‘God’sfreedom cannevercontradictthetruthwhichheisinhimself.“Heremainsfaithful–forhecannotdenyhimself”(2Tim.2.13)’.31

Atothertimes,however,MoltmannhasamuchnarrowerconceptofGod’s freedom:‘Loveisaself-evident,unquestionable“overﬂowingofgoodness” whichisthereforeneveropentochoiceatanytime.Truefreedomisthe self-communicationofthegood.’32 Thismaynotseemfarfromthestatement thatGodisalwaysGodandwillalwaysactinawayappropriatetothedivine loveandnature,buttakesthatsomewhatcomfortingnotionandmakesit intoastatementthatcreatestheimpressionofcuttingallfreedomoutofthe Trinity.

Thealternativeisthat‘freedom’isdifferentto‘choice’andthisisexactly thedistinctionMoltmannattemptstodraw.Hearguesthatthisrejectionof choicedoesnotequatetotheremovalofGod’sfreedom.Inhisestimation ‘freedomofchoiceisbynomeansfreedom’shigheststage’.33 Iffreedomis inchoice(andthusinthepowertomakethatchoice)then,forMoltmann, thisis‘thelanguageofdomination’where‘onlythelordisfree’.34 Itisan interestingassertionthatchallengeswhatapopularunderstandingoffreedom

28 TKG,p.107.

29 Forexample,Neal, TheologyAsHope,pp.132-37.

30 GiC,p.76.

31 TKG,p.53(cf.pp.54-55).

32 Ibid.,p.55.

33 Ibid.,p.55,paraphrasingvonHügelbutexplicitlyinagreement.

34 Ibid.,p.56.ItseemsthatMoltmannisconcernedtohaveadeﬁnitionoffreedomfor Godthatcanalsoprotectthefreedomofhumanity.

mightbe:tobeundernoconstraint.35 ButgiventhatMoltmannhasalready acknowledgeddecisionandwillinGod,whatarewetomakeofthis?One availableunderstandingisthathethinksfreedomisnotonlytodowhatever youwant(choice)butfreedomistoliveoutaselﬂesslife(love).36

AnotheranswertoMoltmann’srejectionofchoicecomesfromtheprecise wayinwhichheusestheword‘choice’inthiscontext.Thestatementhere givesusanindicationoftheparticularusage:‘Truefreedomisnot“the tormentofchoice”,withitsdoubtsandthreats;itissimple,undividedjoyin thegood.’37 Suchastatementcouldsimplybeahumanfearoffreedom,a projectionofthehumanexperienceofweaknessontothediscussionabout God.Thatconclusion,however,isnotnecessary.Moltmann’sclaimhighlight’s hisviewthatGoddoesnotfacechoiceslikehumansdo.Forhim,humanity hasthetormentofunresolveddilemmaswhentheoptionsandoutcomesare notfullyunderstood(theconstrictionoflackofknowledge),orwhenright andwrongisclearbutselﬁshnessorfearmightmakeadecisionhardtocome to(theconstrictionoflackofselﬂesslove).

ForMoltmannthen,God’sfreedomisnottaintedbysuchthings.Ahuman conceptofchoiceisinadequatetodescribedivinechoice.God,unlikehumans, hasperfectknowledgeandlovewhichmeanthatthereisnodilemma.This conceptcouldbeillustratedbyparents,whoseetheirchildwanderinginto acutemortaldangerwhentheyknowtheycandosomethingaboutitand springintoaction.‘Ihadnooption!’Technicallythechoicewastherebut thedecisionwasmadeautomatically.Likewise,perhapsinGodthereis‘no’ choice,forthechoiceisalreadymade.Thepathofloveisclear,soallthat remainsisthe‘simple,undividedjoyinthegood’.38 Divinefreedomwould thusbetoknowwhattodoandtobecompletelyfreetofollowit.Sowhen Moltmannassertsthatfreedomofchoiceisnotthehighestfreedomhemay notmeanthatthereisliterallynotthesmallestamountofchoice.Rather,it wouldbebettertoreadhimassayingthatthegreatestfreedomisnotina choicebutthefreedomtoknowtherightchoiceandtobeabletonotwaver fromit.

35 Forexample:‘thestateofnotbeingsubject[tosomething]’(ConciseOxfordEnglish Dictionary,11thedn(CD-ROM,2004)).Thereareclearlymanynuancesandvarietiesof themeaningoffreedom,butitsmostpopularunderstandingissurelytheabilitytodoand chooseadesiredcourseofaction,withinreason.

36 GiC,pp.82-83.

37 TKG,p.55.

38 Ibid.,p.55.

InescapableLove

Theaboveapproachmakessenseofthedifferencebetweendivineandhuman approachestoa(potentially)problematicchoice,butthisislessappropriate ifachoiceexistsbetweenequallypositivepaths.Itcouldsuggestthatthe Trinity’slovewilldetermineonlyoneofthesetobetherightone,andsoleave no‘choice’inthematter.ThisleavesnoroomforGodtohavethe‘joy’ofthe choicebetweentwodifferentpathsthatwillbothbringgood.InMoltmann’s defence,suchascenarioisunlikelytobewhathehadinmind.Hisinclusion ofloveinfreedomisaimedmoreattheremovalofthechoicenottolove. Thatishismainargumenthere,notthesuggestionthatloveonlygivesGod onepathtofollow.

However,thelatterofthosetwoideasisstillconsideredbyMolnartobe presentinMoltmann’swork.HeisoftheopinionthatMoltmann’sthought makesGod‘theprisoneroflove,whichbyitsverynature must freelycreate anotherinordertobetruetoitsownnature’.39 CeliaDeane-Drummond believesthephrase‘prisoneroflove’tobean‘exaggerated’criticism,but separatelylendsheragreementthatinMoltmannthereistheideathat‘it isnecessaryforGodtoactbeyondhisinner-self,sincehefindsblissonly inselflesslove’.40 IfDeane-Drummondisrightherethenagainitseemsas ifGod’screativitydoesnotflowoutoffreedom,butratheraninevitable expressionofneed.YetDeane-Drummondmakesherethesamemistake whichBonzomade.SheappearstotakeaphrasethatMoltmanndoesnot entirelyagreewithandassignittohisviews.Shereferstoacertainpassagein TheTrinityandtheKingdomofGod whereheoutlinesChristianpanentheism incontrasttoChristiantheism,butsheassumesthathedescribesaposition withwhichheisinwholesaleagreement.41 However,whileMoltmannis undoubtedlyaproponentofpanentheism,itdoesnotfollowthatheagrees witheveryaspectoftheparticularChristianpanentheismheoutlines.He goesontosaythatboththeismandpanentheismhavetruthtothembutneed alterations,particularlytoshowthatGod’slibertyisnotarbitrary(herelove counterbalancesfreedom)andthatGod’snatureisnotlaw(herefreedom counterbalanceslove).42

39 Molnar,‘FunctionofTheTrinity’,p.681(cf.ThomasH.McCall, WhichTrinity?Whose Monotheism?:PhilosophicalandSystematicTheologiansontheMetaphysicsofTrinitarian Theology (GrandRapids,MI/Cambridge:WmB.EerdmansPublishing,2010),p.209).

40 Deane-Drummond, Ecology,p.102.

41 Ibid.,p.102; TKG,pp.106-07.

42 TKG,p.107.AsimilarmistaketoDeane-Drummond’sismadebyNeal, TheologyAs Hope,p.135.

Moltmannattemptstosteeracoursebetweenpositionsthatrootthemselvesexclusivelyineitherfreedom or love.Heexpresseshisbeliefthatthose positionsarepooreriftheydonotrecognisethatonerootdoesnotstand aloneinGod’shistoryasCreator,andassuchalsointheemergingtheological architecture.InMoltmann’swork,thereisthereforeno‘selﬂesslove’which needstoactbeyondGod’s‘inner-self’,whichforcesthecreationoftheworld. ‘ForMoltmannthenecessaryotherforGodiswithinthebeingofGod.’43 Thereissimplytheonelove,‘thatoperatesindifferentwaysinthedivinelife andthedivinecreativity’,whichﬁndseachnewexpressionofthatlovetobe ‘bliss’.44

ItistruethatinhisdiscussionsaboutGod’sloveMoltmannmakesclaims aboutwhethertheDivinecould not havecreated.Forinstance,hespeaks ofthedangerofa‘contradictionbetween[God’s]naturebeforeandafter thisdecision’tocreateiftheTrinitywasself-sufficientbeforecreationbutis nownotself-sufficientbecauseofthebindofloveandfaithfulnesstowards creation.45 Infact,Moltmannwishestoavoidtheideaofself-sufficiencyall together:‘CanGodreallybecontenttobesufficientforhimselfifhe is love?’46 Thepointisunderstandable,buthistrinitariantheologysuggeststhatGod reallycouldbeself-sufficient and belovebecauseeachpersonoftheTrinity canlookbeyondthe‘self’totheothersintheperichoreticrelationship.

Thesestatementsofthelogicalnecessityofcreationnotwithstanding, andgivenMoltmann’seffortstointegratetwodifferentviews,overallhiswork inthisareaisacharacteristicattempttocounteraview(arbitraryfreedom) whichhebelievesistooprevalent.Inthiswaythethemesofloveandfreedom arerelatedconceptsinhisdoctrineofcreation,andconstructiveforthenew theologicalarchitecture.

OriginalCreation:AUnityofWillandNature

ItisclearthatMoltmannwishestoholdtogetherthefreechoiceoftheCreator andtheﬂowofGod’snatureintheactofcreation.Behindthisisadesire toavoidtheextremeviewsthatcreationiseitheranarbitrarychoiceora purposelessnaturalevent.47 HebelievesthattheviewoftheTrinityasboth

43 Bouma-Prediger, TheGreening,p.252.

44 GiC,p.84.

45 TKG,p.53.

46 Ibid.,p.53(cf.p.108:‘FrometernityGodhasdesirednotonlyhimselfbuttheworldtoo, forhedidnotmerelywanttocommunicatehimselftohimself;hewantedtocommunicate himselftotheonewhoisotherthanhimselfaswell.’).

47 TJ,pp.40-41(cf. TKG,p.54,referringtoBarth).

supremesubject(whichhelinkstoGod’sdecision)andsupremesubstance (whichhelinkstotheoutpouringofthedivineeternalbeing)helpscreatea pathbetweenarbitrarinessandpurposelessness.Forhim,tosaythatcreation wasadecisionwhichwasbothfreeandﬂowedoutofGod’slovingessenceis thebestapproach.48

Ifwelifttheconceptofnecessityoutofthecontextofcompulsive necessityanddeterminationbysomethingexternal,theninGod necessity and freedom coincide;theyarewhatisforhimaxiomatic,self-evident. ForGoditisaxiomatictolove,forhecannotdenyhimself.ForGod itisaxiomatictolovefreely,forheisGod.Thereisconsequentlyno reasonwhyweshouldnotunderstandGodasbeingfrometernityselfcommunicatinglove.Thisdoesnotmakehim‘hisownprisoner’.It meansthatheremainstruetohimself.49

ThereforeMoltmanncanmaintainthelanguageofchoicealongsidethesense of‘howcouldalovingGoddoanythingelse?’,a‘unityofwillandnature’that makescreation‘meaningful’.50

HisaimisnottodebatewhetherGoddecidedtocreateornot,heisclear onthematter:Godresolvedtocreate.51 Hisoverallpointisthatifweaccept thatGodislovethenthathastoaffectthewayweseetheactofcreation. Firstly,itwasnotanaccidentoranindifferentexperiment,ithappenedwith thesamethoughtandcare,anthropomorphicallyspeaking,thatexistsinthe innerrelationsoftheTrinity.Secondly,creationwasnotforced,norwas itareluctantchoiceoradeparturefromnormalcharacter.Rathertheact flowedoutofthedivinecharacterandbeing.SowhileMoltmanndoessay thatGodwasnotself-sufficientwithoutcreation,thisisnotbecauseofan assumptionofdivineneeds.Instead,Godhasrevealedthetrinitarianselfto beaCreatorwhohasmadecreationasapartner.Therefore,forMoltmann,it cannotbesaidthattheTrinitywassufficientwithoutcreation,becausesucha claimwouldcontradictChristianclaimsfortheidentityoftheTrinity.Asa Creator,Godis‘truetohimself’. 52 AlongwiththediscussionaboutGodhere, creation’sidentityhasemergedasthatofapartnerwithGod.Thisgivesita highstatusandlaysanotherfoundationfortheecologicalreformation.

48 GiC,pp.82-86.

49 TKG,pp.107-08.

50 GiC,p.85;‘CreationandRedemption’,p.124(cf. TKG,p.112).

51 EthH,p.122.

52 TKG,p.108(cf.p.55).

3.4THE CREATIONOFAN ‘OTHER’

Theﬁnalpartofthischapter’sstatementabouttheactofcreationisthis: GodcreatessomethingotherthanGod.Itisimportanttoemphasisethisis aconstantinMoltmann’stheology,andassuchinhiscontributionstowards thenewtheologicalarchitecture,becausesomecriticsclaimthathelosesthe distinctionbetweentheDivineandcreation.53

HestatesclearlythattheTrinitycreatessomethingwhichis‘notGod’.54 Hewritesthatcreationis‘[i]nbetweenGodandnothing’,‘not“begotten”by God’,‘notinitselfdivine’and‘differentfrom[God]’.55 Thisdifferenceexists, forMoltmann,becauseGodcreated exnihilo.Creationisnoteternalandis createdoutofnothing,thatis,itissomethingunlikeanddistinctfromthe Divine.56 HealsoassertsthatGod’slove,expressed‘indifferentwaysinthe divinelifeandinthedivinecreativity’,reinforcesthatdistinction.57

Zimsum

ThiscommitmentthatcreationissomethingotherthanGodleadsMoltmann toaskthequestionofhow,withanomnipresent,omniscient,eternaldeity, thereisspaceforanythingelse.Hisansweristhat‘theCreatorhastoconcede tohiscreationthespaceinwhichitcanexist[...]allowittime[...] allowitfreedom’.Thisis‘anactofGodinwardly’,‘self-limitation’and‘selfhumiliation’.58 Itisarestrictionofthedivineomnipresence,omniscience andeternity.59 HereMoltmannpurposefullytakesuptheideaofdivineselflimitationfromkabbalisticJudaism,namely zimsum,whichheclaimshas alwaysplayedapartinChristiantheology.60 Heunderstandsthistermto mean‘God’sself-limitation’or‘awithdrawalintotheself’duringoriginal creationbywhichGodmadethespaceforcreationtoexist.61

53 Forthiscriticisminregardstocreation,seeColinE.Gunton, Theologythroughthe Theologians:SelectedEssays1972-1995 (Edinburgh:T&TClark,1996),pp.149-50,n.49; Molnar,‘FunctionofTheTrinity’,pp.673-74,n.4.Thiscomplaintalsoappearselsewhere, concerningGod’simmanenceincreation,bothinthepresentandattheeschaton(seeChapter 4ofthiswork,‘Pantheism?’,p.71,andChapter6,‘CreationinGod’,p.151).

54 TJ,pp.40-41.

55 Man,p.108; TKG,p.113; GiC,pp.72,76(cf. SW,p.169;Bonzo, Indwelling,pp.39-40).

56 GiC,pp.78-79(cf.p.74).

57 Ibid.,pp.84-85.

58 TKG,p.59.

59 CoG,pp.281-82.

60 GiC,p.xiii.

61 TKG,p.109; GiC,pp.xiii,86-89.

Healsocomestotheconclusionthatdivineself-limitationisnecessary becauseofhisadherenceto creatioexnihilo.Heagreeswiththisconcept becauseitensurestherearenopreconditions,whetherprimordialmaterial, innercompulsion,orexternalnecessity,tocreation.62 Forhimitalsospeaks ofcreation’srootednessinthedivine‘goodpleasure’.63 Creatioexnihilo leads himtoask:howcanGodcreateoutof‘nothing’whenthereisnonothing, thereisonlyGod?64 Hisansweristhatthereisﬁrstthecreationofnothing throughthewithdrawalofGod’sself.Therefore,thereisnowspacefor creation.InthisproblemsbegintoemergeasMoltmanneffectivelysaysthat ‘nothing’isactually‘something’thatGodneedstocreate.65 Yettherewillbe moreseriousquestionstoaskaswecontinue.

MoltmannreceivessomecriticismfromDeane-Drummondforhisappropriationoftheconceptof zimsum.Sheassertsthatitisuncritical,thatin theJewishmysticaltraditionideassurround zimsum whichhehaschosen nottotakeup.Theseincludenotionsofjudgementandlinkswith‘gnostic speculation’.ShealsoquestionswhetherhecanreallylinkhisChristian theologytothisJewishtraditiongiventheirdivergentroots.Isitpossible,she asks,tousesuchselectivepartsof zimsum withouttheuseofthesamefoundations?66 Thisshouldnot,however,meanthatMoltmanncannotusethis conceptselectively.Itseemsbothacceptableandhelpfulthatheshoulduse theideasofothertraditionstoinspirehisownapproach.Deane-Drummond’s question,however,shouldserveasawarningtobecarefuloftheimplications whicharisefromtheintegrationofthisoranyotherideafromadifferent worldview.

ItisfairtonotethatMoltmann’suseof zimsum,despiteitsproblems, doesmakeacontributiontoapositiveviewofGod’screativeacts.Itspeaksof thelengthstowhichtheTrinityispreparedtogotocreateandgivecreation itsspace.ThisdemonstratesGod’shumbleloveforcreationandwillingness toundergocostlychange.Moltmannseesthisas‘thebeginningofthat self-emptyingofGodwhichPhilippians2seesasthedivinemysteryofthe Messiah’.67 Forhim,thisismoreprofoundthaniftheDivinesimplycreated somethingelse.Morethanthis,Godmadespaceatacost.

62 GiC,p.74.

63 ‘CreationandRedemption’,p.124.

64 TKG,pp.108-11; GiC,p.86; CoG,p.297; SW,p.62.

65 GiC,p.74.

66 Deane-Drummond, Ecology,pp.202-03.Molnar,forexample,assertsthatkabbalistic zimsum is‘pantheisticandemanationist’(Molnar,‘FunctionofTheTrinity’,p.673,n.4).

67 GiC,p.88.

Thesemorepositiveimplicationsof zimsum mightremainwithamore restricteduseofthetermthatsimplyrecognisesthecostandconcessions whichGodtakesandmakesintheactofcreation.However,theconsequences whichamorewhole-heartedandliteraladoptionofthedoctrinebringsare notalldesirable.Thestatementthatgivesparticularcauseforconcernis: ‘Godmakesroomforhiscreationbywithdrawinghispresence.Whatcomes intobeingisa nihil’.68

MakingSpaceforCreation

Thelanguageoftheself-restrictionofGod’spresenceispresentthroughout Moltmann’swork:‘Bywithdrawinghimselfandgivinghiscreationspace, Godmakeshimselfthelivingspaceofthosehehascreated.’69 Theimmediate problemwiththisstatementisthatitimpliesthattheTrinityandcreation occupythesamesortofspaceandhavetomakeroomforeachother.Various commentatorshavetakenupthisproblemwhichnegatestheneedforextensiveexplorationhere.70 However,therearequaliﬁcationstothisdebatewhich thisresearchcanbring.

ThelogicthatleadstoGod’s‘need’tomakespaceiseasilyopento question.Theargumentgoesthatthisneedoccursbecausetherecanbe nothing,‘space’included,alreadyinexistence‘outside’theDivine:‘Ifwe assumean extraDeum,doesnotthissetGodalimit?’71 However,ifMoltmann claimsthattheTrinityhastolook‘inward’for‘space’thenthatimpliesthat Godisunabletolook‘outwards’.TheDivineisthereforetrappedandlimited. ThisseemstodescribespaceasaboxwhichGodﬁlls.Thisisobviously dangerousphilosophicalterritory,andneednotbewhatomnipresencemeans. ItispreferabletoviewGod’spre-creationpresenceassimply being allthat thereis,not ﬁlling allthatthereis.Thisimpliesnothingaboutspace,whether ‘inward’oroutward’.TherewassimplyGodandnothingelse.Onecould arguethatMoltmannonlyspeaksmetaphoricallyhere.Yetevenifthisisso theproblemremainsthattheresultantthreatofthe nihil,exploredbelow, presentsastillseriousthreattocreation.

68 Ibid.,p.87.

69 CoG,p.299.

70 SeeDeane-Drummond, Ecology,pp.102,300;ChristopherSouthgate, TheGroaning ofCreation:God,Evolution,andtheProblemofEvil (Louisville,KY:WestminsterJohnKnox Press,2008),pp.58-59(cf.DenisEdwards, BreathofLife:ATheologyoftheCreatorSpirit (Maryknoll,NY:OrbisBooks,2004),p.140).

71 GiC,p.86.

Thisassertioncanleadtotheargumentthatcreationissimplybrought intobeingasanewthingwhichisnotGod.TheTrinityisnolongerall thatthereisbutnowexistswithcreation.Thereisnoneedtospeculate whooccupieswhatspace,andnoneedforGodto‘self-withdraw’.Deityand creationdonotneedtoinhabitmutuallyexclusivespace.Themakingof literal‘space’isnotnecessaryforthediscussion.

ThisdoesnotmeanthatthepositiveconnotationsofGod’sself-limitation, namelythatMoltmannfollowsothersandcallsthisself-restriction‘selfhumiliation’,mustdisappearalongwithaspatialtheory.That‘self-humiliation’ demonstratesGod’sloveforcreation.72 TheDivinestilldecidestoallowsomethingelsetoexist,andstilldecidesnolongertobethetotalityofallexistence. PaulFiddesconcurswhenhearguesthat zimsum neednotimplyphysical movement,rather‘GodwithdrawsfromGod’sownexclusivenessofbeing’.73 Moltmannrecognisesthatthisdynamicisatplay,eventhoughhedoesnot equateitwithGod’sself-humiliation:‘HedetermineshimselftobetheCreator wholetsacreationco-existwithhimself.’74

TheThreatofthe Nihil

AfurtherproblemrelatedtotheideathatGodmakesspaceforcreationisthe precisenatureoftheresultoftherestrictionofthedivinepresence,namelythe nihil.Moltmann’sideaofthisoriginalnothingnessisasurprisinglythreatening concept:‘The nihil inwhichGodcreateshiscreationisGod-forsakenness, hell,absolutedeath,anditisagainstthethreatofthisthathemaintainshis creationinlife’.75 Thisconstructionofthe nihil bringstwopossibledangers: (1)creationisunavoidablycaughtinchaosanddeathfromthebeginning, and(2)Godisdirectlyresponsiblefordeathandsin.

(1)BonzosuccinctlyoutlinestheproblemswhichMoltmann’stheology raisesforhiminthisinstance:

TheproblemforcreationisthatasGod’sdifferentOther,itﬁndsitself inaplaceofabandonmentandforsakennessbyGod.[...]Ifessential tothedifferencethatcharacterizescreationisgodforsakennessandthe sufferingitentails,doesnotMoltmanncomeclose(toocloseinmyview) toconstructing—hisintentionsnotwithstanding—atheodicywhichtoa

72 GiC,p.87.

73 PaulS.Fiddes, ThePromisedEnd:EschatologyinTheologyandLiterature (Oxford: BlackwellPublishers,2000),p.251.

74 SW,p.61,citingBarth, ChurchDogmatics,III/1,§42,pp.330ff.

75 GiC,pp.87-88(cf.‘CreationandRedemption’,p.125;‘TowardstheNextStepinthe Dialogue’,in TheFutureofHope:TheologyasEschatology,ed.byFrederickHerzog(New York:HerderandHerder,1970),pp.154–64(p.164)).

largedegreeontologizes,andinthatway,justiﬁessufferingandevilas necessaryandinevitable?76

Bonzo’sunderstandingisthatifcreationisforsakenthen‘humaninadequacies [and]sin’arenecessary,andnotbasedondisobedience.77 Itishardtorefute thisclaimashumanitydoesﬁnditselfatadistancefromGodbeforeithasany inputintotherelationship.ThisisoneoftheaspectsofMoltmann’screation exnihilo whichlooksproblematic.WolfhartPannenberglendshissupport tothiscritique.Hepointsoutthatoriginally‘creationoutofnothing’simply referredtothefact‘thattheworlddidnotexistbefore’,andsoMoltmann’s extrapolationofGod’swithdrawalis‘materiallyunfoundedmystiﬁcation’.78 Speculationcanbegoodandhelpful,asMoltmannshowsonmanyoccasions, butinthisinstancetheendresulthaslittletojustifyitsacceptance.

ThereisalsothequestionofthebiblicalfoundationMoltmannusesfor thethreatofthe nihil.Forinstance,hereferstoPsalm104.29,translatedas: ‘Whenthoutakestawaytheirbreath,theydieandreturntodust.’Forhim, thisspeaksoftheSpiritatworktopreservecreation‘againstannihilating Nothingness’.79 Howeverthereseemstobenoneedtoreadan‘annihilating nothingness’intothispsalm.Thecontextimpliesthatthissentencetalksmore abouttheneedforGod’ssustenanceintheongoingcycleoflifeanddeath.It ismoreanafﬁrmationofacreature’snon-immortalitythanthepresenceofa threatening nihil.

(2)InauniversecreatedoutoftheloveofGodfromwheredidthepower ofdeathorsincome?Downthroughtheagespeoplehavewrestledwiththis question,couchedinvariousways.ThedangerofMoltmann’sdevelopmentof the nihil isthatitmaygivetheanswer‘directlyfromGod’.Deane-Drummond notesthecreationofthe nihil asa‘negativeelement’inoriginalcreation.80 IfthisissothentheTrinityisresponsiblefortheﬁrstnegativity.Then lovecreatedthethreatofanothingnessofsuchpuregodlessness.Randall Bushobservesthatthecreationofsomethingwhichis‘basicallyhostileand destructive’,andwhich‘canonlybeovercomebyGod’screativepower[...] suggeststhatGodisthecause,aswellasthesolution,tohisownsuffering’.81

76 Bonzo, Indwelling,pp.103,108.

77 Ibid.,p.110(cf.p.48,n.25).

78 WolfhartPannenberg, SystematicTheology:Volume2,trans.byGeoffreyW.Bromiley (Edinburgh:T&TClark,1994),pp.14-15.

79 GiC,p.96(cf. WJC,p.288).

80 Deane-Drummond, Ecology,p.212,referencingto GiC,pp.74-79,86-88.

81 RandallB.Bush,‘RecentIdeasofDivineConflict:TheInfluencesofPsychologicaland SociologicalTheoriesofConflictupontheTrinitarianTheologyofPaulTillichandJürgen Moltmann’(unpublisheddoctoralthesis,UniversityofOxford,1990),p.357.

Moltmanncouldpointtothefollowingsentenceforhisdefence:‘Admittedlythe nihil onlyacquiresthismenacingcharacterthroughtheself-isolation ofcreatedbeingstowhichwegivethenameofsinandgodlessness.’82 Here heiskeentoseparateGodfromresponsibilityforthisthreat.Thiswould notconvinceBonzo:‘itisdifﬁculttoseehowhumanscanavoidsinningand therebyrealizingthe nihil,astheymustactinagodforsakenspace’.83 Bonzo’s logicissetoutthus:SinismadeinevitablebyGod’screationofthe nihil; the nihil ismadeathreatbysin;thereforeGodcreatesaninevitablethreat. Moltmann’sanswertothisaccusationmustsurelycomefromhistheology ofthepresenceoftheTrinity,particularlybytheHolySpirit,increation. Self-isolationisnotinescapablebecauseGodmakesthedivineselfpresentto creationandactivelybothlooksandworksforcommunitywithcreation.84 As constructiveasthismaybe,itdoesnotcompletelydefendMoltmannfrom Bonzo’schargethatifitisthegodforsakennessofthe nihil whichdraws peopletoself-isolation,thenresponsibilitycreepstowardsGod.

Bushmakesthesensiblepointthatthecreationofthe nihil inMoltmann’s theologydoesnotﬁtwiththepictureofGodaslove,whichisacentralpillar ofhiswork.Itis‘inconsistentwithhisemphasisuponGod’s pathos’that theTrinity‘seemstoabandonhisentirecreation’fromthestart.85 Sucha conclusionwoulddamageatheologicalarchitecturewithaspirationstolead anecologicalreformationasitraisesdoubtsaboutthequalityofthedivine loveforcreation.Italsoraisesthequestionofwhythecreationofthe nihil is necessary.

ItispossiblethattheremovaloftheconceptofGod’sself-restrictionof presenceandcreationoftheannihilating nihil fromMoltmann’sdoctrine ofcreationwouldnotnecessarilyremovethethreatofnothingnessfrom creation.Forregardlessofwhether‘nothing’is‘created’ornotpriortothe actofcreation,ifcreationiscreatedfromnothing,wheretherewasnothing before,thenonecouldstillarguethatthethreatstillremainsofthepossibility thatcreationslipsbackintotheabsolutenothingnessitoncewas.This interpretationcouldeasilycomefromthetimeswhenMoltmanndescribes creationasthreatenedsimplybythefactthattherewasnothingbeforeit. ThetheconceptofnothingnesscouldbeseparatedfromtheideathatGod

82 GiC,p.88.

83 Bonzo, Indwelling,p.48,n.25(cf.p.81).

84 ThisisamajorsubjectfordiscussioninChapter4ofthiswork(see,forexample,pp.67, 82).

85 Bush, RecentIdeas,pp.333-34.

speciﬁcallycreated thatnothingness.86

Interestingly,Moltmannseemstodrophisemphasisonthecreationof the nihil after GodinCreation,atleastinhismajorworks.87 Theword,‘nihil’, doesnotappearinthecontextofcreation’soriginsinanyoftherestof hissubsequentsystematiccontributions.Heisabletospeakofathreatto creationfromchaosandnothingnessanddoesnotattachtoitcommentonthe originofthatnothingness.88 ‘Annihilatingnothingness’seemstobecomethe languageforthethreatened destination ofcreation,insteadofits origin 89 In SunofRighteousness,Arise!,tothequestionofwhycreationis‘threatenedby chaosand[...]annihilation’,hisanswersimilarlydoesnotincludethe nihil. Again,inadeparturefromhispriorhandlingofthesubject,hisansweris thatGod‘hasconferredoncreationitsownscopeforfreedomandgeneration. [...]Butinthesefreespaces,theearthandhumanbeingsarecreationsthat standontheedgeofchaosandarethreatenedbytheforcesofannihilation’.90

ItishelpfulthatMoltmannhaschosentochangethewayhepresents thepredicamentofcreation.Creationisstillunderthreat,butthewhole discussionisabletotakeplacewithoutreferencetothe nihil,whichwas formerlyatthecentreofthediscussion.Thisisbynomeansproofthathehas changedhisthought.Itmaybethathebelieveshehasmadethepointwell enoughforitnottoneedanyrepetition.Butthechangeinlanguageallows analternativeemphasistoemerge.

Thecrucialpointofthischangeinemphasisisareversalofthenotionof thegodforsakennessofcreation.InsteadofGod withdrawing fromcreation’s space,fromtheverybeginningofcreationtheDivinecontinually drawscloser tothatwhichiscreated.Thisleadstowardstheconsummationofcreation andthefullpresenceofGod.ThiswaythelackoftheTrinity’spresencein creationdoesnotresultfromactiveabandonmentofcreation’sspace.Instead, itoriginatesfromthefactthatcreationissomethingwhichis‘Other’than God.Assuchtherelationshipmustgrowandslowlydevelopanddeepenover timeasitmovestowardsitsconsummationandtheperichoreticindwellingof creation.

86 FC,p.120(reprintedwitheditsin SW,p.39).

87 Thereisabriefmentionin SW,pp.119-20,wherehespeaksofthe nihil.Thisinstance, however,isareminderoftopicscoveredin GodinCreation andisspokenofinamuchgentler manner:thelanguageof‘livingspace’.

88 WJC,p.290; SpL,p.213.

89 EiT,p.338.

90 SRA,pp.204-05.Therearesimilarexpressionsin EthH,whereheagaindoesnot mentionthe nihil.Thesemaynotcountasmajorworks,butbotharerecentlypublished monologuesandassuchusefulintrackingthetrajectoryofMoltmann’sthought.

Despitehismovementawayfromtheconceptofthe nihil,Moltmann evidentlydoesnotwishtoshyawayfromtheconceptofGod’swithdrawal tomakespaceforcreation,andheconsciouslyrecoversitin TheComingof God. 91 Fortunately,however,thewayhespeaksofthedivineself-restriction here,enabledperhapsbyhispriorshiftawayfromtheunhelpfulconsequences ofthe nihil,givestheresultthatthe‘primordialspace’isafarmorehospitable placeandamuchlessforsakenplace.Thesearetheverygainsintended aboveintherejectionofGod’sliteralself-withdrawal.Moltmannachieves thisthroughhisfocusonGodasthe‘livingspace’forcreation.

Godas‘LivingSpace’

AnotherproblemwithMoltmann’stheoryofdivineself-restriction,particularly asitfeaturesin GodinCreation,isthatitappearstoachievetheoppositeof anotheroneofhiskeythemesaroundtheTrinity’srelationshipwithcreation: Godisthe‘livingspace’ofcreation.‘TheTrinitarianrelationshipoftheFather, theSonandtheHolySpiritissowidethatthewholecreationcanﬁnd space,timeandfreedominit.’92 Thedifﬁcultyisthatafewyearsafterthat statement,Moltmannapparentlywantedtomaintainthat:‘The nihil inwhich GodcreateshiscreationisGod-forsakenness,hell,absolutedeath’,andthis wasthenecessaryspaceforcreation.Atthesametimehesaysthegoalisthat: ‘Godisthedwellingplaceoftheworldcreatedbyhim’.93 Thesearenottwo easilycompatibleideas,andin GodinCreation theimpressionisgiventhat theTrinityas‘dwellingplace’issomethingthatcannothavestartedatthe beginningofcreation.94 Onecouldarguethattheyarecompatiblethrough theeschatologicaljourneyfromforsakennesstoGodandcreation’smutual indwelling,butequallyajourneyfrompartialindwellingtoconsummated indwellingappearstobemoreattractive,andmorecoherent.

Moltmanndeﬁnesa‘livingspace’as:‘theenvironmenttowhichaparticularlifeisrelated,becauseitaccordsthatlifewiththeconditionsinwhich itcanlive’.95 HisrecognitionthatGodcreateslivingspacesforlifetothrive in(earth,seaandair)furtherdemonstratesthepotentialinappropriateness ofthe nihil.Thoseparticularlivingspacesareﬁtforabundantlifewhereas theoriginalspacemadeforcreationtoliveinishostile,aplaceof‘absolute

91 CoG,pp.281-82,296-99.

92 TKG,p.109.

93 GiC,pp.87,149.

94 Moltmanndoestrytoclaimthatonlysinandgodlessnessincreationrealisethe ‘menacingcharacter’ofthe nihil (Ibid.,p.88).Butasdiscussedabove(thiswork,p.40),this isdifﬁculttoacceptinthelightofitsdescriptionasawhole.

95 GiC,p.148.

death’.Itwouldseemthattheprovisionofcreation’sprimordialenvironment shouldbeawhollymorehospitableaffair.

IfhewishestoclaimthatGodiscreation’s‘livingspace’fromthebeginningthenareconsiderationofthegodforsakennessofcreation’soriginal spaceneedstooccur.Thisispreciselywhathedoeswhenhere-approaches thesubjectadecadelaterin TheComingofGod.HereMoltmannreturnsto languageoftheself-withdrawalofGod’spresenceanditsimportance,yethe alsodepartsfromtheearlierextremityofhisdepictionofthespacecreated, characterisedsovividlybythethreatofthe nihil.TheTrinitystillwithdraws, buttheresultisdifferent:

[God]doesnotleavebehindavacuum,asthekabbalisticdoctrineof zimsum suggests.Hethrowsopenaspaceforthosehehascreated,a spacewhichcorrespondstohisinnerindwellings:heallowsaworld differentfromhimselftoexistbeforehim,withhimand inhim.[...] SothespaceofcreationisatonceoutsideGodandwithinhim.Through hisself-restriction,thetriuneGodmadehispresencethedwellingforhis creation.[...]ItisGod’sveryself-withdrawalthatmakesitpossiblefor thosecreatedtosay‘Inhimweliveandmoveandhaveourbeing’(Acts 17.28).[...]TheCreatorbecomesthe Godwhocanbeinhabited. 96

ThisheartfeltportrayaloftheeffectofGod’swithdrawaldemonstratesan intimateviewoftheTrinity’srelationshipwithcreationfromthebeginning. Theliberationofthediscussionfromthelanguageofgodforsakennesshelps thisview.In GodinCreation hespokeofGodboth withdrawing tomakespace and being the‘livingspace’atthesametime.97 Thesetwoideasweredifﬁcult toholdtogether.Thecontrastbetweenhisearlierwritingsandthislater passageisstark.Itisstill,asisexpected,philosophicallyproblematictohold togetherwordssuchas‘outsideGodandwithinhim’,buttheoverwhelming senseisthatthewithdrawn-from-spaceisneartoGod,caredfor,anda placeoflife.Thedivinecreationof‘aspacewhichcorrespondstohisinner indwellings’ismuchmoreathomewiththelanguageoftheopennessof thetrinitarianrelationshipstowardscreationfoundin TheTrinityandthe Kingdom thanthelanguageofthe nihil. 98 Itisthealterationoftheconceptof the nihil whichiskeytothischange.

Thismodiﬁcationinhisconsiderationofthesubjectshouldalleviatethe concernsofsomeofhiscritics,asitdoesthoseofthisresearch.Nevertheless, BonzohasremainedverycriticalofthiselementofMoltmann’swork.Forhim,

96 CoG,pp.298-99.

97 GiC,pp.87-89.

98 Cf. EiT,p.323; SW,p.120.

theoriginaldescriptionofthe nihil misshapesMoltmann’sentirefoundation forcreation:‘Insteadofcreationasawith-space,aspaceformovingwith God,fromtheoutset,creationisanopposed-space,aspaceof“detachment fromGod”andfor“freedomofmovementoveragainstGod”’.99 SoBonzo concludesthatcreationiseffectivelya‘curse’anda‘demerit’.However,Bonzo doesnotgiveanyallowanceforashifttooccuroverthecourseofMoltmann’s career.Admittedly,thereislanguageofseparationanddistancebetweenGod andcreationintheprimordialmomentin TheComingofGod.Nevertheless, BonzodoesnotincorporateMoltmann’sparallelthemeofGod’sclosenessto creationintohisowndiscussion.100

IfthepassagewhichBonzocitesaboveisreadwiththe‘spaceconceded byGod’deﬁnedas‘livingspace’,asopposedtoforsakenspace,thenitchanges themeaning:

ThroughthespaceconcededbyGod,creationisgivendetachmentfrom Godandfreedomofmovementoveragainsthim.[...]Remotenessfrom GodandspatialdistancefromGodresultfromthewithdrawalofGod’s omnipresence[...]theyarepartofthegraceofcreation,becausethey aretheconditionsforthelibertyofcreatedbeings.101

InMoltmann’snewlybalancedlanguage,wordssuchas‘detachment’,‘freedomofmovementoveragainst’,‘remoteness’,and‘distance’areeachan expressionof relative separation,asopposedto absolute separation.Detachmentdoesnotdescribeamovefromintimacytoestrangementbutrathera movefromtheoverwhelmingpresenceofGodtobreathingspace.Remotenessdoesnotspeakofaseveredistancebutagenerousgiftofindependence forexistence.ThekeyaimhereforMoltmannistoemphasisethefreedomof creation inthecontextofGod’sloveforcreation.TheTrinitydoesnotwithdraw tomakeaforsakenspacewheresomethingdifferentcanexist.Rather,the DivinewithdrawstomakeGod’sownselfa‘broadplace’wherethereisthe spaceforfreelifeandgrowth.102 Moltmannalsodeﬁnes‘livingspace’asspace for‘reciprocalself-development’:‘sidebyside[...]theyneedwidespacesin whichtheycanmovefreely’.103 Thereisspace,yetexistenceisstilltogether withothers,‘sidebyside’.Thisappliesequallytocreation’srelationshipwith God,asMoltmannhadearlierstated:‘Toexperiencethe ruach istoexperience [...]thespaceoffreedominwhichthelivingbeingcanunfold.Thatisthe

99 Bonzo, Indwelling,p.114,citing CoG,p.306.

100 Bonzo, Indwelling,pp.114-15.

101 CoG,p.306.

102 Ibid.,p.299.

103 Ibid.,p.301.

experienceoftheSpirit’.104 Sotoliveinthespace of God,insteadofspace from God,bringsfreedom.Moltmannbalanceshere‘liberty’and‘dwelling place’,freedomandlove.

ThisalsomakesmorecoherenttheideathatGod’swithdrawalisonlyperceivedasgodforsakennessthroughsin.Peoplecanmisusethegraciousspace oflibertyandself-isolate.Whenthatisolationoccursthedistancebetween Godandtheisolatedcreationappearsasaforsakenspace.Chester’scritique isthatMoltmannmakescreation,insteadofsin,therootofgodforsakenness. However,thedevelopmentofMoltmann’sideasovertimebeginstoanswer thisfear.105

3.5CONCLUSIONS

ThischapterexploredadeﬁnitionofMoltmann’sdoctrineoforiginalcreation: God,outoflove,freelycreatessomethingotherthanGod.Thiscapturesthree usefulpartsMoltmann’sworkinthisareathatfurthercontributetothe theologicalarchitectureforwhichthisprojectsearches.

ForhimoriginalcreationﬂowsoutoftheloveofGodwhichexpresses itselfbetweenthepersonsoftheTrinityforalleternity.Thatloveforcreation isnotanewlove,oradifferentlove,butanextensionoftheeternaldivine love.ItistruethatMoltmanndoeswalkanarrowlinebetweenchoiceand compulsioninhiseffortstoincludeloveandfreedomequallyinGod’sactions, butheappearstoholdthetwotogethersuccessfully.Hiswishtoseethe originalactofcreationasanactoffreeloveandlovingfreedomishelpful.

TheimplicationsofGod’sself-restrictiontomakespaceandfreedom forcreationchangeasMoltmann’stheologydevelops.Theearlier,andless satisfactory,ideaoftheannihilating nihil isemphasisedless(perhapseven replaced)inthelaterunderstandingofself-withdrawalascreationofhospitablespace.TheconceptofGodascreation’s‘livingspace’waspresent inMoltmann’searlierwork,butthenatureofthe nihil intowhichcreation negateditseffectiveness.InthedevelopmentofMoltmann’swork,God’s self-withdrawaldoesnotnecessarilyleadtoaspatialconceptoftheDivine. Originally,in GodinCreation,itseemedthatcreationneededaspacethatwas absolutenothingnesstoexistin,andsotheTrinityhadtoself-restrictinorder

104 SpL,p.43.

105 Chester, Mission,p.101.

thattheremightbeanemptyspace.Thiswasproblematicforthereasons givenabove,andleftthequestions:whydidnotGodjustcreatesomething outside God’sself?IstheDivineconﬁnedbylimitsofspace?AfterMoltmann’s morerecentwork,itappearsthatGodneededtoself-withdrawinorderto makeaspace,notbecausecreationneededanemptyspaceandtherewasno spaceanywhereelse,butbecausecreationneededGodtobeits‘livingspace’.

ThenotionoftheTrinityas‘livingspace’isthemosthelpfulthreadin Moltmann’sdiscussionaroundthespacemadeforcreation.Thisidea,for obviousreasons,ismuchmoreattractivethanthesuspensionofcreationover anannihilatingnothingnesswhichGodhasvacated.Adivine‘livingspace’is alsomorecoherentwithMoltmann’sstressontheloveofGod.106 Thischange inhisworkfacilitatesasmootheracceptanceofthepartwhich zimsum plays. WithoutthenegativeconnotationsofspatialconceptsofGod,andthethreat ofthe nihil,God’swithdrawalisanimaginativeandpositivecontributionto thedoctrineoforiginalcreation.

Thehealthyconceptof‘livingspace’isalsoabetterfoundationforthe freedomofcreationthantheabsenceofGod.Nowitiscreation’sspace in God whichgivesitthatfreedom.Thisspaceisstillcreatedbywithdrawal, butachangeintheoutcomeofwithdrawalisaccompaniedbyachangein theenvironmentthatgivesfreedom.Therewasadichotomybetweenthe giftoffreedomthroughtheneedofanemptyspaceofnothingnessandthat samegiftthroughGod’spresenceincreationbytheSpirit.Now,however, MoltmanndescribesthepresenceoftheTrinityincreationasacoherentpart ofthatprocessthatgivesfreedom.

Thethreepartsofthestatementforthischapter(God,outoflove,freely createssomethingotherthanGod)eachframedthediscussionsandoutlined animportantpartofthisarchitecture’spotentialtoinformhumanity’sview ofcreationitself:creationisloved,creationisfreelycreated,creationisnot God.Perhapsmostsigniﬁcantoftheseforthisprojectisthatcreationisloved, asshownfromitsorigins.ThiswillbeathemeofMoltmann’stheologywhich constantlyrecurs,buteachtimeitwillappearfromadifferentperspective. Heemphasisesthefactthatdivinelovemakescreation‘meaningful’.107 God madecreationasworthyofloveandthis‘meaning’inturngivessubstanceto Moltmann’scallforecologicalreformation.ThedevelopmentofGodas‘living space’forcreationsetsthescenefortheTrinityandcreation’srelationshipto beanintimateoneofmutualindwelling.

106 SeealsoBush, RecentIdeas,pp.333-34. 107 ‘CreationandRedemption’,p.124.

Creationismadetohavelifeandfreedom.LifeisGod’sintentionfor creationfromthebeginning(thisthemealsorecursinMoltmann’swork). ThefreedomwhichtheTrinitygivestocreationmakesGod’screativityarisky venture,althoughthisisnotthesameriskasanannihilating nihil.Itisrather ariskthatcomesfrom within creationthroughitsfreedom.Allofthetroubles forcreationandfortheTrinitywillstemfromthisfreedom.Thisallwitnesses tothefragilityofcreation,andthepotentialforcreationtodevelopfaults. AtthispointonemaywishtospeakofGodasthecauseofbothcreation’s andGod’sownsuffering,butthisisonlyacceptableintheverylimitedsense thattheDivineallowedtheconditionsforsufferingtoexist.Therewasa riskinthecreationofafree‘Other’,whichGodembracedinordertohave anauthenticrelationship,butthatisverydifferentfromtheclaimthatthe sufferingofcreationisGod’sfault.

ThenextstageinidentifyingMoltmann’scontributionstothistheological architectureistounpackthedivineresponsetothesethemes.Tothistaskthe nexttwochaptersturn:theexplorationofcontinuouscreationfromthetwin perspectivesofthecareandopennessofGod’slove.

Chapter4

God’sCareforCreation

4.1INTRODUCTION

ThischapterwillobservehowMoltmann’sviewofGod’songoingcarefor creationfurthercontributestothesubstanceofthisnewtheologicalarchitectureanditspotentialtoenableecologicalreform.Again,astheaimisnowto explorethoseaspectsofcontinuouscreationwhichareimportantinthewider conversationbetweentheologyandenvironmentcarethechapterwillnot engageeveryaspectofthistopic.Thisapproachisselectiveofthoseelements ofMoltmann’stheologywhichareparticularlyhelpfulfortheproject’saims.

ThetopicofGod’scontinualactivityincreationisperhapsoneofthe morevariedareasofthoughtinChristiantheology,inwhichthepresentation oftheTrinity’srelationshipwithcreationrangesfromtheabsentmakerof deismtotheintrinsically-connectedGodofprocesstheology.Thisquestionof divinetreatmentofcreationinthepresentisimportantformanypeople;itis thebasisfortheiradjudicationoftheauthenticityofGod’sreportedlovefor creation.IfMoltmannwereasked,‘DoesGod’songoingcreativityreflectthe samefoundationalloveoftheinitialcreativeactivity?’,hisimmediateanswer wouldbeyes.Forhim, God’slovedefinestheongoingactionandinvolvement increation,anditisalwaysanoverflowoftheloveofwhichtheTrinity consiststhrougheternity.1 ThisconsistentapproachtoGod’slovebothshapes Moltmann’sviewofGod’srelationshipwithcreationandisconstructivefor thenewtheologicalarchitecture.

Inordertogiveappropriatebackgroundtothesediscussionsofthe’Spirit ofLife’,asMoltmanncallsit,thischapterwillfirsttracktheirdevelopment fromtheearlieststages,aswellasthespecificuseofthephrase‘allflesh’. Thiswillprovidethepositionfromwhichtoinvestigatethepresenceand

1 TKG,p.59; GiC,pp.76,84.

activityoftheSpirit increation inparticular,aidedbyanunderstandingof thejourneyMoltmann’stheologyhasmade.

SubsequenttothisisaturntotheSon’scareforcreation.Thebulk ofMoltmann’sdiscussionoftheSon’sactivityincreationiswithregardsto thecrossevent,whichthenextchapterdiscusses.Thischapterwilllookat thewayinwhichtheSon’sworkincreationreﬂectsthatoftheSpirit.Yet MoltmannalsoseparatesanddistinguishestherolesofSpiritandSonin continuouscreation.TheSonhashisownuniquerole.

Allthisaddstotheunderstandingofthetheologicalarchitecturewhich canbedrawnfromMoltmann’swork.God’scontinual,activeinvolvementin continuouscreationismarkedbylove,lifeanduniversalinvolvement.This givesadditionalfueltothedrivetowardsecologicalreformation.

4.2THE SPIRITAND CREATION:SETTING THE SCENE

TheSpiritandCreationinEarlyMaterial

SomeregardMoltmanntobeweakinhispresentationofatheologyofthe HolySpiritinhisearlywork.Itwillthusbehelpfultooutlinethethemes pertinenttothisdiscussionfromhisworkofthe1960sand1970s.Thisperiod isimportantasitpre-dateshismoresystematicworksontheology.Heis notrenownedforhispneumatologicaldevelopmentsduringthistimeand even TheChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit hasreceivedcriticismforalackof pneumatology.2 However,whilehisearlywritingdoesnotoftentaketheSpirit asaprimarytheme,hedoesbringelementsofitintohisworkonanumberof occasions.Theeffectofthisisthatheslowlybuildsupanestablishedpicture. Heachievesthissigniﬁcantlyin TheChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit,butalso intheworkspriortoit.

ThissurveyofearlyworkbeginswithMoltmann’scommentsontheSpirit inconnectiontopeopleandtheChurch,andthencontinuestolookatthe Spirit’slinktocreation.

2 Beck, TheHolySpirit,p.95.BeckstatesthatevenMoltmannadmitsitismoreadoctrine oftheChurchthantheSpirit.

TheSpiritoftheChurch

MoltmannspeaksoftheSpiritinthelivesofpeoplefromhisﬁrstmajorwork of TheologyofHope;thereheclaimsthat,forPaul,theSpiritis‘the‘life-giving Spirit’,theSpiritwho‘raisedup Christfromthedead’,who‘dwells in’those whorecogniseChristandhisfuture,and‘shall quickentheirmortalbodies’ (Rom.8.11)’.3 BythisMoltmannalsoafﬁrmsthattheSpiritisatworkinthe livesofpeopleinthepresent,especiallyinbelievers’lives.4 Thisworkthenis the‘quickening’ofapersontoliveadifferentlifetotheothersaroundthem.5 ThroughouthisearlywritingMoltmannmentionsthisworkoftheSpirit drawingpeopletowardstheeschatologicalfuture.6 Thisworkengageswith variousaspectsofthebeliever’slife:itistheSpiritwho‘unites,ordersand preserves’the‘peopleofGod’,andfreesthemforfellowshipwithFather,Son andSpirit.7 Throughthisfreedom,orliberation,theSpiritbringsforthjoy andthankfulnessinthecommunity,andananticipationofthefuturenew creation.8 Butthisexperiencealsobringsanawarenessof‘life’sgodlessness’;now‘inhumanrelationshipsandinhumanbehaviourbecomepainfully obvious’.9

ThustheSpiritisthepowertosufferinparticipationinthemissionand theloveofJesusChrist,andisinthissufferingthepassionforwhat ispossible,forwhatiscomingandpromisedinthefutureoflife,of freedomandofresurrection.10

AgainthiskeyconceptofparticipationisanimportantpartofMoltmann’s theologythatheightensresponsibilityforthebeliever.Forthecommunityof Godisnever,asfarasMoltmannisconcerned,acommunityunitedmerely byitsvisionorknowledge of God;itisthecommunityunited with andeven in God,and with God’smission.TheSpirit‘mouldslifeinfaithtotheliving hope’and‘givesthecommunitytheauthorityforitsmission’.11 Thework oftheSpiritinthebeliever’slife‘isbothgiftandcharge.[...Itis] for some purpose.[...Itis]forthekingdomofGod,fortheliberationoftheworld’.12

3 ToH,p.211(cf.p.68).

4 Cf.‘The"CruciﬁedGod"’,p.299:‘ThisSpiritgivestothosewhobelieveandlovean arrabon,aforetaste.’

5 ToH,p.216.

6 HP,pp.46(1968),108(1960),146-47(1961);‘The"CruciﬁedGod"’,pp.294-95; CrG, p.352.

7 CPS,pp.59,279,294.

8 Ibid.,pp.59,65,279.

9 Ibid.,p.273.

10 ToH,p.212(cf. CPS,p.262).

11 CPS,pp.279,294.

12 FC,p.108(1972).

Fortunatelyforthebeliever,theSpiritalso‘makestheimpossiblepossible’.13

LaterinMoltmann’stheology‘life’becomessynonymouswiththerelationshipsandfellowshipsfoundthroughoutcreation,butinthisearlier work‘fellowship’isonlyanascentthememainlyconcernedwiththeChurch (particularlyas TheChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit addressesit).Thework oftheSpirittoliberatecreatesfellowshipastheChurchbothparticipatesin thisprocessandcelebratesitsownliberation.14 The‘poweroftheHolySpirit’ alsoupholdsandmaintainsfellowshipasitgivesstrengthtofaithandhope and‘givesitlife’.15

ThisfellowshipoftheHolySpiritleadstheChurchoutofitselftogreater andmoreinclusivefellowshipbecausethedirectionofthisprocessis‘in tendencyuniversal,all-embracingandexclusiveofno-one’.16 However,this isstillamovement from theChurch outwards,asopposedtothelateridea thattheSpiritsometimescreatesfellowshipthroughoutcreation despite the Church.17

Nevertheless,Moltmann’sapproachisstilluniversalinitsaim.TheSpirit workstobuildfellowshipwithin all creation,humanandnon-human,inthe presentday.TheSpiritis‘thebondoffellowshipandthepowerofunification’ and,whilethecompletionofthisissetfirmlyinthefuture,the‘historyofthe Spiritisthehistoryoftheseunifications’.18 Thisprocessisalsooneofwhich theChurchcanfeelpart.Thisshouldleadtoanawarenessofthiscosmic communityandasubsequentintentionalsearchformoreinvolvement.19 Therefore,toalimiteddegreeMoltmannseemsafteralltodescribeatthis earlystageagrowingsenseoffellowshipthroughoutcreationbroughtabout bytheSpirit.Thisideadevelopsmorefullyashistheologyprogresses.

MoltmannalsohasaparticularemphasisonthepresenceoftheHoly Spiritinpeopleinparticular:‘FaithinChristandhopeforthekingdomare duetothepresenceofGodintheSpirit.’20 TheSpiritﬁllspeople‘intheir freedomwithjoyandthanksgiving’astheylive‘inthepresenceoftheSpirit’, theonewhobeginsinthemtheworkofthe‘newcreation’.21 TheSpiritaffects everypartofapersonand‘makesthewholebiological,culturalandreligious

13 Ibid.,p.108(1972).

14 CPS,p.65.

15 Ibid.,pp.197,343.Thisisnotaclaimthathumanitycannotuseitsownstrength,rather thatthesethingsareonly madecertain bytheSpirit.

16 Ibid.,pp.198,252.

17 SpL,pp.8-10,230-31.

18 FC,p.91(1975).

19 CPS,p.197.

20 Ibid.,p.197(cf.pp.220,279).

21 Ibid.,pp.59,191,279.

lifehistoryofapersoncharismaticallyalive’.22 Yeteventhisstatementabout humanityconnectsapersontotheirsurroundings.

TherearebriefdiscussionsfromMoltmannonthematterofthesanctificationoftheChurch.Itoccurs‘throughtheSpirit,[andleadsto]obedienceto sanctifyallthingsforthenewcreation’,‘throughChrist’sactivityinandon it’,andthewiderprocessof‘God[...]callingthegodlessthroughChrist,by justifyingsinners,andbyacceptingthelost’.23 Yetitalsomayresultfromits ownactivity:‘Thechurchisthereforesanctifiedwhereveritparticipatesin thelowliness,helplessness,povertyandsufferingofChrist.’24 Thisspecific commentabouttheChurchisastartingpointforthemoreinclusiveposition whichMoltmannseemstoholdlaterinhiscareer:‘whateverGodhasmade andlovesisholy’.25 Hedoes,however,makeonecommentwhichseemsa littlemoreexpansiveatthispoint:‘Everythingthatlovereachesanddestines forloveissanctifiedforthekingdomofGod’.26 Thisgivesagoodindicationof thefuturetrajectoryforMoltmann’stheologyofsanctificationwhichembraces allthings.

TheSpiritofCreation

Earlyinhiswork,MoltmannspeaksoftheindwellingoftheSpiritinpeople.27 However,evenatthisstage,God’sindwellingofcreationisnot only for humanity.Moltmannspeaksofa‘comprehensive[...]horizonofhope’for God’spresencetobe‘allinall’.28 Elsewhereheusesthephrase:‘thecomplete anduniversalindwellingofGod’.29

ThisfutureindwellingismorethansimplythepresenceoftheDivine. Itbringswithitfreedomfor‘thewholeofsufferingcreation’,the‘liberation ofenslavednature’.30 ‘Allthings’willbe‘united’with,and‘transﬁgured’by, God’spresence,and‘takepartinGod’sfullnessofmeaningandpotentiality’.31 Eveninthe1960sand1970sMoltmannincludedthewholeofcreationin theconsummatedfuture,broughtaboutbytheHolySpirit.Atthisstagein histheologyhealreadyencouragesagreatercommunitybetweennatureand

22 Ibid.,p.296.

23 Ibid.,pp.339,353.

24 Ibid.,p.355.

25 SpL,p.176.

26 CPS,p.354.

27 ToH,p.211(cf.‘TheCruciﬁedGod’, TheologyToday,31:1(1974),6–18(p.13); CrG, pp.282-84).

28 HP,pp.49-50(1968).

29 CrG,p.349(cf.p.282; RRF,p.36(1968);Lapideetal., JewishMonotheism,p.50).

30 HP,p.22(1966); CrG,p.349.

31 FC,p.94(1975,cf.p.85); RRF,p.36(1968); CrG,p.349.

humanity:‘ThesighingoftheSpiritfortherevelationofGod’sgloryandthe freedomofcreationcreatesasolidaritybetweenthelongingofallcreation andthelongingofthetroubledpeoplesofGod.’32

TowardstheendofthisearliestperiodofMoltmann’scareerhistheology showedadesirenottolimittheHolySpirit’spresenceincreationtothe future.Signiﬁcantly,whilehisattentiontotheSpirit’sworkinpeopleis neitherlost,norlosesitspassionandimportance,inhislaterhedoesbroaden hisexplorationoftheSpirit’suniversalnature.Thedistinctionbetweenthe Spirit’sworkinbelieversandnon-believers,humanityandcreation,becomes blurred.Nowthe‘life-givingSpirit’becomesamoreholisticidea.

Therewerehintsofthedevelopmentofthismoreholisticapproach throughthe1960sandintothe1970s.DuringthistimeMoltmannindicates thatheisunhappyiftheSpirit’sworkissolelyconnectedtotheChurch: ‘Whileonecansaythatacharismaticcommunitytakesshapeinthebodyof Christ,onecannotsaythatitisstillspatiallylimitedtothesphereofinnerness orthechurch.’33 ElsewherehespeaksoftheSpiritasthe‘motivatingforce’of matter,andofaneedtounderstand‘matterspiritually’.34 Whileitisunclear astowhetherthisspeciﬁcallyconcernstheHolySpirit’spresenceoramore genericuseoftheword‘spirit’,itisclearthathisthoughtsareincreasingly holistic.35

Itiswhen,inthemid-1970s,Moltmanncomesto ChurchinthePowerof theHolySpirit thathepresentshisthoughtsmorecoherentlytoshowthegreat breadthoftheinvolvementoftheSpiritincreation.Nowhedescribesthe Spiritas‘theperfectingpowerofGod[who]makesenslavedcreationliveand ﬁllseverythingwiththepowersofthenewcreation’.36 Healreadydescribed thesepowerswhichﬁllallthingsas‘thepowersoflife’whichdeterminethe present,looktothefuture,andembrace‘humanhistoryandnaturalhistory’.37 ItisthedevelopmentoftheworkoftheSpiritinthepresentwithwhichthis chapterismostconcerned.

Moltmannstartstousedifferentphraseswhichallspeakofauniversal life-givingworkthatisnotjustfocusedonthefuture.Hespeaksof‘theSpirit’s

32 HP,p.22(1966).

33 Ibid.,p.22.TheoriginalGermansuggeststhatthe‘it’referstothecharismaticcommunity(see PerspektivenderTheologie:GesammelteAufsätze (München:Chr.Kaiser,1968), p.31).

34 ‘HopeandHistory’, TheologyToday,25:3(1968),369–86(p.383).Seealso RRF,p.217.

35 Theconfusionarisesoverthecapitalisationofword‘Spirit’intheearlierarticlebutnot inthereprintofthearticleinthelaterbook.

36 CPS,p.191.

37 Ibid.,p.34.

world-sustainingoperations’whicharelinkedtoGod’sredemptiveactivity, butmostcertainlyactiveinthepresent.38 TheSpiritreachesoutto‘thewhole breadthofcreation’and‘theenergiesofnewlifeintheSpiritareasmanifold andmotleyascreationitself’.39 Nowthenewlifeofthefutureisalso in thepresent,notjusttodrawthepresentonwards:the‘Spiritisthereviving presenceofthefutureofeternallifeinthemidstofthehistoryofdeath’,the ‘“life-giving”Spirit,givinglifetoeverythingthatismortal’.40

Sotowardstheendofthe1970sMoltmann’sworkﬁrmlyidentiﬁesthe Spiritasbeingatworkthroughoutallcreation.TheSpiritfeelsthepain,and keepsupthehope,ofallcreation.41 However,Moltmanndoesnotremove alldifferentiationbetweentheworkoftheSpiritinnatureandhumanity.He stillmaintainsthattheSpiritrelatestopeople‘inawaythatisdifferentfrom creation[...].Weare“bornagain”fromtheSpirit(John3.3),notcreatedby it’astherestofcreationis.42 Subsequentchapterswillreturntothesubject oftheSpiritinrelationtothepainandhopeofcreation.Herehowever,the discussionfocusesonthepresenceandactivecareoftheSpiritincreationin thepresent.

Inpreparationforthisdiscussiontherefollowsasectiontracingoneother themethroughMoltmann’searlyworkandintohislatestwritings.Thisis hisinterpretationofthephrase‘allﬂesh’inconnectionwiththe‘pouring out’oftheHolySpirit.Itisofparticularinterestbecauseheoftenframes hisdiscussionofthepresenceandworkoftheSpiritwiththisphrase.Itis bynomeansthesolefoundationofMoltmann’sthoughtontheSpiritand creation,asshownbytheotherthemesinthischapter,butitisnevertheless animportantthreadthatwarrantsattention.

Moltmann’sInterpretationof‘AllFlesh’

Theuseofthephase‘allflesh’isanotherexampleofanelementofMoltmann’s workwhichgraduallychangesitsmeaningandemphasisovertime.David BeckhasnoticedthisvariationonMoltmann’usageandrightlycommentsthat ‘thevastmajorityofthetimeitsignifiesalllivingcreatures’.43 This,however, istruerofhislaterworkthanhisearlierwork.‘Allflesh’isapervasivephrase

38 Ibid.,p.192.

39 Ibid.,pp.295-96.

40 Ibid.,p.295.

41 Ibid.,p.36; FC,p.98(1974).

42 EoG,p.77.

43 Beck, TheHolySpirit,p.152.

inMoltmann’swork;perhapstheonlymajorworkwithoutitistheﬁrstbook, TheologyofHope,andthephraseoccursinavarietyofdifferentcontexts,asit doesintheChristianScriptures.44

OfprimaryconcernisMoltmann’suseofthephraseinrelationtothe prophecyofJoel2.28-32,andtothatprophecy’squotationinActs2.17-21.45 Thisisbecauseofitsphrase:‘IwillpouroutmySpiritonallflesh’.46 Thishas heavilyinfluencedMoltmann’spneumatology.Healsoforgesalinkbetween thatphraseandthecovenantofGodandNoahinGenesis9.Inthispassage, Godspeaksandpromisesthat‘neveragainwillallfleshbecutoffbythe watersofaflood’.Thecontextleaveslittledoubtthatthisuseof‘allflesh’is atleastinclusiveofallanimals.47 Moltmannhowevercomestounderstand thetermtoreferto‘alltheliving’inawaythatseemstoincludealllife, universally.48 Thecontextofthisverseseemstoindicateitisconcernedwith onlyagreatervisionofGod’sSpiritactiveinallhumanity.However,with hisowndefinitionof‘allflesh’fromGenesis9,Moltmannconcludesthat thefulfilmentofthisprophecyfromJoelmeansthat:‘Theoutpouringof God’sSpiritthereforeleadstotherebirthofalllife,andtotherebirthtoo ofthecommunityofallthelivingonearth.’49 Whatfollowsisanoutline ofMoltmann’suseofthephrase,inordertounderstandthewayinwhich thisaspectofhisthoughthasdevelopedandcontributedtothetheological architectureanditscontributiontothischapter’sfocusonGod’scarefor creation.

EarlyTheology

TheﬁrstclearinstanceofthisphraseinMoltmann’sworkisinachapterof HopeandPlanning thatdatesfrom1966.HerehefollowsthewordsinActs 2.17(withacknowledgementofLuke’suseofJoel)of‘uponallﬂesh’with hisownstatement:‘Theeschatologicaldeterminationoftimeisboundup herewithauniversaldeterminationofplace.’50 Thispassage’scontextisthat Moltmannwishestorecognisethatthereisacommonfutureforhumanity andcreation.Hisdiscussionheredoesnotfocusonhisunderstandingof‘all

44 Forinstance: kol’basar inGen.6-9,Isa.40,Joel2; pasansarka inActs2.Thesewill appearinthisdiscussionbuttherearemanyothers,dependingonthetranslationused(the NRSV,forexample,doesnottranslateevenalloftheseinstancesas‘allﬂesh’).

45 TheHebrewtextoftheJoelreadingisnumbered:3.1-5.

46 Joel2.28.

47 Gen.9.11.

48 SpL,p.57.

49 Ibid.,p.57.

50 HP,p.22(1966).

flesh’,nordoeshegoontospeakspecificallyoftheoutpouringoftheSpirit onnon-humanlivingflesh.However,thesectionissoobviouslyconcerned withnon-humancreationthatitishardtoconcludethathiswords,whether intendedornot,donotleadtotheinclusionofallcreationwithin‘allflesh’.

Thereisalsoauseof‘allflesh’in TheCrucifiedGod thatseemstoreferto morethanjusthumanity.51 Thecontextinthisinstanceistheliberationof humanitywithinitsvariousrelationships,butincludedisthesensethatGod fillsallcreation,bothhumanandnon-human,withmeaning.Thismeaning‘is termedthepresenceandindwellingofGodinanewcreation’where‘manand naturethentakepartinGod’sfullnessofmeaning’.52 Moltmannnowrefers totheSpirit’scomingon‘allflesh’inhisexplicitdiscussionsofthepresence ofGodin allthings.

Thenextmajorworktonoteis TheChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit, whichuses‘allflesh’severaltimes.TheChurch‘praysfortheeschatological giftoftheHolySpirit[thatit]maydescendon“allflesh”’.53 Thisspeaksofa futuresensetothedescenton‘allflesh’,butwhichatthesametimealready takesplacetosomedegreeinthepresent.54 However,alonethesegivelittle indicationtotheunderstandingofwhatthatfleshmightbe,althoughthe chapterconcernedendswith,amongotherthings,thoughtsaboutthe‘coming rebirthofthewholecreation’.55 Thenextchapterofthebookreinforcesthis ideainwhichMoltmannseesthefulfilmentofthepromiseofJoel2.28at Pentecostas‘thebeginningoftheoutpouringoftheSpiritofGod“onall flesh”’when‘Godhimselftakesuphisdwellinginhiscreation’.Thisisthe ‘initialfulfilmentofthenewcreationofallthings’.56 Thisdescriptionreflects traditionalhuman-focusedunderstandingsofPentecost,butsuggestsawider thantraditionalinclusivity.

Moltmannenhancesthissuggestionthroughastatementatasimilartime that:‘ThepowersofthenewcreationaremeanttoenterintotheChristian communityand,throughthis,tocomeuponall“flesh”,preparingitfor eternallife.’57 Themeaningofthisquotemaybedisputedifcontrastedwith adifferenttranslationintoEnglishofthesameGermanarticlewhichseems torestrict‘flesh’totheChristiancommunity:‘Thepowersofthenewcreation aretodescend on“flesh” inthecommunityofChristand throughit,inorder

51 CrG,p.352.

52 Ibid.,p.349.

53 CPS,p.247.

54 Ibid.,pp.257,279.

55 Ibid.,p.288.

56 Ibid.,p.294.

57 ‘CreationandRedemption’,p.128.

toquicken thatflesh foreternallife.’58 However,theGermantextbehindthis secondtranslationmorelikelyreferstofleshingeneralthanthecommunity’s flesh.59 Asimilarphrasefromalaterworksupportsthisclaim,althoughits publicationdateisrelativelyclose:‘[Jesusis]sendingtheSpirituponthe disciples,andtheenergiesoftheSpirituponthechurch,andthroughthe church“onallflesh”.’60 ThereforeitappearsthatMoltmannsees‘allflesh’ aswiderthanhumanity,althoughinthisearlystageofhiscareerhumanity retainsacentralroleintheSpirit’soutpouringtotherestofcreation.

ThiscentralroleofhumanitymeansthatMoltmannsometimeswritesas ifthetimewhentheSpirit’spresencemovesoutfromhumanityintotherest oftheworldhasyettobegin:

Believers[...]arealreadypromptedhereandnowby‘theearnestof theSpirit’which,accordingtothepropheticpromise,istobe‘poured outonallﬂesh’.Thatiswhytheyarenotseparatedfromtheworld,but astheﬁrstfruitsofthenewcreation,standasrepresentativesforthe wholelongingandwaitingcreation.61

Thisquote,andotherslikeit,giveasenseofagreat future eventof‘pouring out’intoallcreation,aneventwhichhasnotyethappened.62 Theextent towhichMoltmannsaystheSpirit hasbeen pouredoutintothewholeof creationisminimalatthisearlystageinhiswriting.

1980-89

In TheTrinityandtheKingdomofGod Moltmannspeaksofthepresentand futureoutpouringson‘allflesh’inawaythatcanappearcontradictory.First, hespeaksoftheoutpouring‘onallflesh’asaPentecostoccurrencethatleads toagreaterfulfilmenttobe‘completedwhenGodis“allinall”’.63 Hefollows thiswithsomeinterestingnuances.Firstly,hementionsthepresenceofthe SpiritincreationbeforePentecost,infactfromthebeginningofcreation:

58 FC,p.124,emphasisadded.

59 ‘DieKräftederNeuschöpfungsolleninderGemeindeChristiunddurchsieaufdas »Fleisch«kommen,umesfürdasewigeLebenlebendigzumachen.’(ZukunftderSchöpfung: GesammelteAufsätze (München:Chr.Kaiser,1977),p.131.)Theearlierarticlewasactually ﬁrstpublishedinEnglishandwasnottranslatedfromapreviouslypublishedGermantext. TheearlierGermanisthereforeunavailableandthereisnoguaranteethatitisthesameas thatwhichunderliesthelaterarticlein FC

60 TKG,p.89.

61 FC,p.54(cf. OC,p.40;‘TheologyofMysticalExperience’, ScottishJournalofTheology, 32:6(1979),501–20(p.518); EoG,pp.77-80; SpL,p.212(thismuchlaterinstanceisjust aninclusionofearliermaterialwithlittleediting)).

62 Forexample: OC,p.86; TKG,pp.89,104; OHD,p.31.

63 TKG,p.110.MoltmanndoesnotexplicitlymentionPentecostherebuthereferstothe propheciesofJoelandActsandtheoutpouringwhichtheyspeakof.

‘CreationonlyexistsinthepowerofthedivineSpirit’.64 Thisever-presenceof theSpiritisthensomewhatdifferentatPentecost:

WithJesus’resurrection,transformationandglorification,thegeneral outpouringoftheHolySpirit “onallflesh”begins.[...] Themessianicera commenceswheretheforcesandenergiesofthedivineSpiritdescend onallflesh,makingitaliveforevermore.65

ThisdemonstratesthevariouspurposesoftheSpirit’sindwellinginMoltmann’stheology.TheﬁrstquotationsaysthatfromthebeginningtheSpirit hassustainedcreationanddriventheprocessesofnatureforward,andthe secondquotationstatesthatitisonlysincetheChristevent,inthe‘messianic era’,thattheSpiritbringsthepowerofthecrossandresurrectiontocreation. Thesedoappeartobedifferentworks.

Moltmanncontinuesduringthetimeofhissystematiccontributionsto assertthathisdiscussionof‘allﬂesh’connectstothephysicalnatureofall creation.66 Heperhapsalsooffersusanothercluetothedifferencebetween theSpiritasseenatPentecostandtheSpiritasseenincreationfromthe beginning:‘Themessianicera[...] awakens theSpirititselfinthewhole enslavedcreation.’67 TheSpiritwasalwayspresentbutthetheSpiritis awakenedtonewactivity.

In TheWayofJesusChrist thereisperhapsthemostobviouslyinclusive useof‘allflesh’inMoltmann’sworkuptothatpoint.Inthecontextofa discussionabouthowChristdiedforallofcreation,natureandhumanity, hestates:‘theconquestofdeath’spowerthroughChrist’srebirthandthe outpouringofthedivineSpirit“onallflesh”havetobeseenasthegreatsign of“thespringtimeofcreation”’.68 ‘Allflesh’isclearlypartofadiscussionthat includesallcreation.However,thisisstillnotyetaclearassertionthatthis newoutpouringoftheSpiritreachesallofcreation inthepresent.Inother words,atthispointitisnotcertainthat,forMoltmann,theoutpouringof theSpiriton‘allflesh’referredtoinActs2isimmediatelyinclusiveofall creation.69 Thischangesinthesubsequentdecade.

64 Ibid.,p.111.

65 Ibid.,p.124.

66 GiC,p.67.

67 Ibid.,p.69.

68 WJC,p.253.TotrackthedevelopmentofMoltmann’suseofthisparticularphrase, attentionispaidtotheGermanpublishingdates,whichiswhythisworkiscountedin discussionofthe1980s.

69 Thisideathatallcreationwaitsforafutureoutpouringisalsoseenatthisstageof Moltmann’sthoughtin HTG,p.67,anarticlewhichdatesbackto1984(alsoseenina differenttranslationin‘TheFellowship’,p.297).

1990Onwards

In TheSpiritofLife Moltmannfinallyunambiguouslystatesaninclusive positioninregardstothescopeof‘allflesh’:‘Accordingtothecovenantwith Noah(Gen.9.8-11),theexpression‘allflesh’extendsbeyondthehuman racetocoveralltheliving.’70 HerehediscussestheprophecyofJoel2.28, andwhilehehadalreadystatedthatthe‘allflesh’seeninthefloodnarrative (Genesis6-9)includedalltheliving,theGenesisaccountwasnotexplicitly connectedinhisworktotheJoel/Actsoccurrenceofthephraseuntilnow.71 Hestillmaintainsanexpectationthatthiswillhappeninthefuture,but thecontextistheperspectiveofJewishexpectationsderivedfromtheir HebrewScriptures.Forthisreasonthefuturistlanguageisinevitable.The outpouringoftheSpiritatPentecostwillallowMoltmanntodevelopthat futureexpectationintoapresentfulfilment,ashedoeswiththeoutpouring oftheSpiritonhumanity.72

ThisdevelopmentdoesnothappenimmediatelybecauseMoltmannstill occasionallyusesthelanguageofthefuturetorefertotheoutpouringofthe Spiritontonon-humancreation.73 Yethedemonstratesthathisintentionis stilltodescribeanoutpouringoftheSpiritthathasbegunbuthasfurtherto go. TheSpiritofLife containsasectionwhichbeginswithreferencetothe ‘eschatologicalhope’fortheoutpouringoftheSpiritbutclearlycontinues tosaythattheoutpouringoftheSpirithasbeenseeninmovementsofthe nineteenthandtwentiethcenturies:an‘eschatologicalexperience’asopposed tosimplyahope.74 Moltmannthusdescribesthispresenthumanexperienceof out-pouredSpirit,whichoriginatesatPentecost,as‘aforetasteofthecoming glory,whichwillﬁllthewholeworld’.75 Therefore,hiscurrentunderstanding appearstobethat‘allﬂesh’referstoallofcreation,butthattheoutpouring whichoccurredatPentecostdidnotnecessarilycometoeverypartofcreation atthattime.

In TheComingofGod Moltmannmakesitapparentthathehasnotonly linkedthe‘allﬂesh’ofGenesiswiththatofJoelandActs,butalsobelievesitto

70 SpL,p.57(cf.p.87:‘“Allﬂesh”canmean“everyone”andalso“everythingliving”’).

71 See WJC,p.128.

72 ElisabethMoltmann-WendelandJürgenMoltmann, God-HisandHers,trans.byJohn Bowden(London:SCM,1991),p.15;‘APentecostalTheologyofLife’, JournalofPentecostal Theology,4:9(1996),3–15(p.3).

73 Moltmann-Wendeletal., God-HisandHers,p.39; SpL,pp.212,233-34(cf. EoG,p.77; ‘TheologyofMystical’,p.518).

74 SpL,pp.239-41.

75 ‘Shekinah:TheHomeoftheHomelessGod’, BostonUniversityStudiesinPhilosophyand Religion,17(1996),170–84(p.179).

havethesamemeaningacrosstheOldTestament:‘theOldTestamentformula “allflesh”or“noflesh”(Gen.9.11;Ps.65.3;145.21;Joel2.28andfrequently elsewhere)doesnotjustmeanhumanbeingsintheirphysicalconstitution; itmeansanimalstoo–thatis,“alltheliving”’.76 Andin TheSourceofLife hesoonexpandshisdefinitionofthephraseinJoel/Acts,basedonGenesis 9.10-17,fromjustanimalstoencompass‘plants,treesandanimals’.77 There arealsosignsthataninclusive‘allflesh’isnowamoreinfluentialpartof Moltmann’stheologyinChapter7ofthatwork,whichisanadaptationofthe fourthchapterof TheSpiritofLife.Intheoriginalversionofthechapter,there isaparagraphconcernedwiththeSpirit’spresenceintheworld,inwhichthe Spiritis‘pouredoutonallflesh’,butdespitethepresenceofsomeinclusive languagethereislittletotakethediscussionbeyondhumanity.78 Inthelater work,however,heinsertsthesentenceswhichfollow,inanotherwiselittle changedpassage,afterthereferenceto‘allflesh’:‘Thisdoesn’tjustmean people’ssouls.Itmeanstheirbodiestoo.Itdoesn’tmeanjustthe‘flesh’of humanbeings:itmeansthe‘flesh’ofeverythingliving.’79 Thereisobviously somekindofconcerntoemphasisetheinclusivityof‘allflesh’thatexistsina waythatitdidnotonlysixyearsearlier.

Now,inthemid-1990s,theevidencegrows,evenifstillnotfullyclear, thatforMoltmanntheoutpouringofPentecostwasinclusiveofallliving things fromthebeginning.Thisisincontrasttohisearlieremphasisonmerely apartialoutpouringatfirstwhichonlyincludedhumanity.Forhim,thereis nodoubtthatPentecostwasthefulfilmentoftheprophecyofJoelandthat peoplehavebeen‘endowed’withtheSpirit.Nowheimmediatelycontinues tonotetheSpirit’spriorandcontinualpresenceinallcreation,withalink to‘allflesh’.81 Thereisstillscopetounderstandthesetwopresencesas

76 CoG,p.70(cf.p.131:‘thelifeofalltheliving–of“allﬂesh”,asourBibleputsit’).See also:‘thislivingpowerofGodwillbepouredout‘onallﬂesh’,whichinthelanguageofthe OldTestamentmeanseverythingliving’(GSS,p.240(1996)).Itispossibletoreadthisas anexpressionoftheviewthatthereisasolelyhumanuseofthephraseonceinGenesis6 (CoG,p.228),butnowhereelsedoesMoltmannrefertothisdifferenceinmeaningandhe discussesthesamepassageelsewherewithoutthatstipulation(Forexample: WJC,p.128; IEB,p.36).

77 TheSourceofLife:TheHolySpiritandtheTheologyofLife,trans.byMargaretKohl (London:SCM,1997),p.12(healsosaysit‘isofcoursehumanlifeﬁrstandforemost’.Cf.‘A Pentecostal’,p.5;‘TheHolySpiritandtheTheologyofLife:SevenTheses’,in Religionina SecularCity:EssaysinHonorofHarveyCox,ed.byArvindSharma(Harrisburg,PA:Trinity PressInternational,2001),pp.116–20(p.120)).

78 SpL,p.84.

79 TheSource,p.71.Thisdeﬁnitiondoesnotseemtochangefromthispointon(cf. SW, p.183; IEB,p.159).

80 BasedontheGermanpublicationdates.

81 TheSource,pp.23-24.Interestingly,herethecosmicﬂavourto‘allﬂesh’isnotbased

different,asdiscussedabove,yettheyalwaysdrawclosertogether.Now Moltmanndescribeshow,beginningwithEaster,theSpiritcomesto‘allﬂesh’, whichincludesallthelivingand‘theﬁnalspringtimeofthewholecreation begins’.82 Orexpressedotherwise:‘God’ssendingisbiocentricallyorientated, notanthropocentrically’.83

Moltmannseemstoconﬁrmthegrowthofthisemphasisonanequal outpouringonhumanandnon-humancreationasthetwentiethcentury drawstoaclose:

FiftydaysafterEasterwearrive[...]at Pentecost [...].Whatpreviously ‘rested’onlyonChristandactedinhim–God’slife-giving,healingSpirit –nowcomesuponalllivingthings;for‘allﬂesh’(theHebrewis kol’ basar)doesnotmeanhumanlifealone.Thedivinewelloflifeopens, andtheenergiesbegintoﬂowontoallmortallife.84

Thisiswhatismeantbythe‘springtime’ofcreation.OfcourseMoltmann stillretainsasizeabledistinctionbetweenthepresentoutpouringoftheSpirit on‘allflesh’andthecompleteeschatologicalindwellingofGodin‘allflesh’. HedoesseePentecostasthefulfilmentofthepromiseinJoel2butitisnot thecompletefulfilmentoftheSpirit’spresence,whichwillhappenwhen Godcomestodwellincreationattheeschaton.85 However,thedegreeto whichMoltmannviewstheSpiritofthenewcreationasalreadypresent hasdefinitelychanged;whatwasanemphasisonafutureimmanencewith onJoel/ActsbutPsalm104,andalsoafterthisquotationonJob34.14,Wisdom1.7,and Isaiah34.16(althoughMacchia,inhisowntranslationofMoltmann’swork,replacesthis withJeremiah34.16(‘APentecostal’,p.14)).

82 TheSource,p.71.

83 GSS,p.240(1996).

84 ‘JesusChrist,theHolySpiritandtheFutureWorld’, Anvil:AnAnglicanEvangelical JournalforTheologyandMission,16:4(1999),247–53(pp.248-49).Seealso EiT,pp.147, 288,326;‘TheLiberationoftheFutureanditsAnticipationsinHistory’,in GodWillBeAllIn All:TheEschatologyofJürgenMoltmann,ed.byRichardBauckham(Edinburgh:T&TClark, 1999),pp.265–89(p.284);‘TheHolySpirit’,p.120.

Thisviewseemsnowtoremainconstant:‘AtPentecostthelife-givingSpiritofGod “ispouredoutonallﬂesh”’(‘ThePresenceofGod’sFuture:TheRisenChrist’, Anglican TheologicalReview,89:4(2007),577–88(p.584)).HereMoltmannhasjustexplicitlylinked ‘allﬂesh’withalltheliving(cf.‘TheHolySpirit’,p.120;‘TheResurrectionofChristandthe NewEarth’, Communioviatorum,49:2(2007),141–49(p.143); SRA,pp.60,160,167; EthH, p.114).

85 ‘TheWorldinGodorGodintheWorld?:ResponsetoRichardBauckham’,in GodWill BeAllInAll:TheEschatologyofJürgenMoltmann,ed.byRichardBauckham(Edinburgh: T&TClark,1999),pp.35–41(p.40);‘HopeandReality:ContradictionandCorrespondence: ResponsetoTrevorHart’,in GodWillBeAllInAll:TheEschatologyofJürgenMoltmann, ed.byRichardBauckham(Edinburgh:T&TClark,1999),pp.77–85(p.82); SW,p.53 (thisreferenceisfromthere-translatedChapter8of FC,pp.115-30,butthisﬁnalsectionis anadditioninreplytocertainquestionsbyDeane-Drummond.Thesamesenseisperhaps reinforcedbyMoltmann’suseof‘allﬂesh’in SW,p.151).

onlyambiguousreferencetothepresentisnowaclearafﬁrmationofthe immanenceoftheSpiritinthepresentaswellasthefuture.

InterpretationProblems?

Thereisoneparticularcriticismtoexplore:Moltmann’sinterpretationof thebiblicaltexts,andinparticularthewayheinterpreted‘allflesh’inJoel (kol’basar),andthatpassage’stranslationinActs(pasansarka),tomean ‘alltheliving’.Forexample,theologicaldictionariesgive kol’basar avariety ofmeanings,with‘alllivingflesh’asonepossiblemeaning.Thisparticular meaningispopular,forinstance,forGenesis6and9.86 Ontheotherhand, theseandotherreferenceworksassignahuman-onlymeaningtoJoel2.28 orActs2.31.87 Likewiseallbiblicalcommentariessurveyeddonotmention themoreinclusivemeaningeitherfor kol’basar intheJoelpassage,orforits equivalentinActs2.17.EvenDuncanReid,atheologianwhoissympathetic toenvironmentalconcerns,doesnotgoasfarastoconsidertheJoel/Acts occurrenceofthephrase‘allflesh’toincludealltheliving.Heappearscontent tofollowthetheologicaldictionary’sadvice.88 ColinGuntonconcludesthat thisparticularusedefinitelyrefersexclusivelytohumanity,butforhimthisis anindicationwhat‘Godhasinstoreforhiswholecreation’.SoforGunton, Joel/ActsdoesnotgiveuswarranttogobeyondanoutpouringoftheSpirit onhumanity,andhisbasisforafutureoutpouringforcreationisnotfrom thesepassageseither.89

Thequestionthisraisesis‘Why?’.Whyisitinappropriatetoreadthe instancesinJoelandActsasinclusiveofalltheliving?Thisisnotaquestion oflinguisticsbutoftheologicalinterpretation.Itispossiblethatmostarticle writerssimplyhavenotthought,orhadneed,togobeyondtheimmediate

86 EduardSchweizer,‘Sarx’,in TheologicalDictionaryoftheNewTestament:VolumeVII,ed. byGerhardKittelandGerhardFriedrich(GrandRapids,MI:Wm.B.EerdmansPublishing, 1971),pp.98–151(p.106);AnthonyC.Thiselton,‘Flesh’,in TheNewInternationalDictionary ofNewTestamentTheology(revisededn):Volume1:A-F,ed.byColinBrown(Carlisle:The PaternosterPress,1986),pp.671–81(p.672);WilliamR.Domeris,‘Finish,Complete’,in New InternationalDictionaryofOldTestamentTheologyandExegesis:Volume2,ed.byWillemA. VanGemeren(Carlisle:PaternosterPress,1996),pp.657–58(p.657).

87 Schweizer,‘Sarx’,p.125;Thiselton,‘Flesh’,p.677;AlexanderSand,‘Sarx’,in Exegetical DictionaryoftheNewTestament:Volume3,ed.byHorstBalzandGerhardSchneider(Grand Rapids,MI:WilliamB.EerdmansPublishing,1993),pp.230–33(p.232);GaryV.Smith, ‘Dream’,in NewInternationalDictionaryofOldTestamentTheologyandExegesis:Volume2,ed. byWillemA.VanGemeren(Carlisle:PaternosterPress,1996),pp.153–55(p.154).

88 DuncanReid,‘EnﬂeshingtheHuman:AnEarth-Revealing,Earth-HealingChristology’, in EarthRevealing,EarthHealing:EcologyandChristianTheology,ed.byDenisEdwards (Collegeville,MN:TheLiturgicalPress,2001),pp.70–83(p.70,n.5).

89 ColinE.Gunton,‘TheSpiritMovedOvertheFaceoftheWaters:TheHolySpiritandthe CreatedOrder’, InternationalJournalofSystematicTheology,4:2(2002),190–204(p.204).

contextofIsraelandhumanityinthesepassagesandsohadnointentionof settinganexplicitboundaryforitsexposition.Yetstillforsome,asabove,the moreinclusiveinterpretationisdeﬁnitelyincorrect.

Beckattemptstogiveonereasonforthisaction.HearguesthatMoltmann’sbroaderinterpretationofJoel/Actsisflawed,particularlytheway helinksGenesis9andJoel2todevelophisunderstandingofallflesh.The mainthrustofBeck’sargumentisthatwecannotimportthemeaningof‘all flesh’fromGenesisintothepromiseofJoelbecausetheyareconcernedwith differentspheresoftheactivityofGod.Hedescribesadifferentiationbetween eschatologicalandnon-eschatologicalworksoftheDivine:‘Thepromisein Genesis9:10isnotaneschatologicalone,foritdoesnotreferenceafuture timeofsalvation.Incontrast,Joel’sprophecyiseschatological,foritexplicitly lookstothe[eschatological]future’.Therefore,Beckclaims,wearenot permittedtotransferthescopeofGod’sworkinGenesistothescopeofthe Spirit’spresenceinJoel,forashedoessoMoltmann‘ismixingtwocategories ofdivinepromise’.90 SubsequentlyBeckalsosuggeststhatthecontextofthe Joelpassageshowsittobeconcernednotwithallhumanity,butevenmore exclusivelythanthat:itisonlyaddressedtothe‘childrenofZion’.91

ForthisreasonBeckdisagreesthatJoelandActsrefertotheoutpouring oftheSpiritonallcreation.Heunderstandsthesetomeanthat‘theSpirithas beenpouredoutonthechurch’alone.ThisdoesnotmeanthatBeckwishes toundermineatheologyoftheSpiritincreation:‘Moltmannisrightthatthe Spiritgiveslifetoallcreatures’.Itissimplythat,forBeck,thepresenceof theSpiritincreationisnotthisparticularoutpouringoftheeschatological promise.Therefore,thispresenceisnoteschatological.92 Indeed,Beck presentsthreedifferentinstancesofthe‘level’oftheSpirit’spresence:theact ofcreation,thesalvationofthehuman,andtheconsummationofcreation. Forhim,theSpiritisinallthingsfromthebeginningofcreation,butthisis notaneschatologicalpresence.Insalvationweseethe‘ﬁrstinstallment’of theeschatologicalworkoftheSpiritwhichis‘universaltoallbelievers,butis notuniversaltoallhumanbeings’(andbyimplicationnottocreationeither). TheﬁnalactofconsummationiswhenthefullindwellingoftheSpiritis inallthings,theculminationoftheeschatologicalworkoftheSpirit.93 For

90 Beck, TheHolySpirit,p.152.

91 Ibid.,p.153(cf.RobertB.Chisholm,‘Ba´sar’,in NewInternationalDictionaryofOldTestamentTheologyandExegesis:Volume1,ed.byWillemA.VanGemeren(Carlisle:Paternoster Press,1996),pp.777–79(p.778)).

92 Beck, TheHolySpirit,p.153.

93 Ibid.,p.239.

BecktheoutpouringoftheSpiritspeaksofthe‘ﬁrstfruitsofeschatological resurrection-life’,whichheishappytorecogniseintheChurch.Andsointhe presentdayhejudgesonlytheSpirit’sworkintheChurchtobeeschatological. Inhisopinion,tospeakofthefruitoftheSpirit’seschatologicalworkinwider humanityorallcreationisanassumptionwhichhas‘noevidence’.94

ThepositionwhichBeckassertsisthattheSpiritispresentincreation inwaysbotheschatologicalandnot.However,thateschatologicalpresenceliesonlyintheChurch.ItisforthisreasonthatBeckcanconclude that:‘thePaulineideaoftheindwellingoftheSpiritisaneschatological idea,whereasMoltmann’sreasoningfromtheomnipresenceoftheSpirit inallofcreationisnot’.95 Beckseesthehistoricalomnipresenceofthe Spiritasnon-eschatological,thereforeMoltmann’sapproach,forBeck,is non-eschatological.

However,elsewhereBecksetsoutaviewoftheSpirit’sworkwhichseems eschatologicalinitsentirety:

AneschatologicalpneumatologyisoneinwhicheveryworkoftheSpirit isconsideredwithinitspropercontext.[...][E]veryworkoftheSpirit takesitsplacewithintheoverallﬂowofpneumaticactivity,which,in turn,issetwithinthegrandnarrativeofeschatology.96

Thisstatementisonewhichappearsreasonable,andonewithwhichMoltmannwouldconcur.ItalsocorrespondstoBeck’sownsupportforinaugurated eschatology,thattheeschatologicalfutureispresentandactiveinhistory,not separatedfromthepresentasinafuturisteschatology.97

AtthispointtherearefurtherquestionsforBeck’sapproach.Giventhe aboveviewofawidercontexttotheSpirit’swork,andBeck’spreferencefor inauguratedeschatology,itdoesnotseemcoherenttoclaimthattheSpirit’s presentworkincreationandthoseoutsidetheChurchisnoteschatological. AsthereisonlyoneSpirit,theSpiritwhichcreationexperiencesaslife-giving mustsurelybethatsameeschatologicalSpirit.WhateverworktheSpiritis involvedin,itispartofthesweepofsalvationhistorywhichpointstothe eschatologicalredemptionofcreation.Beckmightcounterthattheworkof SpiritintheChurchhasalevelofcontinuitywiththeeschatonwhichthe Spirit’sworkintherestofcreationdoesnot,butsuchaclaim,ifitwasmade, wouldbedifﬁculttosubstantiate.

94 Ibid.,pp.153,241.

95 Ibid.,p.249.

96 Ibid.,p.236.

97 Ibid.,pp.18-22.

Beck,ineffect,followsthepatternofinauguratedeschatologyonlyin regardstotheSpirit andtheChurch:inthepresenttherealreadycontinuity withthefuturegoal.Incontrast,withregardstotheSpirit andcreation the patternhefollowsisafuturisteschatology,whichheearlierdescribedand rejectedasfaultybecauseitmeansthat‘thekingdomisstrictlyafutureand apocalypticreality’.98 FromBeck’sdescriptionsitwouldseemthatforhim toothekingdomoftheSpiritinrelationtocreationandhumanityoutside theChurchisnotyetareality.Itmustwaitforthefuture.Thisdoesnot seemaparticularlyunifiedapproachtotheworkoftheSpirit.Hedoeslean towardstheintegrationoftheseviewswhen,despiteholdingtheviewthat salvationisthefirstinstalment,headmitsthat:‘Itcouldbesaidthatthe Spirit’spresencethatpermeatesallofcreationisthefirstinstallmentofthe Spirit’spresencethatwillcompletelysaturateallofcreation.’99 Evenwith thatacknowledgementBeckstilldeclinestoseeitasafirst-fruitoftheSpirit’s eschatologicalindwellingasheiscontenttodowiththeSpirit’spresencein believers.

ReturningtoconsidertheoutpouringoftheSpiriton‘allflesh’ofJoeland Acts,thereisaquestionwhetherBeck’sargumentgivesafirmbasisforthe passagestoreferexclusivelytothepeopleofGod.Forhim,asforMoltmann, allofcreationisreliantontheworkoftheSpirit,andthatworkisallinthe contextoftheSpirit’seschatologicalwork.ToclaimthenthattheSpirit’swork inoneareaoranotherisnoteschatologicalistocontradicttheseotherstatements.Ifeschatologyisbestunderstoodasinaugurated,presentandnotyet, itseemscounterproductivetounderminethisanddenythe‘present’aspectin widercreation.Inotherwords,itdoesn’tmakesensetodenythepresence oftheeschatonincreation,andaffirmcreation’seschatologicalorientation. Equally,forBecktosaythatthereisnoevidencefortheeschatologicalwork oftheSpiritincreationorthecommunityofhumanityoutsidetheChurchis anoverlysweepingclaimthatisextremelydifficulttodefend.100

ItseemsthatBeck’sassertionthattheinstancesof‘allﬂesh’inGenesis 9andJoel2shouldnotbelinkedbecauseoftheirdifferenteschatological characterisnotcoherentwithhisclaimthatalltheSpirit’swork‘issetwithin thegrandnarrativeofeschatology’.101 IfthepromiseofJoel2,andits fulﬁlmentinActs2,isparticularlyeschatologicalthenthereislittleproblem initsinclusionoftheSpirit’sworkinallcreation.Thereissupporthere

98 Ibid.,p.17.

99 Ibid.,p.240.

100 Ibid.,p.153.

101 Ibid.,p.236.

fromPeterAlthouse,whostatesthat‘acanonicalapproachwouldsuggest Moltmann’sreadingisavalidinterpretationoftheworkoftheSpiritin creation’.102 Althousedoesnotgoanyfurthertoexplain,butperhapsthe workhereoffersaframeworktosupporthisdefence.

InadditiontothisevaluationofMoltmann’suseof‘allﬂesh’,thisthesis movesnowtolookattheothertheologicalreasonsthathehastolocatethe Spirit’spresencethroughoutcreation.Theworkbelow,andtheabovework onhisearlypneumatology,willdemonstratethathisclaimisnotdependent ononediscussionofbiblicalinterpretation.

4.3CONTINUOUS LOVE:THE SPIRIT

ThefocusnowturnstoMoltmann’soverallviewoftheSpirit’songoing involvementincreation.TheSpiritisatworkinavarietyofways,and MoltmannisnotoverlyrestrictivewhenitcomestotheSpirit’sactivityin creation.Hisapproachherelendsitsownstrengthtothearchitecturewhich growsinhistheology.TheSpirit’sworkbeginswiththeSpirit’spresencein creation.Moltmannhasa‘holistic’pneumatologywhichispartlyinresponse tohisfearthatChristianshavemostlyrestrictedtheworkoftheSpirittothe workoftheChurch.‘TheHolySpiritisnottiedtothechurch’,hestates,and soheseekstoﬁndtheSpirit’sconnectionstoallpartsoflife,a‘Universal Afﬁrmation’.103

TheSpirit’sPresence

FromthispointthisdiscussionshiftstoMoltmann’spneumatologyasawhole andpayslessattentiontothedevelopmentofdifferentthemesovertime.This islargelybecauseasMoltmannmovesintothe1980shispneumatologyand theologyofcreationtakeahighproﬁlepositionthattheyneverlose,although theyhavecontinuedtodevelopuptothepresentday.Muchofthisgrowthis seenin GodinCreation,butbynomeansexclusivelyso.Asonemightexpect, TheSpiritofLife isanequallyimportanttextforthistopic.Also,thematerial discussedabovefromhisearlierworktolinktheSpiritandcreation,which willnotberepeated,underpinsthiswork.

102 PeterAlthouse,‘Review:Beck,T.D.,TheHolySpiritandtheRenewalofAllThings’, PNEUMA:TheJournaloftheSocietyforPentecostalStudies,30:2(2008),318–19(p.318).

103 SpL,p.230,thelatterquoteisfromthesubtitleofthebook.

TheSpiritin All Creation

ThefirstpointofinterestisMoltmann’sstatementthatGod’srelationship withnatureisintimate,notdistant.HerecognisesthattheHolySpiritis widelyunderstoodinChristiantraditiontobepresentinthebeingsandlives ofpeople,but‘inconsideringthefellowshipoftheHolySpiritwemustnot confineourattentiontohumanpersonsandcommunities.Wemustalsokeep inmindthecommunitiesfoundinnature’.104 InthatsameveinMoltmann includestheideathata‘holistic’pneumatologyalsoincludeshuman bodies;it encompasses‘theirtotalbeing’.105 TheSpiritis‘morethansimplythefinding offaithintheheartthroughtheproclaimedword’and‘goesdeeperthan theconsciouslevelinus’.106 Thisispartofthe‘rediscoveryofthebody’that comeswitharenewedunderstandingofcreation.107

Moltmannthinksitisimportanttorecognisethattheactofcreation wasmorethan‘aworkandGod’sself-differentiationfromthatwork.[...] GodtheCreatoralsoputshiswholesoulintoeachofthosehehascreated’, andby‘wholesoul’(acomparisonwithanartistwhoputstheirwholesoul intoapainting)hemeanstheHolySpirit.108 Therefore,forMoltmann,the indwellingoftheHolySpiritisuniversal:‘God’sSpiritﬁllstheworld’.109 That whichhehadpreviouslyspokenaboutinlessdirectwayshenowbringsto theforeofhisdiscussion.

Inthesecondofhissystematiccontributionshespeaksboldlyofthe ‘indwellingdivineSpiritofcreation’.110 Hespeaksof‘perceivingGodinall things’.111 HeconsiderstheSpirit’spresenceandstatesthatthereisaneedto embrace‘thewholenessofthecommunityofcreation,[...]humanbeings, theearth,andallothercreatedbeingsandthings’.112 Allofthisresultsfrom Moltmann’ssearchforrecognitionof‘thecosmicbreadthofGod’sSpirit’.For himthisisthestartingpointformanyoftheapproachesthatcanbeseento connectthetheologicalarchitecturetoanecologicalreformation.Itisthe signofGod’spresentloveandactivityincreation.113

Importantly,forMoltmann,thereisstillafullerpresenceofGodin

104 Ibid.,p.225.

105 Ibid.,p.37.

106 Ibid.,pp.2-3.

107 Ibid.,pp.9-10.

108 SW,p.169(cf. GiC,p.14).

109 GSS,p.22,citing Wisdom 1.7.

110 GiC,p.xii(cf.pp.99,206).

111 SpL,p.35(cf.‘Shekinah’,p.174; GSS,p.102; SW,p.169).

112 SpL,p.37(cf. GSS,p.22; EiT,pp.146-47,288,326(whereMoltmannhimselfrefers to: TheSource,pp.22-25)).

113 SpL,p.10.

creationtocomeattheeschaton.ThecurrentindwellingoftheSpiritis universalbutnotcompleteinthewaythatitwillbeinthenewcreation.114

ADevelopingEmphasis

Moltmann’smorematuretheologyoftheHolySpirit’spresencehasevoked manyresponses.Oneoftheseisnotsomuchacriticismasaclaimthatthere isasigniﬁcantcontradictionbetweenhislaterandearlierwork.Chestercontrastsalaterquotation,‘experiencesoftheHolySpirit...areofunfathomable depth,becauseinthemGodhimselfispresent inus,[...] atranscendent depth’,withanearlierquotation,‘Godisnot“beyondus”or“inus”’.115 Ryan Nealmakesasimilarobservationwithdifferentmaterial:

Earlierheasserted:Godisnot‘inusoroverusbutalwaysonlybeforeus, whoencountersusinhispromisesforthefuture’.[...]Aspneumatology becamemoreimportant,however,Moltmannchangedhismind:‘God acts in and through theactivityofhiscreatures;Godacts with and outof theactivityofhiscreatures’.116

InChester’searlierquotation,Moltmann’saiminthatpieceistocontrast eschatologicaltheologywithwhathetermsthefailedprojectsoftranscendencetheologyandimmanencetheology,whichhaveclaimedopposingconceptionsofGod’spresence.117 Moltmann’spointisnottocategorisetheDivine primarilyinspatialways,eitherasanabsolute-out-thereorfully-in-humanity. RatherhespeaksofthecomingGodwho,while‘alreadypresent’asthedivine futureaffectsthepresent,isatthesametimenotfullypresent‘intheway ofhisunmediatedandimmediateeternalpresence’.118 Strictcategoriesare notsuitableforGod’srelationshipwithcreationinthepresent.Rather,ithas begunbutisstillyettocome.Thewidercontextoftheearlyquotemadeby ChesterimpliesthatMoltmanndoesnotsaythatGodiseitherspatiallynotin usorbeyondus.Insteadheassertsﬁrstlythat‘inus’and‘beyondus’areeach anoverlyexclusivedeﬁnitionofthedivinepresence,andsecondlythatthe questionshouldprimarilyconcerntemporality,notspace.

Inthelightofthis,thepassagewhichNealquotedfrom TheologyofHope appearstodescribethesameissues.Therefore,toplacetheseoldquotes nexttoMoltmann’slaterdiscussionoftheSpirit’simmanenceincreationis

114 Chapter6ofthiswork,p.137,investigatesMoltmann’seschatology.

115 Chester, Mission,p.25.Citing SpL,p.155(emphasisaddedbyChester)and‘Theology asEschatology’,in TheFutureofHope:TheologyasEschatology,ed.byFrederickHerzog (NewYork:HerderandHerder,1970),pp.1–50(p.10),respectively.

116 Neal, TheologyAsHope,p.180,citing ToH,p.16and GiC,p.211,respectively.

117 ‘TheologyasEschatology’,pp.1-9.

118 Ibid.,pp.9-11.

possiblytoconfuseandmislead.Similarwordsareused,butthecontextand pointsmadeareverydifferent.Thecontrastisnotbetweentwodifferent understandingsofGod’simmanencebyMoltmann.Ratherthecontrastis betweenhisearlierworkwhereheacknowledgesthatGodispresentbutgives lessthoughttothe‘now’whileconcentratingmoreonthefuture,andhislater workwherehediscussesatlengththepresentpresenceofGod.Sowhileit maybedisconcertingtoreadinMoltmann’searlyworkthat‘Godisnotthe groundofthisworld’,itisimportanttoholdinmindthatheseekstocombat exclusivepositionsduringhisattemptstocultivateadistinctlyeschatological approach.119 Andasmuchashiswordsmeanhemightbemisunderstood, thereisnotsomuchacontradictionwithlaterworkasadevelopmentof emphasis.

FurtherCriticismsoftheSpirit’sUniversalPresence

FurtherreactionsarecriticalofthisnewlydevelopeddescriptionoftheSpirit’s immanence.

ASpatialGod?

Moltmann’searlieremphasisontheeschatologicalnatureofGodoverspatial languageforGodweakenedhislanguageofthedivinepresenceincreation. ThismakesthereactiontoMoltmann’smovetospeakmoreoftheimmediate presenceofGod,albeitstillnottotheextentofitseschatologicalfullness, particularlyinteresting.Deane-Drummondwonderswhetherhisemphasison creationasGod’shome,andthedivineindwellingofcreation,leadshimto ‘thinkofGodin spatial categories’.120 ColinGuntonstatesthat‘Moltmann’s attributionofspaceandtimetoGodisindangerofturningthem[rather thanGod]intoabsolutes’.121 SoRolandSokolowskiobservesthat:‘Moltmann emphasisesGod’simmanenceonlytostandaccusedofimprisoningGodin time,spaceandhistory.’122

DouglasFarrowechoesthisconcernandrespondstoMoltmann’sthoughts ontheimmanenceoftheSpiritinallcreationwitharequestforbalance:‘the Spiritispresenttoandforthisworld,whethercreativelyorredemptively,

119 Ibid.,p.10.

120 Deane-Drummond, Ecology,p.123.

121 CitedinRolandSokolowski,‘ATheologicalResponsetoEcologicalCrisis:Assessingthe EcotheologyofJürgenMoltmann’(unpublishedmaster’sthesis,Spurgeon’sCollege,2010), p.36,squarebracketsaddedbySokolowski.

122 Ibid.,p.36,referringtoGunton’sandAlanTorrance’scommentsin TheDoctrineof Creation:EssaysinDogmatics,HistoryandPhilosophy,ed.byColinE.Gunton,2ndedn (London:T&TClark,2004),pp.10,90,92,98-99.

asanabsolutely free presence,apresencewhichisneitherspatio-temporally obligated,[...]nor[...]alientoorinexpressibleinspaceandtime’.123 The accusationwasthatMoltmann denies God’spresenceinthespaceofcreation. Itisnowthathe imprisons Godinthatspace.Arelatedremindercomesfrom JohnMcIntyre,althoughnotinanydirectcommentonMoltmann’swork: ‘AsJesuscouldberegardedinpurelyhumanterms,andhispresenceamong humankindmisunderstood,socouldthepresenceoftheSpiritbeinterpreted purelynaturalistically.’124

Moltmann’sretentionofGod’stranscendenceinpanentheism,asdiscussedbelow,alsocontributessigniﬁcantlytoleadinghimawayfroma theologythatspatiallyrestrictstheTrinity,orrestrictstheSpirit’spresence, exclusivelytothenaturalworld.

Pantheism?

ThecritiquesaboveexpressaconcernthatMoltmannnottieGodtocreation’s governingboundaries.Similarly,hisworkleadssometowonderwhether hehasbroughtGodandcreationsocloselytogetherastoleantowards pantheism.DavidMcIlroystatesthatwhenMoltmannspeaksoftheSpirit’s indwellinghe‘drawssuchacloseconnectionbetweencreationandthenew creationthatheconfusesthegiftandthegiver’,althoughthereisnothing inhisreferencethatwarrantssuchaconclusion.125 Deane-Drummondnotes thatWilliamBarrhas‘accusedMoltmannofinconsistencyinhisthinking’in thatheholdsadistinctionbetweenGodandcreationwhilehealsosaysthat this‘isembracedandcomprehendedbythegreatertruth...thetruththatGod isallinall’.126

WhileMoltmannhasbeenaccusedofpantheism,hehasdefinedhisown viewaspanentheism.Deane-Drummondisawareofthisandupholdshis chosenposition:‘lestwefallintothetrapofpantheismweneedtoinsistthat “Goddoesnotmanifesthimselftoanequaldegreeineverything.”’127 Shealso highlightsthat‘[a]slongaswefindadistinctionbetweentheendlessnessof spaceandtheinfinityofGodthereisnodangerofpantheism’.128 Moltmann achievesthisinatleasttwoways.OneisthatGodmadecreationapartfrom thedivineself,andenteredintoitinordertodwellinit.Thusitwasnot

123 Farrow,‘InTheEnd’,p.439.

124 JohnMcIntyre, TheShapeofPneumatology:StudiesintheDoctrineoftheHolySpirit (Edinburgh:T&TClark,1997),p.203.

125 McIlroy, ATrinitarian,p.31,referringto SpL,p.47.

126 Deane-Drummond, Ecology,p.103,citing GiC,p.89.

127 Deane-Drummond, Ecology,p.120,citing GiC,p.103.

128 Deane-Drummond, Ecology,p.105.

‘begotten’and‘thereforeisnotdivine’.129 TheotheristhatMoltmannstill retainsasenseoftranscendencethatbalanceswithGod’simmanence.130 So hequaliﬁeshisviews:theHolySpiritispresentintheworld‘withoutbeing absorbedintoit’.131

RichardBauckhamrevealsaninterestingdevelopmentinMoltmann’s workwhichmaybeanotherpotentialreasonbehindtheaccusationofpantheismcameabout.Itconcernsusesoftheword‘pantheism’byMoltmann in ExperiencesofGod,pp.77-79,whichinalaterpublicationischangedto, orsupplementedby,theword‘panentheism’.132 Itmaybethattheearlier bookmightindicateamorefavourableattitudetopantheismthanMoltmann wouldwishtoconvey.Whetherthealterationsareduetoachangeinhis thoughtorarealisationofthemostappropriatetermisunclear.Whatseems probableisthatintheearlierworkhemerelyengagedindialoguewithideas frompantheism,forhelatersaysthatthereare‘elementsoftruth’inpantheism.133 Subsequently,astimeprogressed,panentheismbecameastronger themeinhiswork,andhealsowishedtodistancehimselffromchargesof pantheism.Hethereforeeditedhismaterialtoreﬂectthisdevelopment.This doesnotchangethefactthatfromhisearliestwritingsMoltmannhassaid thatpantheismdoesnotmatchwhathethinksChristiantheologyshould be.134 AsthenextchapterlooksatthereciprocalnatureofGod’srelationship withcreationproblemswillarisearoundhisuseofpanentheismaswell,but thatisbestdelayeduntilafteraconsiderationofhisthoughtrelatingtoboth theoutwardandinwarddirectionsofGod’srelationshipwithcreation.

TheSpirit’sActivity

AnadditionaltopicinMoltmann’sworkalongsidetheSpirit’s presence inall creationiswhatexactlytheSpirit does increation.Ashistheologyofthe Spirit’spresencehasdevelopedithasbecomemuchmoredynamicthanit wasinhisearlierwork,nowshowingmanystrandsofactivity.Thisexplosion ofideasﬁtswithhisstatementthat‘alldivineactivityispneumaticinitsefﬁc-

129 Bouma-Prediger, TheGreening,p.133,citing TKG,p.113.

130 GiC,pp.14-15,98.

131 SW,p.53.

132 Bauckham, TheTheology,pp.244-45,referringto EoG,pp.77-79,and SpL,pp.211-13. ThisoccursinbothEnglishandGermaneditions(see FreiheitundGelassenheit:MeisterEckhart heute (München:Chr.Kaiser,1980),pp.143-45; DerGeistdesLebens:eineganzheitliche Pneumatologie (München:Chr.Kaiser,1991),pp.225-27).

133 GiC,p.98.

134 ToH,pp.137,178; CrG,pp.215,243,274,287; CPS,p.305.

acy’.135 SincetheconstantthemeoftheseactivitiesisthatGodlovescreation, andthedivineindwellingisloving,theoverarchingconceptcontributedto thetheologicalarchitecturehereistheSpiritas‘theSourceofLife’;theone whoisatworkineachlivingthingtogiveitthelifenecessaryforexistence.136

TheSpiritofLife

TheSpiritasthe‘SpiritofLife’fitswellwithMoltmann’sideasthatemerge inthe1960sand1970s,exceptnowtheSpiritismoreexpresslyopento ‘everythingthatexists’andisatwork‘innature,inplants,inanimals,and intheecosystemsoftheearth’.137 ItistheSpiritwho‘makes[creation]live andrenewsit’,itisthe‘fountainoflife’that‘animates’and‘holds[creatures] inlife’.138 TheSpiritisthe‘spiritusvivificans’.139 Again,thisisnotmerely agiftofGodfromafar,rathercreation‘livesfromthecontinualinflowof [God’s]creativeSpirit’.140 Forhumanbeings,lifewiththeTrinityismorethan aconsciousexperienceoffaith:theSpiritisatworkinthe‘unconscious’and thebodyaswell.141

FromMoltmann’sworktheimpressionemergesthattheSpirit’slife-giving workreferstoactivityatdifferentlayersofexistence.Sometimeshesaysthat theSpiritisthatwhichallowsthebiologicalprocessestohappen:‘Inthat Spirit[allcreatures]becomealiveandwithoutthatSpirittheyreturntodust’, fortheSpirit‘isthemotivepower[...]ineverything’,‘impartstothemtheir existence’and‘sustainsthewholecreation’.142 Atothertimeshespeaksofa newkindoflifegiventocreationbeyondthebasicbiologicalexistence:The Spirit‘quickensthebody,givingitnewlife’anda‘newenergyforliving’.143 ThisparticulardescriptionoftheSpirit’sworkreferstohumanity,yetthisis notmeanttobeexclusive,forMoltmannhasstatedthat‘[e]verythingthat is,existsandlivesintheunceasinginﬂowoftheenergiesandpotentialities ofthecosmicSpirit’.144 Thesestatementsshowsthecontinuityandequality

135 GiC,p.9(cf.p.96:‘Inthelife-givingoperationsoftheSpiritandinhisindwelling influence,thewholetrinitarianefficacyofGodfindsfullexpression.’).

136 ‘APentecostal’,p.4(cf. TheSource,p.10,whichhasaslighttranslationdifference).

137 GiC,p.10; SpL,pp.9-10.

138 GiC,pp.10,11,14(cf.pp.96-98,270; WJC,p.41).

139 SpL,p.178.

140 GiC,p.163(cf.‘TheScope’,pp.100,102).Otherplacesin GodinCreation thatspeak ofthecreativeSpiritinthepresentincludepp.55,65-67,85,96-99,100,207,212,258. EachspeaksofcreativityandtheSpiritincreationapartfromconsummation,albeitwitha focusonthemleadingtotheeschatologicalfuture.

141 SpL,p.3.

142 ‘TheScope’,pp.100-06(cf. SpL,p.274; TheSource,p.117).

143 SpL,p.3,referringto1Cor.6.19-20.(cf. GiC,p.262; TheSource,p.117).

144 GiC,p.9(cf.p.xii).

whichhewishestoportraybetweentheactivityoftheSpiritinnatureand humanity,althoughhedoesnothomogeniseit.

Moltmannalsomaintains,inthelightofthenegativeelementsofexistence,thatlifeisnotonlyagiftbutsomethingthatneedsprotectionandsohe describesGodas‘preserving’thelifeofcreationfromthatwhichcausesdestruction.145 Thismightbetheactivityofdestructiveelementswithincreation, soMoltmanncommentsthattheSpiritisatworkineverythingwhich‘ministerstolifeandresistsitsdestruction’.146 Foratimeinhiswriting,‘preserving’, orpreservation,wasexplicitly‘againsttheannihilatingNothingness’.147 But evenasthataspectofhistheologyhaschanged,hehasmaintainedthat creation‘canexistandliveonlythroughthepresenceofthedivineSpirit’.148

Moltmann’sviewofGod’sloveforcreationleadshimtoassumethatthe Spiritisin‘everything’whichisaboutlifeandnotdestruction.149 Thishas hadtheeffectthatMoltmannbothdetermineswheretheSpiritisatwork accordingtowhetheritcorrespondstohistheologyofGod’scosmiclove,and thenalsodeclarestheseworkstobe‘therevelationofGod’sindestructible affirmationoflifeandhismarvellouszestforlife’.150 Thediligentreader couldaccuseMoltmannofcreatingacircularargument:‘Iknowlife-giving istheSpirit’sworkbecauseitshowsGod’slove,andIknowwhatGod’slove isbecauseIseeithereintheSpirit’slife-givingwork.’Whereexactlydoes MoltmannstartfrominordertodiscernthelovingnatureoftheTrinity’s actions?DoweknowwhatGod’sloveisbecausewefirstseeGod’sactions,or dowedeclarecertainhappeningstobeGod’sactionsbecausetheyapparently matchalovewebelieveisthere?Theanswertothisseemstolieearlierin thisthesis:thefactthatcreationexistsisevidenceofthedivineloveand showsthatthislovebringsthingstolife.Therefore,itwouldbereasonableto saythatMoltmann’sproposalisthis:‘Iknowlife-givingistheSpirit’swork becauseitshowsGod’screativelove,andtheSpirit’slife-givingwork continues toaffirmwhatGod’sloveisasIobserveitseffects.’

145 CoG,p.200; GiC,p.262.Moltmann’suseoftheword‘preservation’couldbemistakenly interpretedtoindicateastaticviewofcreation,eschatologicallyspeaking.Ratheritmeans meansthattheevereschatologicallyorientatedprocessofcreationispreservedfromstagnation.Thereisstillchangetocome:‘God’spreservationofcreationisinitselfalreadya preparationfortheirperfecting.’(‘TheScope’,p.103.)

146 SpL,p.xi.

147 GiC,p.96(cf.pp.10,209;‘TheFellowship’,p.298).

148 ‘TheScope’,p.102.ForthischangeinMoltmann’stheologyaround zimsum,seeChapter 3ofthiswork,p.42.

149 SpL,p.xi.

150 ‘PentecostandtheTheologyofLife’, Concilium,3(1996),123–34(p.129).Seealso‘A Pentecostal’,p.10; TheSource,p.19.

Theexplorationofthisoveralltitle,‘SpiritofLife’,willconsiderthree elementsinMoltmann’sworkoftheSpirit’sworktogivelifeinthepastand present:theSpiritasmoverofevolution,asCreatoroffellowship,andas enablerofco-creativity.151 Forhim,theseareallaspectsoftheloveofGod andarehenceallconnectedtolife-givingandlife-supporting.Forthisreason theSpiritis,forhim,theSpiritoflife.Inhiswork,alloftheSpirit’swork iseschatologicalinnatureandisopentothefuture,butdiscussionofthat aspecttotheSpirit’sworkwillfollowinChapter6.

Beforethisdiscussioncontinues,Beckraisesaninterestingpoint.Onthe onehand,theSpiritastheforceoflifeintheworldhasbroughtmanypositive contributionstoatheologythatseekstoaddresstheconcernsofcreation.On theotherhand,BeckwonderswhetherMoltmannhasallowedthenotion of‘life’todominatehisdiscussionoftheHolySpirittotheneglectofother metaphorsfortheSpiritwhichhesurveys.152 Moltmannhimselfiscritical ofanyapproachthatwouldletonethemedominateoverothers.153 Hehas, however,inalllikelihoodnotgonesofarastoletthethemeof‘life’become unaffectedbyothercharacteristicsormetaphorsoftheSpirit.Rather,forhim, itbestcapturestheoverallpictureoftheSpirit’swork.However,Beck’spoint isimportantbecausetheremustbeacontinualawarenessofthewayinwhich anarrowframeofreferencemightstiﬂefurtherthought,andthatavarietyof startingpointsforthediscussionoftheSpirit’sactivitymightbeardifferent fruit.

TheMoverofEvolution

TheSpirit’sactivityinthelifeofanyparticularlivingcreatureisnotseparate fromthehistoryoflifeasawhole,orthedevelopmentoflifefromtheorigins oftheuniverse.154 Therefore,intrinsicallyrelatedtotheSpiritasgiverof existenceistheSpiritastheorganiser,orshepherd,oflife.ForMoltmannthis takesshapethus:

151 Atonepoint,MoltmannhimselfdividestheworkoftheSpiritincreationintofourparts (GiC,p.100).Slightlydifferentcategoriesareusedheretotakeintoaccountthewiderscope ofhistreatmentofthistopicoutsideof GodinCreation.

152 Beck, TheHolySpirit,p.196(cf.p.99).

153 SpL,pp.272-73.

154 ChoHyun-Chulmakessomehelpfulobservations:‘Theinterconnectednessofall creaturesisnotstaticbutdynamic.[...]AssumingthattheSpiritempowers,viviﬁes, andrenewsallcreation,onemayhaveagoodreasontoconstruethechangesthatevolution effectsintheworldastheconsequenceoftheactivitiesormovementsoftheSpiritincreation.’ (ChoHyun-ChulSJ, AnEcologicalVisionoftheWorld:TowardaChristianEcologicalTheology forOurAge (Rome:GregorianUniversityPress,2004),pp.79-80.)

TheSpiritistheprincipleofcreativityonalllevelsofmatterandlife.He createsnewpossibilities,andintheseanticipatesthenewdesignsand ‘blueprints’formaterialandlivingorganisms.InthissensetheSpiritis theprincipleofevolution.155

Moltmann’sviewofGod’srelationtoevolution,andthelatter’sroleincreation, isvariedthroughouthiswork,astheexplorationsofthisprojectshow.Here thefocusremainsontheSpirit’sroleinevolutionwhilebelowitmovesto lookatChrist’srole.

WhenMoltmanndescribestheSpirit’sinvolvementinevolutionherefers totheprocessinapositivemanner,or,perhapsmoreprecisely,tothepositive partsoftheprocess.ForhimevolutionistheSpirit’smovementofcreation towards‘self-transcendence’.156 ItwasGodwhogavecreationthismovement and‘accompanies’and‘entices’throughtheSpirit.157 ItistheSpiritwho ‘createsinteractions’,‘harmony’and‘co-operation’,andtheSpiritwhocreates opennessandgivesthepotentialintowhichcreationcanevolve.158 TheSpirit leadscreationtowardsitsfuture.159

Evolutionhasessentiallygoodaspectshereasitstatesthateachindividualpartofcreationstrivesforlifeandexplorestheopennessandfreedom giventoitbyGodasitsearchesoutthebestwaytobe.Thisisnot,however,to placetheindividual’simportanceabovethatofthecommunity.ForMoltmann, evolutionseekstocreate‘differentiatedcommunity’thatbringsliberationto eachinvolved.160 Hisviewisthat,inthistask,theSpirit’saccompanimentof creationissoclosethat:‘Wehavetoseetheconceptofevolutionasabasic conceptoftheself-movementofthedivineSpiritofcreation’.161

Inaddition,evolutionisnotwithoutitslimitations.162 Moltmanndemonstratesthiswhenheaddressesitslackofredemptivequalities.Alsointhe presentandpastitisplaintoseethatevolutionisconcurrentwiththedeath ofcountlesscreatures.ThushealsospeaksoftheSpirit’sneedtoworkagainst partofevolution,thepartthatcannotgivethefullnessoflife:‘Thenthe “life-giving”Spiritwillwakethedeadtoeternallifeanddrivetheviolenceof deathoutofthewholecreation’.163 ChristopherSouthgatecallsthis‘thereal

155 GiC,p.100.

156 Ibid.,p.206(cf.pp.16,100).

157 Ibid.,p.207.

158 Ibid.,pp.100,205-06.

159 Ibid.,p.14.

160 SpL,p.228.

161 GiC,p.19.

162 Moltmann‘doesallowfornegativepossibilitiesinevolution’(Deane-Drummond, Ecology, p.216).

163 SpL,p.74.

ambiguityofanevolutionarycreation’.164

Despiteitsambiguities,thelinkbetweenGodandevolutionconstructively informsatheologyoftheTrinity’sinvolvementincreation.Ifthisprocess isoneinwhichGodisinvolvedthenthisshowspartofthedivinecharacter. ItreinforcestheviewthatGodvaluesfreedomandhasgiftedcreationwith freedom.AsArthurPeacockesaysinhispoeticdescriptionofcreation,God said:‘LetOtherbe.Andletithavethecapacitytobecomewhatitmight be,makingitmakeitself.Andletitexploreitspotentialities.’165 Unlesswe claimthatGodhascontrolledallofhistoryprecisely,wemustsaythatthethe variouseventsandhappeningsincreationhaveinﬂuencedtheprocessesof nature.Forthisreason,itwouldseemthatnoteverythinginthejourneyof evolutionisguaranteed.ThissuggeststhatGodiswillingtotakeriskswith creation.JohnTaylorconsidersthistobeinspirational:‘Iamamazedafresh attheunbelievabledaringoftheCreatorSpiritwhoseemstogambleallthe pastgainsonanewinitiative,incitinghiscreaturestosuchcrazyadventure andrisk.’166 TheideaofgamblingpastgainsisnotonewhichMoltmann wouldnecessarilyconsidertobeapplicable,butthepresenceofrisk,with itsadventureandmystery,seemsquiteevidentinanotionofevolutionary creation.Alongsidethesetwodynamicsoffreedomandriskthereisathird, thatGod’sloveisdrivingforceofevolution.AstheSpiritdrawscreaturesto ﬁndgreaterintelligence,adaptivity,communityandliberty,sowecanseethat theloveofGodbringsrichnesstothewholenetworkofcreation’slife.

Eachofthethreeproposalsaboveareaccompaniedbyproblems.Firstly, howcanallofcreationhavefreedom,orhowdoescreationutilisethis freedom?167 Thedescriptionofcreation’sfreedomasfreedomfromGod’s absolutecontrolisagoodstartingpoint,butdoesthisentailfreedomto developbypurechance(astheballoonsetfreetothewind)orareweto assumethatcreationhasthefreedomtocontrolitsownfuture?Boththese extremesseemtofallshortofamorenuancedviewofcreation’sfreedom thatincludesGod’spersuasiveandenablingwork,thepresenceofchoicein nature,andtheabilityofbiologicalentitiestoreacttoevents.AsPeacocke says,therecan‘beoveralldirectionandimplementationofdivinepurpose

164 Southgate, TheGroaning,p.60.

165 ArthurPeacocke,‘BiologyandTheologyofEvolution’, Zygon,34:4(1999),695–712 (p.696).

166 JohnV.Taylor, TheGo-BetweenGod:TheHolySpiritandtheChristianMission (London: SCM,1972),p.33.

167 Forexample:‘cannaturerejectevolutionsinfully’?(KjetilHafstadquotedinDeaneDrummond, Ecology,p.215.)or:‘TheproblembecomesmoreacutewhenMoltmannextends theideaofclosednesstonon-humancreation.’(Ibid.,p.215.)

throughtheinterplayofchanceandlawwithoutadeterministicplanﬁxing allthedetails’.168 Itisplainthatcreatureshavetheabilitytobalancevarious considerationsintheiractivity,eachaccordingtotheirownability.Ifitis arguedthatGodrelatestocreaturesbytheHolySpirit,inawayappropriate toeachone,itcouldbearguedalsothatthereisatleasta possibility thatGod’s inputcouldbeoneoftheconsiderationsofthecreature.JohnPolkinghorne afﬁrmsMoltmann’sthoughtaroundtheSpiritandevolution,coupledwith themysteryofthebiologicalprocesses:

Nothingreliablyknowntoscienceforbidsabeliefthatthehiddenwork oftheSpirit,actingwithinthecloudyunpredictabilitiesoftheworld,has beenpartoftheunfoldingfruitfulnessofevolutionarycontingency.[...] IftheCreatorworksthroughanevolutionaryprocesswhosecharacteris thefruitfulinterplayofcontingencyandlawfulregularity,thenonemust surelyexpectGodtobeactivewithintheprocessesofhistoryandnot solelyconﬁnedtotheroleofthesustainerofcosmicorder.169

Secondly,ifthereisriskthenwhatsecurityistherethatthewholeprojectof creationwillultimatelyhaveagoodend?Andifthepresentstateofaffairs isnotguaranteed,doesthatsuggestthatthelifeofcreation(particularly humanity)isanaccidentofhistory?Inreply,thesecurity,asalwaysin Moltmann’swork,islocatedineschatologyandtheredemptiveplansof God.170 Thatistheguaranteeofhistory’sultimategoodend.Admittedly, hisviewofcreation’sfreedomdoessuggestthatcreationatanyparticular pointmaynotbeexactlyasGodwouldhaveenvisaged.This,however,does notmeanthatcreationcannotbearthemarksoftheCreator’sgoodnessand purposes.Thesemarksremainalongsidecreation’sfreedom.Thismeans thatMoltmannwouldrejectaviewthatgivescreation’shistoryovertopure chance.Hedoesnotconsiderhistorytobeaccidental.God’sinvolvementis guaranteedtobringredemptiontoproblemsandmistakes.

Thirdly,ifloveiscentralthenitisproblematictoassociateGod’sactivity intheSpiritwithevolution’sdubiousrecord.Theresultsofevolutiondonot alwaysexhibitahighpresenceofloveastheirguidingprinciple:humanintelligenceandadaptationhasbroughtgreatharm;communitywithincreationis fragmentaryatbest;libertyisfullypresentnowhere.Therefore,howdoes loveﬁtinwiththetragediesandpainofanevolutionarycreation?While

168 Peacocke,‘Biology’,p.705.

169 JohnPolkinghorne,‘JürgenMoltmann’sEngagementwiththeNaturalSciences’,in God’s LifeinTrinity,ed.byMiroslavVolfandMichaelWelker(Minneapolis,MN:Fortress,2006), pp.61–70(p.68).

170 SeeChapter6ofthiswork,‘Hopefor All Creation’,p.139.

GrahamBuxtonsympathiseswithwhatwemightcallapositivetheologyof evolution,hestillthinksitimportanttoanswerthequestion:‘[I]fGodisinvolvedinshapingthedirectionofevolutionaryprocesses,howdoweaccount forthe“ubiquityofpain,sufferinganddeath”increation?’171 Inasimilar veinChoHyun-Chulpointsoutthatif,asMoltmannhassaid,weconsider evolutiontohaveproducedcountlessvictims,thatisthosewhohavedied alongtheway(effectivelyeverylivingthing),Godappearstodriveaprocess thatproducesthesevictims.172 Becktakestheseconcernsandconcludesthat developmentofkillingskillswhichevolutionaryadaptationbringsisnot‘a foreshadowingofthenewcreation’,andassuchtheoverallprocessisbest separatedfromGod’sactivityincreation.173

ItseemsthatBeck’sreticencetojoinGodandnaturalevolutiontogether comesfromcertainoutcomesofevolutionthattainttheoverallpicture. However,Moltmann’semphasisoncreation’sfreedomallowsforabilitiesand behaviourincreationthatdonotmirrordivinelovetositalongsideGod’s lovinginvolvement.Therefore,insteadofaviewof‘evolution’asaprocess inauguratedbyGod,andwhichinvolvesgoodandbadeffects,inMoltmann’s thoughtitisbetterunderstoodasthewordwhichdescribesthechangesover timethatoccurasGod’slovingactivityandcreation’sriskyfreedominteract. Inotherwords,evolutionisnotaprocesswhichwemusteitheracceptas whollyGod’swork,orrejectasseparatefromthatactivity.Itisratherthe productofGod’srelationshipwithcreationthroughtimeasthatrelationship containsthedynamicsoffreedom,riskandlove.

PainandsufferinginaprocessinwhichGodisinvolvedcanbeaccounted forbecausecreation,initsfreedom,doesnotfollowtheperfectpath.So whenMoltmannreferstothevictimsofevolutionthesearenotvictimsofa relentlessandinefﬁcientdrivetoperfectionbyGod.Theyarerathervictims becauseproblemsthatstemfromcreation’sfreedomthwartedGod’sloving purposesintheirlives,forthemomentatleast.174 Sowhiletheresultsof evolutionmaynotalwaysseemtobearGod’smark,forMoltmann:‘Ifthe worldwerecompletelyandwhollygodlessandforsakenbytheSpirit,itwould

171 GrahamBuxton, TheTrinity,CreationandPastoralMinistry:ImagingthePerichoretic God (MiltonKeynes:Paternoster,2005),p.229,quotationfromArthurPeacocke.

172 Hyun-ChulSJ, AnEcologicalVision,pp.149-50,referringto WJC,p.287.Hyun-Chul’s primaryconcernhereisChrist’splaceinevolutionandredemption,buttheprincipleapplies equallywelltotheSpirit’sactivityincreation.Seealso JCTW,pp.101-06.

173 Beck, TheHolySpirit,p.112.

174 ThisapproachtoevolutionmayhavesimilaritiestothatofT.F.Torrance,inthat evolutionisnotfreefromevil.SeeSouthgate, TheGroaning,p.32.

havebecomenothing(Ps.104.29);itwouldhaveceasedtoexist.’175 This suggeststhatevolutioncouldnothappenatallwithouttheSpirit.

TheSpiritofDeath?

ThesubjectoftheSpirit’sactivityintheprocessofevolutionhighlightsa topicthatrunsparallelto‘life’:death.Itseemsthatmanyoftheobjectionsto evolutionarenotconcernedwiththefactthataparticularcreaturethatlived ahundredthousandyearsagowasnotthesameasitsdescendantthatlives today.Inthatsense,evolutionisnottheproblem.Itjustdescribestherelative differencebetweenlivingcreaturesoverthespanofworldhistory.Ratherthe problemisthat,inthestruggleofallthingstoliveandgrow,theﬁrstcreature died,andinalllikelihoodthesecondcreaturewillsharethesamefate.Death isaproblemtothosewhocareaboutlife,andappearstobetheoppositeto theaimofthe‘SpiritofLife’.

Theproblemdevelopsinlookingattheworldanddiscoveringthat,asfar ashumanunderstandingallowsustogo,thereisnowaytoconceiveoflife withouttheaccompanimentofdeath.Alllifeincreationisreliantondeath:‘It survivesbecausesomeotherpartofcreationhasrelinquisheditslife.’176 The lifethatafungusgainscomesfromthedecompositionofmatter.Thelifethat acarnivoregainsisthroughthedeathofanotheranimal.Southgatedescribes deathasa‘thermodynamicnecessity’,and‘theprerequisiteof“regeneration” [and]“biologicalcreativity”’.177 ArthurPeacockestatesthat:‘Newpatterns cancomeintoexistence[...]onlyifoldpatternsdissolvetomakeaplace forthem.’178 Therefore‘deathisthepricepaidtohavetreesandclamsand birdsandgrasshoppers,anddeathisthepricepaidtohave[thebiological emergenceof]humanconsciousness’.179

Theramiﬁcationsofthisconclusionforatheologyoflifearedecidedly complicated.BeckoutlinesMoltmann’spredicamentwell:

Asgiverandsustaineroflife,theHolySpiritsupportslifeandisopposed todeathinallitsforms.[...]IftheHolySpiritisimmanentincreation asMoltmannsaysandistheprincipleoflifeforallcreatures,doesthis notalsocommittheSpirittoactingastheSpiritofdeath,atleastinthis presentage?[...][C]learlyalllifecannotsimplygoonmultiplying,for theplanetwouldnotsupportit.Becausedeathisnecessaryforecological

175 GiC,p.102.

176 Granberg-Michaelson, AWorldlySpirituality,citedinBouma-Prediger, TheGreening, p.238.

177 Southgate, TheGroaning,p.8.

178 Peacocke,‘Biology’,p.705.

179 ‘UrsulaGoodenough, TheSacredDepthsofNature,citedinEdwards, Breath,p.138.

balanceandthesurvivalofalllivingthings,wemustembracetheSpirit’s roleinkillingandindeath,inasmuchasitisnecessaryforcreaturesto killinordertolive.180

Onepertinentexamplewouldbethepopularunderstandingthathumans aremeanttoeatanimals.Withinthiswidelyheldview,itwouldbedifficult toclaimthattheSpiritdoesnotsupportthemomentofslaughterwhenthe generalconsumptionofmeatisacceptable.Beckdoesnotseeananswerto thisprobleminMoltmann’swritings,butspeculatesthat‘hisanswerwould probablybethattheSpiritworkstoperpetuatelife,butheisforcedtodosoin thepresentageinwaysthathefindsmostwretched’.181 Thissolutionupholds Moltmann’sinsistenceonthefreedomofcreation.Yettheideathatsomething forcestheSpiritto‘actmostwretchedly’doesnotfitwithhistheology.

Thereisnotanimmediateanswertothisdifficulty.Therearethose,such asSouthgate,whoquestionwhetherdeathistheabsoluteenemyorwhether infactitmightbeagoodandproperpartofcreation:‘Itseemstomethat deathneednotbeconsideredaproblem,ifitfollowsafulfilledlife.’182 And therearethosewhoquestionwhetherMoltmannisrighttogivealldeaththe samesignificance:humans,animals,plantsandvegetables.Aretheirdeaths ofthesameconsequence?183 ForStevenBouma-Prediger,sin,andnotdeath, istheproblemincreationtobesolved.184 Yetdeathisclearlyanunwelcome elementincreationforChristiantheology.

Deathremainsboththeproblemandtheanswerforlife.Thequestion thisleavesforthetheologicalarchitectureis:cantheSpiritbringanylife withoutdeath?Thiswouldseemtobeanimportantquestion,becauseit shapeshowthisarchitectureinteractswiththeethicalresponsewhichthose oftheChristianfaithmayhavetodeath.ForDenisEdwards,thereis‘no theoreticalanswer’tothepresenceofunwelcomedeathincreation.Wecan onlyacceptitaspartoftheworld.Forhim,thefocusmustbeontheresponse toit.185 ThestancethatistakenontheroletheSpiritplaysinthecycleoflife anddeathwillcontributetohowapersondecidesthatresponse.

180 Beck, TheHolySpirit,p.215.

181 Ibid.,p.216.

182 Southgate, TheGroaning,p.8(cf.Hyun-ChulSJ, AnEcologicalVision,pp.149-50).

183 RichardBauckham,‘Moltmann’sMessianicChristology’, ScottishJournalofTheology, 44:4(1991),519–31,pp.529-30(cf.Chester, Mission,p.17).

184 Bouma-Prediger, TheGreening,pp.237-40.

185 Forhim,thisresponseleads‘totheideaoftheSpiritasthefaithfulcompanionwho accompanieseachcreatureinlove’(Edwards, Breath,pp.106-07).Thatideainturnleads tothesufferingoftheSpiritwithcreation,whichwillbepartofthediscussionofthenext chapter.

WhattheaboveargumentssuggestisthattheSpiritactivelybringslife tocreation.Asthingsare,deathisalsonecessaryforthislifetooccur.This atleastindicatesthatGodiswillingtoletdeathbepartoftheprocessesof life.Whilethisisnottogivedeathanykindofpositivedesignation,itisa tentativeacceptanceofdeath’spresence.Thisacceptancemaybeusefulin ethicalconsiderationsasitsuggeststohumanitythatdeathmightbepartof theprocessesbywhichpeoplelookaftertheplanet.

TheCreatorofFellowship

AnothermajorpartoftheSpirit’sactivitythroughouttheworldisthecreation offellowship.WhatearlierinMoltmann’stheologywasafocusontheChurch nowisspreadthroughoutthewholeofcreation.Toreachsuchanexpanded deﬁnitionoffellowshipcouldinvolvethelossoftheimportanceofthespeciﬁc inter-humanrelationshipsseenintheChurchandsociety.However,hedoes notlosehisfocusonthefellowshipwithinhumanity.186

Thisprogressiontoaninclusionofthewholeofcreationinthefellowship oftheSpiritisverymuchconnectedtolife-giving,forlife is fellowshipin Moltmann’sthought:absenceofrelationshipsequalsdeath.187 ‘Fornothing exists,livesandmoves ofitself.Everythingexists,livesandmoves inothers, inoneanother,withoneanother,foroneanother’.188 HencetheSpiritbrings ‘life-enhancingfellowship’andthe‘experienceoflife’asitbringsfellowship.189 SoforMoltmann‘thefellowshipoftheHolySpirit’issynonymouswith‘thelifegivingSpirit’,andthe‘wholenessofcreation’isthe‘communityofcreation’.190

Giventheabove,theexpectationisthattheoperationsoftheSpiritto createfellowshipinvolvethewholebreadthofcreation,justasinMoltmann’s workontheSpirit’slife-givingactivity.Thisisindeedtheviewwhichhe holds.Auniversalfellowshipincludesallthatisalive,asisclearfromthe languageheusestodescribeit:theSpirit‘formsthecommunityofcreation’ andsustainsit.191

Moltmann’suseoftheword‘community’inreferencetotheinteractions betweenplantsandpeoplemaybeopentocritique:‘itwouldseemincredible toafﬁrm,forexample,thatallrelationshipsbetweenhumansandplants shouldexhibit“reciprocity”and“mutualindwelling”’.192 However,McIntyre’s

186 CPS,pp.226,306,316; PP,pp.128-30; SpL,p.4;‘Pentecost’,p.132; TheSource,p.24.

187 SpL,p.219.

188 GiC,p.11(cf.p.263; CPS,p.133; SpL,p.219).

189 SpL,p.219; GSS,p.22.

190 Ibid.,p.219;‘TheScope’,p.101.

191 ‘TheScope’,pp.100-01(cf. SpL,pp.10,57;‘Pentecost’,p.132; TheSource,p.24).

192 Bouma-Prediger, TheGreening,p.261(cf. TKG,pp.94-95; GiC,pp.188,203-06).

thoughtsaboutasimilardiscussioninJohnTaylor’s TheGo-BetweenGod about thelanguageofcommunitybetweenorganismsandparticlesarehelpfulfor defendingthisapproach:‘Thislanguagewouldallsoundunacceptablyanthropomorphic,wereitnotindependentlyusedbyawholeseriesofscientists, suchasC.H.Waddington,CharlesBirch,SewellWright,AlisterHardyand Heisenberg,amongseveralothers.’193 Moltmannalsomakeshisownclaim foritsjustiﬁcation:

Creationitselflivesinthecomplexityofever-richercommunalrelationships.Thatiswhyitisappropriatetotalkabout thecommunityof creation,andtorecognisetheoperationofthelife-givingSpiritofGod inthetrendtorelationshipincreatedthings.194

Moltmannarguesthatthisgrowthtowardscommunityisevidentevenin elementaryparticlesthatjointomakemolecules.Inthissense,life-giving isnotaseparatetaskfromfellowship-making,butisaresultofit.Healso arguesthatthewholeperson‘canonlyexistinexchangewithotherliving beingsinnatureandinhumansociety’.195 Edwardsexpressestheworkofthe Spiritinthisareaparticularlywell:

TheSpiritisnotsimplyanimpersonal power buta personalpresence interiortoeachcreature,creatingcommunionwithallinwaysthatare appropriateforeachofthem.ItisthepresenceoftheSpiritthatenables creaturestointeractintheirowncreaturelypatternsofrelationship,at thelevelofparticles,cells,organisms,evolutionarysymbiosis,populations,ecologicalinteractions,theplanetarycommunity,thesolarsystem, theMilkyWaygalaxyandtheuniverse.196

Similartothisview,MoltmannexplicitlystatesthatthisSpirit-created‘community’isoneintowhichtheSpiritalsodrawshumanity.197 In TheSpirit ofLife heoftenwritesthatChristians’connectednesstotheSpiritdraws themintothiswiderfellowship:‘ToexperiencethefellowshipoftheSpirit inevitablycarriesChristianitybeyonditselfintothegreaterfellowshipofall

193 McIntyre, TheShape,p.201,concerning:‘theSpiritispresentastheGo-Betweenwho confrontseachisolatedspontaneousparticlewiththebeckoningrealityofthelargerwhole andsocompelsittorelatetoothersinaparticularway;andthatitishewhoatevery stagelurestheinertorganismsforwardbygivinganinnerawarenessandrecognitionofthe unattained’(Taylor, TheGo-Between,p.31).

194 SpL,p.225,inthishisscopeisuniversal,fromtherelationshipofatomstomolecules allthewaythroughcells,organisms,communities.

195 GiC,p.263.

196 Edwards, Breath,p.119.

197 SpL,p.229.Moltmanndoesnotexplicitlycallthis‘Spirit’theHolySpiritinthissection. However,hedoesrefertothisSpiritmoulding‘allmaterialstructuresandallsystemsoflife’. ThismatcheshisviewoftheHolySpirit(cf. GiC,p.263).

God’screatures.’198 However,thisisratheranincreased awareness ofthe fellowshipoftheSpirit,asopposedtoaclaimthatChristianshaveaccessto acommunitywhichothersdonot.ThisisbecauseMoltmannspeaksofthe Spiritthat‘hasgatheredeverythinglivingintoagreatcommunityoflife,and sustainsitthere’.199 Thecommunityisalreadythere,evenifitisopenfor partialrejection.200 Thisinterpretation,ofthecommunitybetweennature andnon-believers,ﬁtswithhisuniversallanguageelsewhereandhisview thatallhumanityisconnectedtothewholeofcreation.201

Thisrelatednessbetweenallthingsisnotsimplyafunctionalinteractionhowever.Moltmannalsolaboursthepointthatthisfellowshipleads tosolidaritybetweennatureandhumanity.202 Thisseemstobealogical progressionfromhisviewofthepresenceoftheSpiritas‘unconditionedand unconditionallove’whobrings‘fullandunreservedlovefortheliving’.203 AstheSpiritbindsthingstogetheritleadsthem‘beyondthemselves’and sendshumanitytoengagewith‘theneedsanddistressoftheworld’.204 The loveandfellowshipoftheSpiritconnectshumanstonaturetotheextent that‘ecologicalcrisesintheworldarecrisesintheirownlifetoo’.205 The communitywhichGodcreatesisacommunitywhichreﬂectsthecharacterof theTrinityitself.

Finally,Moltmanndoesnotjustseethiscommunityascomprisingnature andhumanityalone,withGodexcluded.Suchaviewcouldbepicturedas amixturethatisstirredfromabovebyGod,withaso-called‘Spoonofthe Spirit’.Ratheritisasmuchacommunity with Godasacommunitycreated by God:‘ThetrinitarianfellowshipoftheHolySpiritisthefullcommunity oftheCreator,ReconcilerandRedeemerwithallcreatedbeing[s],inthe networkofalltheirrelationships.’206 TheSpirit‘createsthecommunity ofallcreatedthingswithGodandwitheachother’,andastotheexact appearanceofthiscommunitybetweentheDivineandcreation,Moltmann writesthat‘allcreatedthingscommunicatewithoneanotherandwithGod,

198 SpL,p.10(cf.pp.221,259).

199 Ibid.,p.274.

200 ‘ThewholemiseryofmenandwomencomesfromaloveforGodthathasmiscarried.’ (Ibid.,p.50.)

201 GiC,p.18,andseeabove.

202 Ibid.,p.101.

203 Ibid.,pp.103,270; SpL,p.97.

204 GiC,p.103(cf.pp.263-64); SpL,p.235,whichmentionsecologicalannihilation amongstotherthreats.

205 SpL,p.248.

206 Ibid.,p.221(cf. CoG,p.278).

eachinitsownway’.207 Inresponsetothis,Bouma-Predigerasksasearching question:‘Doestheanalogybetweentherelationships adintra andthe relationships adextra implythatitisinappropriatetospeakof any hierarchy orsubordinationbetweenGodandtheworldorwithrespecttodifferent creaturesintheworld?’208 This,atleastinregardstoGodandtheworld, isprobablyalreadyansweredbyMoltmann’sinsistencethatGod’sfreedom increationisnotthefreedomofpowerbutthefreedomoflove.There isthereforenosubordinationinGod’srelationshipwithcreation.209 With regardstotheappropriatenessofsuchlanguageintherelationshipswithin creationDeane-Drummondalsobringsherconcerns:‘[Moltmann]seems toignorethefactthatthestructureofsuchrelationships[increation]is moreakintohierarchiesthroughpyramidicalstructuresthantheegalitarian positionwhichheisanxioustopromote.’210 ShequestionswhetherMoltmann hasoverlyromanticisedtheinterrelationshipsofcreationandnotpaiddue heedtothedominationpresentincreation.Hemaybeguiltyofthis,butit remainsthatheisalsocorrecttohighlighttheinterdependencyofhumans andtherestofcreation.Thereisafellowshipthatshouldnotbeignored.

TheEnablerofCo-Creativity

ThethirdintrinsicpartoftheSpirit’slife-givingworkisthemissiontoenable creationtotakeuptheresponsibilityofco-creativitywiththeTrinity.For Moltmann,Godiscloselypresentandactiveincreation,butthatisnottosay thatGodwishestodoalltheworkalone:‘Godacts in and through theactivity ofhiscreatures;Godacts with and outof theactivityofhiscreatures;created beingsact outof thedivinepotencies’.211 ThereforepartoftheSpirit’swork istoenableandempowerhumanityandallcreationtobeco-creators.While thisleadstocreation’sparticipationinGod’swork,thisdiscussionforour presentexplorationstayswithintheremitof theworkoftheSpirit increation thatenablesthereciprocalrelationship.Theprecisenatureof creation’s actions ofparticipationintherelationshipisasubjectforlaterchapters.212 ‘Co-creativity’referstocontinuouscreationanddoesnotincludeoriginal creationforobviousreasons:bydeﬁnitioncreation’sactivityispartofthe

207 GiC,p.11.

208 Bouma-Prediger, TheGreening,p.261.

209 SeeChapter3ofthiswork,‘God’sFreeCreativity’,p.29.

210 Deane-Drummond, Ecology,p.219.

211 GiC,p.211.

212 Chapters7and8ofthiswork,pp.185and215respectively,willaddressthatmaterial.

creation’scontinuallifeand,therefore,continuouscreation.213 Thisthemeis ofcoursebynomeansMoltmann’sinventionandmanyothersexploreit,but hedoesaseverbringhisownengagingcontributiontothediscussion.

Asdiscussedabove,forMoltmann,theSpiritworksincreationtobring andsustainlife,andlifeexistsandflourishesinthecontextofrelationships andfellowship.ThispaintsapictureinwhichGoddoesnotsimplyconstruct afunctional,rigidandcompletedlife-system,thatcannotchange.Todothat wouldbeonlytocreatelifethatexistedbutdidnotflourish,for‘life’inits fullestsenseisaboutrelationships.Thereforethegiftoflifeistheability toseek,discern,buildandrejecttheserelationships,notmerelytoexistin acomplexstructureofconnectivity.ThisisnotadenialthatGodprovides theunderlyingmechanismsforlifetoexist.Ratheritisanaffirmationthat creationisnotasteel-framedconstructionsitethatisweldedandfixedin placebutismorelikeanurturedgardenthatisencouragedtogrow.To continuethemetaphor,thisgardenbecomesmorebeautifulbecausethe plantsthemselvesgrow,notonlybecausethegardenerputtheminplace. Thelifeofeachcreaturecontributestothelifeofthewhole.Thisdoesnot necessarilyhavetobeaconsciousefforttojoininGod’swork,asmightbe thecaseinthebeliever,butneverthelessifGodwishestheretobeforests thentheforestitselfmustgrow,aswellaseverypartoftheeco-systemthat contributestoitslife.

Thisparticipativerelationshipisexplicitlygiventonatureaswellas humanityinMoltmann’sthought.AsGodisatworkinallcreation‘[t]he churchparticipatesintheglorifyingofGodincreation’sliberation’.214 The ChurchcannotacknowledgetheSpiritandignorenature,hesays,because theSpiritexpressesthetensionofanot-yetﬁnishedcreationandbringsan awarenessofthewholeofcreation’spredicament.215 SotheSpiritleads‘the churchbeyonditself,outintothesufferingoftheworld[...]throughnewly awakenedfaithandfreshhope’.216 Hope,forMoltmann,isanimportantpart oftheSpirit’sworktoenable.TimothyHarviedescribesitas‘livingwithin thepneumatologicallyempowered Zwischenraum’,the‘in-betweenspace’of whatistocomesetagainsttherealitiesofthepresent.217

213 GiventheeschatologicalorientationofGod’sworkincreationthismusthaveimplicationsforcreation’spartinthenewcreation.ThediscussionreturnstothisinChapter6of thiswork,p.137.

214 CPS,p.65.

215 Ibid.,pp.262,273.

216 Ibid.,p.198.

217 Harvie, JürgenMoltmann’sEthics,p.142.ThisisdiscussedfurtherinChapter7ofthis work,p.193.

Whilethisco-creativityextendstoallofcreation,theparticularworkof theSpirittoenablehumanitytojoininGod’soverallactivityisstillpertinent, asitcontributestothepictureofhumancareoftheenvironment.Moltmann lookstotheSpirittogivehumanitythepowertoliveinaccordancewiththis growththatGodhasplanned.218 Asinothercases,thisideaisoftenlocated withinhisdiscussionoftheChurch’sactivity.Yet,asabove,thisisnottosay thathedeemspeoplewhodonotacknowledgetheHolySpiritofChristianity tohavenopartinGod’screativity.MoltmannclearlyfeelsthattheSpiritis atworkinallpeople,butideallytheChurch should bemoregreatlyaware oftheSpirit’sworkandsobeattheforefrontoftheactivitywhichtheSpirit enables.For‘[t]heSpiritcallsthemintolife;[...]givesthecommunitythe authorityforitsmission;[...]unites,ordersandpreservesit’.219

Some,suchasRandallBush,haveclaimedthatwhileMoltmannspeaks ofco-creativityhisworkactuallydescribesarelationshipinwhichGodis the‘sole actor’.220 PaulFiddesbelievesthatMoltmannmakesallofcreation’s successfulcontributionstoGod’seschatologicallyorientatedworkexclusively aresultoftheSpirit’stransformationalwork.Thismeansthatcreationmakes norealcontributionofitselfandGodisonlysatisfiedor‘pleasedbyhisown workoftransfiguration’.221 Harviedoesnotexpressthesamecriticism,buthe doesatonepointdescribetherelationshipbetweentheworksoftheSpirit andhumanityinawaythatlendscredencetoBush’sandFiddes’scharge:he saysthat‘theovercomingofviolenceandconflictsmustbeseen,withinthe frameworkofMoltmann’sthought,asaworkoftheSpiritfirstandforemost, andthereforeonlyderivativelyenactedthroughhumanpraxis’.222 However, Moltmann’sdiscussionofcreation’sfreedomdescribesaGodwhoissatisfied byamutuallycooperativerelationshipwheretheSpirit’stransformativework meetsthefreeparticipationofcreation.Infact,hisemphasisonGod’sdesireto createan‘Other’whocanrespondtoGod’slove,andtheparticipationoffered tocreation,presentsastrongercase:Godwouldbeparticularly dissatisfied if

218 TheSource,p.145.

219 CPS,p.294(cf.pp.279,343).

220 Bush, RecentIdeas,p.295,referringtoPaulS.Fiddes, TheCreativeSufferingofGod (Oxford:ClarendonPress,1988),pp.84-85,137;RubemAlves, TheologyofHumanHope, p.66;Hill, Three-PersonedGod,p.173;O’Donnell, TrinityandTemporality,pp.152-53; BrianJ.Walsh,‘TheologyofHopeandtheDoctrineofCreation:AnAppraisalofJürgen Moltmann’, TheEvangelicalQuarterly,59:1(1987),53–76;Dillstone, ModernChurchman, 18:5(1974/5),p.150.

221 Fiddes, TheCreative,p.85,referringto TKG,pp.103-05,116-18.Fiddesalsopoints towardstheproblematicnatureofMoltmann’sparticulartheoryof creatioexnihilo for creation’struecooperationwithGod’swork(p.137).Thisisperhapsalessimportant criticismtoconsidergiventhisthesis’sworkonthatthemeinMoltmann’swritings.

222 Harvie, JürgenMoltmann’sEthics,p.142.

creationweretobeexcludedfromthedivinecreativework.SowhileHarvie maybeabletocategorisehumanity’sactivityasasecondarycontribution,the weightofMoltmann’sthoughtsuggeststhat,forhim,humanitynevertheless playsaninstrumentalandyetfreepartofacommunalproject.

FurtherCriticismsoftheSpirit’sUniversalActivity

TheSpirit’sWorkinallPeopleandPlaces

Moltmann’svisionfortheworkoftheSpiritincreationisonethatembraces allthingsincreation.However,forsomecritics,eventsandsituationsthat are‘bad’challengethisinclusivity.Inherbook, TheHolySpiritintheWorld, KirsteenKimdrawstogethervariouscriticisms,especiallyfromtheCanberra AssemblyoftheWorldCouncilofChurchesin1991.Shereportsthe‘alarm’ fromtheorthodoxrepresentativesaboutcertainpresentationsattheconferencethatwereprone‘toaffirmwithverygreateasethepresenceofthe HolySpiritinmanymovementsanddevelopmentswithoutdiscernment’.223 Moltmann’sowncontributionisnotspecificallynamedatthispoint,butthe contextpointstoKim’sbeliefthathisisincluded.Kimherselfstatesthat Moltmann’spneumatologyis‘aboutaffirmationratherthandiscernment’and askshimtobemoreshrewdandspecificastothemovementsandactionshe putstheSpirit’snameto.224

FarrowisalsostronginhiscritiqueofMoltmann’swishtoconnectthe Spirittolife-givingmovementsintheworld.Hegoessofarastocallthis topicin TheSpiritofLife ‘naïve’:

Howarewetorecognizeordecipherwhat“ministerstolifeandresists itsdestruction”?Surelyanimmanentistpneumatologytellsusnothing atall,auniversalafﬁrmationfartoomuch.Whichmovementsinhuman cultureare“shotthroughbytheSpirit”(democracy?theGermanChristianmovement?gayliberation?)andwhatexactlyistheirspiritualor life-afﬁrmingingredient?225

ThereisevidentlyaworryaboutanyconnectionbetweentheSpirit’sworkand movementsthatcausedamage.Evenwherethecaseisnotsoclearcut,and theconsequencesofagroup’sactionsarenotfullyapparent,thereisawish tonotbeoverlygenerouswithadeclarationoftheHolySpirit’sinﬂuence. Kimrequeststheconsiderationofanotherdynamicoperativehere.She highlightsthatthetheologiansofthePentecostalandcharismatictraditions

223 KirsteenKim, TheHolySpiritintheWorld:aglobalconversation (London:SPCK,2007), p.57.

224 Ibid.,p.64.

225 Farrow,‘InTheEnd’,p.432.

sawinMoltmann’swork‘alackofawarenessthattherearemanyspirits’. Forthemitisquitepossible,notjustthattheHolySpiritisabsentfroma particularmovementintheworld,butthattheremaybeharmfulspiritsat work.Kimalsoclaimsthatthereisbiblicalprecedenceforhaving‘areasof thecreatedworldfromwhichtheSpiritisabsent,oratleastnotpresentin fullness’.226 WhiletheparticularversesKimusestosupportthisclaimdonot convince,themainpointisreasonable:surelynoteverythinginthisworldof humanhistoryandactivityclearlydisplaysthefruitoftheSpirit’swork.

Harviefocusesthisconcerninbringingitdowntoanindividuallevel.He pointsout,quotingMoltmann,that‘Christhasnotpromisedtobepresent amongthe“manofviolence”whoistight-ﬁstedwiththeresourcesavailable tohim’.Withthis‘violent’person,‘thepraxisengagediniscounter-intuitive tothepraxisoftheKingdom’.ForHarviethisequatestoaneedto‘distinguishtheSpirit’spresenceamongthem’.227 Harvie’sphrase‘distinguishthe Spirit’spresence’isadmittedlynotthesameasadeclarationoftheSpirit’s absence.Inaddition,thewidercontextofHarvie’scommentshereincludes discussionaboutmerelya different workoftheHolySpiritinthoseoutsideof aconfessionalfaith,whichpointstohisowninclusiveapproach.However,for Harvie,itseemsthatChristisnotpresentinsome,andhelinksthatpresence totheSpirit’sownpresence.228 Therefore,Harvieappearstosaythatthere maybesituationswheretheSpiritisnotpresent,justashebelievesthereare situationswhereChristisnotpresent.

ThecontextofMoltmann’sphrasehelpstointerprethisownwords.‘Man ofviolence’comesfromasectionofhisworkwhichspeciﬁcallyspeaksof thecommongroundofallpeople,‘richandpoor’,‘powerfulandhelpless’,in theircommonpoverty.Inhisthought,poverty‘extendsfromeconomic,social andphysicalpovertytopsychological,moralandreligiouspoverty’.Because ofthishespeaksofallpeople‘withoutdistinction’asthefocusofJesus’ ‘messianicmission’.229 Thisdispelsanyfearsthathesuggestsanequalityof culpabilityfortherespectivesituationsofrichandpoor,ofthosewhoabuse power,andthosewhoareabused.Thathasneverbeenhisclaim.Rather, hespeakshereofacommonneedwhichtheoppressedandtheoppressor

226 Kim, TheHolySpirit,p.64.Kimrefersto1Sam.16.14,whichisadifﬁcultpassageto interpret(itspeaksofan‘evilspiritfromtheLord’),andPs.51.11,whichonlyspeaksofthe fearoftheSpirit’sdeparture.

227 Harvie, JürgenMoltmann’sEthics,p.83,referringtoMoltmann’sphrasein CPS,p.79 andDeut.15.7.

228 ‘TheSpiritisatworkwhereChristhaspromisedtobepresent’(Harvie, JürgenMoltmann’sEthics,p.69).

229 CPS,pp.78-80.‘Messianicmission’beingMoltmann’stitleforthatsectionofhiswork.

share,andJesus’worktoaddressthisneed.ThisiswhereMoltmanndiffers fromHarvie’sclaimthatChrist,andbyimplicationalsotheSpirit,hasnot promisedtobepresentintheparticularly‘violent’(inviolence’smanyguises) individual.IfGod’sKingdomaimstobring‘freedomtoall’thentheSpirit shouldbeatworkinall.230 ItseemscoherentwithMoltmann’sworktoextend thispremisefromtheindividualtowidermovementsandsituationsinthis world:theSpiritmustbeactiveineveryperson,situation,andmovementin creationifthereistobeanyhopeforitsredemption.Also,itsuggeststhatif thereisanylifeinaperson,situation,ormovement,thenitcomesfromthe Spiritoflife,whodrawscreationintoparticipationwithGod.

Insuchacase,theobserverofasituationcandifferentiatebetweenthe Spirit’sworkand thefruitof thatwork.Thatis,aharmfulsituationdoesnot equatetoanabsenceoftheSpirit’sattemptstobringlifetothatsituation. Moltmann’stheologysuggeststhattheSpiritisatworkbothtofacilitate life-afﬁrming situationsandtobringnewlifeinlife-threatening situations. Therefore,thequestionmovesawayfrom:‘whereistheSpiritatwork?’,and becomes:‘inwhattypeofworkmighttheSpiritbeinvolvedinthissituation?’. TaylorexploresthisdynamicoftheSpirit’sdifferingactivityingoodandbad situations:

TheSpiritofLifeiseveratworkinnature,inhistoryandinhuman living,andwhereverthereisaﬂaggingorcorruptionorself-destruction inGod’shandiwork,heispresenttorenewandenergizeandcreateagain. WheneverfaithintheHolySpiritisstrong,creationandredemptionare seenasonecontinuousprocess.231

BeckalsopointstothisthemeinMoltmann’swork:‘TheSpirit’sroleregarding theoppressorsisas“theSpiritofrighteousnessandjusticewhospeaksin the guiltyconscience ofthepeoplewhocommitviolence”.’232 Thispointstothe Spirit’sworkinthe‘manofviolence’toreachthegoalofnon-violence.

Throughthesenuances,hisworkdoesnotclaimtheSpirit’suniversal activityisauniversalafﬁrmationofeverything.Ratheritisauniversal afﬁrmationoftheSpirit’sworktobringlife,sometimesdespitetheaccidents andsinswithincreation.Moltmann’stheologythusarguescoherentlythat theSpiritispresentineventhemostevilsituationintheworld,forthisis wherelife-givingworkisrequired.ThisbearsasimilaritytoJesus’words: ‘Thosewhoarewellhavenoneedofaphysician,butthosewhoaresick.’233

230 Ibid.,p.79.

231 Taylor, TheGo-Between,p.27.

232 Beck, TheHolySpirit,p.173,quoting SpL,p.142.

233 Matt.9.12(cf.Mark2.17;Luke5.31).

TheNewnessofPentecost

Formany,asoutlinedabove,PentecoststandsoutasanewworkoftheSpirit inhumanityalone,whereasforMoltmannthiseventdoesnotdistinguishitself inthatway.InthelightofhistheologyoftheuniversalworkoftheSpirit sincethebeginningofcreation,andhisinsistencethattheSpiritcomestoall creationatPentecost,someraisethequestionofwhetherhehascompromised Pentecost’suniqueness.Thiscomplaintmustbeconsideredbecausethe theologicalarchitectureshouldcontainacoherentaccountofthehistory oftheSpiritthatafﬁrmsthefullimportanceofthisparticulareventinthe Christiancalendar.OnecriticisDavidMcIlroy,whoperceivesareductionof theimportanceofPentecostbecauseofthisgreatemphasisontheSpirit’s universalwork:‘MoltmannloadssomuchoftheHolySpirit’sworkonto creationthatnothingnewhappensatPentecostotherthanthemanifestation ofthatwhichwasalreadypresent.’234 Thecommentrefersto GodinCreation, pp.68-69,andMcIlroyfollowsitwiththisnote:

TheoneplaceinMoltmann’swritingswhereheappearstoholdtothe classicalunderstandingthat“Adifferentdivinepresenceisrevealedin thehistoryoftheHolySpiritfromthepresencerevealedincreationfrom thebeginning”isintheminorwork ExperiencesofGod[.]235

WhenVanNamKimconsidersMoltmann’sinterpretationof‘allﬂesh’from theJoelandActspassagesalreadyhighlighted,heisabletolinkitbackto theworkoftheSpiritincreationfromthebeginning.Kimmakesnocriticism ofthis,andisabletospeakoftheuniquenessofPentecostinMoltmann’s thoughtatotherpoints.However,theeasewithwhichthelanguageofthe PentecostprophecyislinkedtotheSpirit’sworkthathascontinuedsince originalcreationmaylendweighttoMcIlroy’scriticismthatMoltmanndoes notassignenoughdifferencetotheexperienceofPentecost.236

McIlroyisincorrect,however,toassertthatthisthemeisonlyin ExperiencesofGod.Signiﬁcantly,thegivenquote,withtheoveralldiscussion,is alsotakenupandincludedin TheSpiritofLife,aconsiderablymoremajor work.237 HereMoltmanndemonstratesthatherecognisesthatthehistoryof

234 McIlroy, ATrinitarian,p.31.

235 Ibid.,p.31,n.79,referringto EoG,p.77.

236 VanNamKim,‘AChurchofHope:intheLightoftheEschatologicalEcclesiologyof JürgenMoltmann’(unpublisheddoctoralthesis,UniversitécatholiquedeLouvain,2004), p.277(cf.pp.284,299,374-77).Kimpointsto CPS,p.294,forthenewnessofPentecost.

237 SpL,pp.211-13,althoughthisisnotenoughtoalleviateDouglasFarrow’sconcerns thatthisworklacksa‘substantialdiscussion’ofPentecost(Farrow,‘InTheEnd’,p.431).The chapterMcIlroyquotesfromisalsopublishedas‘TheologyofMysticalExperience’, Scottish JournalofTheology,32:6(1979),501-20.

theSpirit’spresenceincreationisnotstaticbutchangeable.Yetwecanalso seeelsewherethatheconsidersPentecosttobeapivotalmoment.Notably, howevercomprehensivetheSpirit’spresencewasinthebeginningofcreation andinsubsequenthistory,theeventofthecrossandresurrectionbrings somethingwhollynewtotheworldandtheSpiritisthewaybywhichthis ‘power’comestocreation,beginningatPentecost.238 Thisexplainshowheis abletoclaimadifferenceinaworkoftheSpiritinthepeopleofGodafterthis event,inhisafﬁrmationthatthecharismaticcommunityhasitsgifts‘through Pentecost’.239 HealsospeaksofachangeofrolesbetweentheSonandthe SpiritatPentecost.WhereasbeforetheresurrectiontheSonwassentbythe Spirit,nowtheSpiritissentbytheSon.240 Moltmannsimilarlyreferstoa ‘passingofthedivinelordship’fromSontoSpiritatPentecost.241 Allthese meanthatheisabletosaythatPentecostisanewthing.242

MoltmannisobviouslynotunorthodoxindescribingtheSpirit’sextensive workbeforePentecost.TheChristianScriptureswitnesstotheSpirit’sactivity beforethateventintheOldTestamentreferencestothepresenceandwork oftheSpirit.243 KirsteenKimalsopointsoutthatevenintheNewTestament, Pentecostisnotthe‘ﬁrstappearance’oftheSpiritinpeople,asitisearlier mentionedinreferencetoJohntheBaptist.244 InthatcontextMcIlroyis partiallycorrect.ForMoltmann,theworkoftheSpiritseenatPentecost isanothermanifestationoftheSpiritwhoisalreadyatworkthroughout creation.ButMcIlroyiswrongtoimplythatforMoltmannthisissimplya manifestationofthe same work.Itisrathera‘newmovement’.245 Forhim,this workisnewbecausetheSpiritcreatesachangedrelationshipbetweenGod andhumanity:arelationshipthatrecognisesthelife,death,andresurrection ofChrist,becauseitis‘throughthetrinitarianhistoryoftheChrist-eventthat theSpirithas become theSpiritoftherisenChrist’.246 SotheSpiritdoesa newworkandbringstocreationsomethingwhichwasnotpreviouslypresent, namelyanewexperienceofGod’ssavingactionsinChrist.247

238 HP,p.22(1966); GiC,pp.66-67; WJC,p.263; CoG,p.335;‘JesusChrist,theHoly Spirit’,p.250; EiT,pp.108,111-12,147-48,326,331;‘TheHolySpirit’,p.117.

239 IEB,p.163(cf. SpL,p.278).

240 TKG,p.89(cf.Badcock, LightofTruth,p.201).

241 FC,p.76.

242 CPS,p.294; SpL,p.271;‘Shekinah’,p.179;‘JesusChrist,theHolySpirit’,p.250; MiroslavVolf,‘CommunitiesofFaithandRadicalDiscipleship:AnInterviewwithJürgen Moltmann’, TheChristianCentury,100:8(1983),246–49(p.247).

243 Forexample:Gen.1.2;Job33,34;Ps.104;Isa.34.16.

244 Kim, TheHolySpirit,p.10.

245 SpL,p.278.

246 Badcock, LightofTruth,p.201,referringto TKG,pp.122-28.

247 See PP,p.128-29; JCTW,pp.74-75; TheSource,p.16; BP,p.203.

4.4CONTINUOUS LOVE:THE SON

ThissectionproceedstoadiscussionofMoltmann’sviewofChrist’sinvolvementincontinuouscreation.Tobeinvolvedinthewholeofcreation,Christ mustbemorethansimplyLordoftheChurch.ThereforeMoltmannconsiders theretobea‘broadhorizon’tothe‘ruleofChrist’,where‘Christ’ssphereof sovereigntyisthewholecreation,visibleandinvisible’.248 Thisisdifferent tothecompleteruleofChristwhichcomesattheeschaton,butnevertheless Christ‘alreadysharesinGod’sruleovertheworld’,inalimitedyetveryreal sense.249 Thisviewofthe‘cosmicChrist’isimportanttoMoltmannashesees itasoneofthewaystoencouragereconciliationwithnature,anditisusefully takenintheresearchhereaspointingtotheecologicalreformation.250 He alsoconsidersitnecessaryexplicitlytomakethecasefortheinvolvementof thecosmicChristinthewholehistoryofcreation,notjusttheoriginalact ofcreation.InthistaskheseekstoreleaseChrist’srolefromarestrictionhe perceivedtraditionaltheologytohaveplacedonit.251 Hewishestodothisto retainthecohesionofthecreation/redemptionprocess.Thismeansthatthe Sonisinvolvedinthesameprocesseswhichwerepreviouslyconnectedtothe Spirit’sactivity.

Asalreadynoted,thissubjectisdiscussedmorebrieflyherethanthe involvementoftheSpiritbecausethemajorpartofMoltmann’swriting concerningChrist’sactivityincreationisconcernedwiththeeventofthe crossandresurrection,whichsubsequentchapterswillexplore.Forhim, cosmicchristologytakesitsbasisfromthecrossandresurrection,whichhas ‘universalsignificance’and‘touchestheinnermostconstitutionofcreation itself’.252 YethisaccountoftherelationshipofChristwithcreationdoesmake significantpointsthatensureitisanoteworthyelementofhischristology,and assuchgiveshiscontributionstothenewtheologicalarchitecturearounded approach.

TheSonofLife

‘Life’isnotsimplythecentrepointoftheSpirit’sworkincreationforMoltmann.ItistheintentionandgoalforallofGod’swork,asFather,Son,and

248 CJF,p.66; WJC,p.280.

249 ‘JesusChrist,theHolySpirit’,p.250.

250 CJF,p.66.

251 WJC,p.286.

252 Ibid.,pp.281-82.

HolySpirit.Forthisreasonitisnotasurprisetoseehimcommentthat‘the presenceofChristisexperiencedintheSpiritwhoisthegiveroflife’.253 He alsomentionsatitleforChrist,‘thelifeoftheworld’,whichhelinksexplicitly tonatureaswellashumanity.254 AgainliketheSpirit’swork,thelife-giving workofChristincreationappearsinvariousroles.

ThePowerofEvolution

MoltmannreferstoChrist’spartincontinuouscreation‘asthemovingpower intheevolutionofcreation’.255 ThisreﬂectsanaspectoftheSpirit’swork too.However,heisonlyhappytospeakofChrist’sinvolvementinevolution alongsideChrist’ssuffering,death,andredemptivework.256 Thisisbecause evolutionisnotredemptiveinitself.ForMoltmann,theprocessesofevolution requiresredemptioninordertodealwiththeambiguities,faults,andvictims presentintheprocess.257 Inthissense,forhim,Christisthepowerof evolutioninthatheisthepowerthatraiseslivingthingsfromthedeath inherentinthemandredeemsthemtoeternallife.Thisconnectsbacktothe Spirit’sworktobringthepowerofChrist’sresurrectiontocreation.

TheCreatorofFellowship

AnothersigniﬁcantsimilaritybetweenChrist’sandtheSpirit’sworkisthecreationoffellowshipintheworld.EarlyinhiscareerMoltmannstatedthatthe Spiritispresentthroughout all creation,andwhilehealsodescribedChrist’s presencein all creation,thebulkofhisworkconcernsChrist’sfellowshipwith humanityinparticular.Jesus‘gathers’and‘calls’peopletofellowshipwith oneanother,afellowshipwhich‘abolishesmankind’saggressivedivisionsand fatalseparations’,andpoints‘tothebanquetofthenations’.258 Interestingly MoltmannspeaksofChrist‘gathering’thecommunityandtheSpirit‘givingit life’.259 Thisdifferentiationinthelanguagetodescribetheirrolesindicates hisownunderstandingofthesubtledifferencesbetweenthoseroles.But nevertheless,manysimilaritiesremain:thecommunitythatChristcreates, likethatmadebytheSpirit’swork,isnotsimplycommunity within creation. Forhumanity,itis‘fellowshipwithChrist’thatis‘aforetasteonearth’offull fellowshipwithGod.260 CommunionwithChristhelpstobringpeopleinto

253 Ibid.,p.41.

254 Ibid.,p.286.

255 Ibid.,p.286.

256 Ibid.,pp.292-301.

257 Ibid.,pp.287,297; JCTW,p.101.

258 CPS,pp.84,115,252,343.

259 Ibid.,p.343.

260 TJ,p.62.

‘thetrinitariansituationofGod’.261 ForMoltmann,thetrinitarianrelationship ofGodwithcreationincludesallthings.Therefore,astheSondrawsnature andhumanityintothatrelationshiphealsodrawsthemtoeachother.Hesays: ‘thebodyofChrististhechurch–thebodyofChrististhewholecosmos’.As ChristianitycentresonChristitincludesthewholecosmosinitsthought.262 Assuch,Christtakespeoplefrom‘ruthlessexploitation’oftheworldto‘caring reconciliation’,a‘community[...]inthecosmosaswellasamongGod’s people’.263

TheEnablerofCo-Creativity

Finally,forMoltmann,ChristalsosharesintheenablingworkofGodin creation.Moltmannstatesthattorecovercommunitywithnatureisto manifestthe‘righteousnessofGod’inhumanity’ssituation.264 Inthisway Christbringshumanity,inthisinstance,tobeco-carersofcreation,co-creators ofthelifeoftheworld.ForMoltmann,theSonshapeshumanitytohavea greaterfellowshipandlife,anddrawspeopleintothatsamework.

SeparatingChrist’sandtheSpirit’sRole

ThereisanobvioussimilaritybetweentheworkoftheSpiritandthework ofChrist.Partofthislinkisthatthecreationoflife,theencouragementof fellowshipandenablementofco-creativityareatthecentreofGod’soverall workincreation.Moltmannhassaidthat‘throughSpiritandWordtheCreator entersintohiscreationanddrivesitforward’.265 AlsotheSpiritisthe‘Spirit ofChrist[...]presentwhereverChristispresent’.266 Forthesereasonsboth SpiritandChristshould,inMoltmann’sthought,beactiveintheirownways, andinpartnership,towardsthesegoals(itis,ofcourse,difﬁculttoenvisage thepossibilityofanypersonoftheTrinityeveractingindependentlyofthat relationship).TheSpirit’sworkisnottheSpirit’sworkalone,norisChrist’s workChrist’sworkalone.MoltmanndescribesChristasbeingpresentbythe Spirit:‘TheHolySpiritisthedivinesubjectofthehistoryofJesus.Forthat reasontheSonofGodisalsopresentinandthroughtheSpiritinhischurch, andbeyonditisatworkincreation.’267 Thus,Christisatworkthroughthe

261 CrG,p.286.

262 WJC,pp.275-76.

263 Ibid.,pp.306-07.

264 Ibid.,p.312.

265 Ibid.,p.301.

266 SpL,p.9.

267 CPS,p.36.

presenceoftheSpiritincreation.MoltmannalsoremindsusthattheSpirit wasatworkinChristwhenhewasbodilyontheearth.Itisnoteasyto separatetheirroles.268

BalancingChrist’sWorkwiththatoftheCosmicSpirit

GiventhesimilaritybetweenChrist’slife-givingworkandthatoftheSpirit, Moltmannhascomeunderattackfromthosewhoclaimthathedoesnot outlinesufﬁcientlythedistinctionbetweentherolesofChristandtheSpirit. Inparticular,theconcernisthatheneglectsChrist’srole.Bauckhambelieves thatinhisearliertheology,particularlyin TheCruciﬁedGod,itwasChrist whowasthecentreofGod’sinvolvementinhistory.Hesuggeststhatas Moltmann’stheologydevelopedfurtheritbecameincreasinglyfocusedon theSpirit’sinvolvementandasthishasreachedintothewholecosmositis theSpirit‘whotakesthecentrestage’.269 Thiscouldbeasimplechangein theemphasisofhiswork,butSjoerdBontingtakesthisobservationfurther: ‘MoltmanngivestheSpiritanearmonopolyincreation,neglectingtherole oftheLogos.’270 ForBontingtherolethatMoltmanngivestotheSpiritisso universalthatitleaveslittleroomfortheSontoact.Oneproblemwiththis criticismisthatitdoesnotseemtoallowfortheSpiritandtheLogostowork togethercomplementarily.AnemphasisontheSpirit’spartofGod’sworkneed notbea‘monopoly’.AnotherresponsetothiscomplaintisthatMoltmannalso retainstheimageofthecosmicChristthroughouthistheologyanditdoesnot becomeanabsentthemeoncehispneumatologygainsitsfullmomentum.271 Forexample,hestatesthat:‘IfChristisconfessedasthereconcilerandhead ofthewholecosmos,asheisintheEpistletotheColossians,thentheSpirit ispresentwhereverChristispresent’.272 Thiswouldindicatethatthevery reasonthattheSpirithasbecomesuchauniversalpresenceisbecauseofthe CosmicChrist’srelationshipwiththeSpirit.

BauckhamisofcourseawareofMoltmann’stheologyofthecosmicChrist. HerecognisesafﬁrmationoftheworkofChristinthepast,presentandfuture ofcreation:‘LaterMoltmanninterpretsChrist’smediationofcreationas havingthreeaspects:heis(1)thegroundofthecreationofallthings;(2) themovingpowerintheevolutionofcreation;(3)theredeemerofthewhole creationprocess’.273 Thisreinforcesthefactthat,inMoltmann’stheology,

268 ‘JesusChrist,theHolySpirit’,p.250.

269 Bauckham, TheTheology,p.186.

270 SjoerdL.Bonting,‘SpiritandCreation’, Zygon,41:3(2006),713–26(p.720).

271 See GiC,pp.94-95; WJC,pp.152-57,179-83,194,274-312; CoG,pp.250,279.

272 SpL,p.9.

273 Bauckham, TheTheology,p.186,n.1,citing WJC,p.286.SeealsoH.PaulSantmire,‘So

Christisstillatworkinthecreationprocess.

However,whileMoltmann’sworkdoesnotforcetheSpiritintoacentral roletothedetrimentofchristology,theoverlapbetweentherolesofboth remains.H.PaulSantmireisdissatisﬁedwithMoltmann’sapproachandfeels thathehasfailedto‘differentiate’adequatelybetweenthe‘cosmicvocations’ oftheSpiritandChrist.ForSantmire,thisdifferentiationisnecessarytostop whatheseesasatendencyinMoltmann’sworkforthetwo‘ministries’to ‘collapseintoeachother,almostmodalistically’,andunderminethe‘mediation bytheSonandtheSpirit’.274 MediationheremeansGod’sworkincreation throughSonandSpirit,soSantmireexpresseshisconcernthatMoltmannloses thedistinctionbetweentheirformsofpresenceintheworldandthusloses theuniquenessoftheirrespectivework.SantmirebelievesthatMoltmann’s treatmentoftheSonandtheSpiritisvivid,butdoesnotalwayscreatean accountthat‘functionallydifferentiatesthem’.275

However,SantmireisunfairinhisassessmentofMoltmann’stheology ofChristandtheSpiritwhenheclaimsthat‘Moltmannbelievesthatthe twoarenotfundamentallydifferentiatedintheNewTestamentitself’.276 Santmirequotesfrom TheWayofJesusChrist whereMoltmannstatesthatthe ‘NewTestamentwritingsdonotmakeanysystematicdistinction...between WordandSpiritincreation’.277 However,twosentencesearlierinthatwork MoltmanndescribedtheseparateyetcomplementaryrolesofboththeSpirit andtheSoninawaythatalmostperfectlymatchesthedistinctionwhich Santmireseeks.278 ThuswhiletheSpiritandChristarebothsaidtobeatwork, forexample,inevolutionandtheredemptionofcreation,thisdoesnotmean thatthereisnodistinctionbetweentheircomplementaryandintertwined activities.Moltmannhasalsoshownthistobehispatternofthoughtonother occasions:

ThehistoryoftheLogosandthehistoryofGod’sSpiritwereoften seenparalleltooneanotherintheology,andwereevenviewedas interwovenwithoneanother.Butacleardistinctionwasmadebetween

ThatHeMightFillAllThings:ComprehendingtheCosmicLoveofChrist’, Dialog:AJournal ofTheology,42:3(2003),257–78(p.266).

274 Ibid.,p.265.

275 Ibid.,p.265.

276 Ibid.,p.265.

277 Ibid.,p.276,n.63,citing WJC,p.289.

278 Althoughinterestinglytheyreachtheoppositeconclusions:Santmireshowsapreference forChristtouniteandtheSpirittomaintainparticularity,whereasforMoltmanntheWord differentiatesandtheSpiritbindstogether(Santmire,‘SoThatHeMight’,p.265; WJC, p.289).

theincarnationoftheLogosandtheinhabitationoftheSpirit.279

TheSelf-OfferingofChrist

Thereisatleastoneimportanttopicwhichdemonstratesadifferencebetween theSpirit’sandChrist’sroles,namelytheincarnation.Moltmannstates:‘the Sonactuallybecomesman,whiletheSpirit’spresenceismerelyanindwelling’. TheSpiritisnotincarnatelikeChristisand,accordingtoMoltmann,the SpiritdoesnotservelikeChristdoes.280 TheSpiritdoesnotliveamongstthe people‘inperson’.281 IntheincarnationChristoffershimselfintocreation. Thediscussionofthesufferingsofthiseventfollowinthenextchapter,but theoutwardsmovementofChristintocreationandtheself-emptyingofthis actrequiresabriefcommenthere.Thisisespeciallybecauseofthelovethat thisdemonstrates,forMoltmannclaimsthat‘theincarnationoftheSonisthe perfectedself-communicationofthetriuneGodtohisworld’.282 Thispartof Christ’sworkshowsthatGodiswillingtoactasmorethananoutsideforce forgood,andwillgetinvolvedmoreintimatelywithcreation.IntheChrist eventMoltmannalsoseesvariationintherolesofSonandSpirit.

Christ’sUniqueRole

WhiletherolesoftheSpiritandtheSonhavemuchincommoninMoltmann’s work,theyarealsoclearlydistinguishable.Theycannotbecompletelyseparated,norcanonebesaidtobeactivewithouttheother.Nevertheless,eachis engagedinparticularactivitiesastheprimaryactor.TheSonhasuniquely cometoearth‘inperson’whilehealsoworksalongsidetheSpirittobringlife, inallitsfacets,tocreation.

4.5CONCLUSIONS

Thischapterhasseencontributionstothenewtheologicalarchitecturethat signiﬁcantlygrowitsconnectednesswithecologicalreformation.Moltmann

279 GiC,p.102(cf.p.98; BP,p.290; SRA,pp.60,62).

280 TKG,p.212.

281 ‘Shekinah’,p.179.Thisismorethansimplyadifferenceinphysicalpresencefor Moltmann,whogoessofarastowritethatthe‘kingdomoftheSpiritcannotwellbe identiﬁedwiththekingdomoftheSon’(TKG,p.212).Whilethisisavaguestatementitdoes highlightthefactthatMoltmannseekstoretaindifferencebetweentheirwork.

282 TKG,p.116.Thisobviouslyincludesthedeathandresurrectionbutalsospeaksabout morethanthat.

overwhelminglycharacterisestherelationshipwhichGodhaswithcreation asanintimateandlife-givingpresenceandactivity inallcreation.

WithregardstotheSpirit,Moltmann’stheologyhasdevelopedovertime toexpressthattheSpiritis,andalwayshasbeen,presentthroughoutcreation. Thispresenceisaccompaniedbyactivityofvarioussortsineverylivingthing, whichconnectstothethemeofGod’srelationalandlovingcharacter.For Moltmann,Godlovesthewholecreationandsoispresentthroughoutit.Thus itisnotalovefromafarbutaninvolvedlove.Thisuniversalisticapproach stilldiscernsmanyplaces,events,andpeoplethatareinvolvedinactivities whichareatoddswithGod’spurposes.YethestillafﬁrmsthattheSpiritcan bepresentandatworktobringlifeandopposethenegativeelementsthat arepresent.

Alongsidethis,Moltmann’schristologyintheareaofcontinuouscreation mirrorshispneumatologyinsofarasbothareinvolvedinthelifeofcreation. Atthesametime,boththeSonandtheSpirithavetheirownuniqueroles, thoughissuesremainonhowfullythesearemadeclear.Thisuniversalistic approachtotheSon’sworkhasanadditionalfoundationinthecrossand resurrection.ForMoltmann,thisshowsthescopeofChrist’smissionand involvementintheworldwhichencompasses,andhassigniﬁcancefor,all.

Thisstudy,andtheremarksofvariousscholars,alsogeneratesaquestionconcerningthesimplicityofa‘life-giving’theologicalarchitecture.Itis apparentthatlifeinthisworldisinseparablefromdeath.Thequestionof howmuchthiswasGod’sintentionandhowmuchitmighthavebeenthe wayinwhichcreation,initsfreedom,hasdevelopedisnotonewhichthis thesishassoughttoanswer.Forhumanity’spresentsituation,thefactoflife anddeathisagiven,andsothewayinwhichGod,throughtheSpiritand theSon,isatworkintheseprocessestodaycontributestotheexplorationof humanecologicalactions.

ThisworkhasshownthatMoltmannconsidersGodtorelatetocreation insuchawaythatithasfreedom,thatthereisanelementofriskinits ongoinglife,andthatGodlovesitwithalovewhichreﬂectsthatwhichwas demonstratedattheoriginalactofcreation.ThescopeoftheTrinity’sactivity leavesnopartofcreationoutsideofthedivinecare,whileallofcreation isincludedinGod’seschatologicalpurposes.ForMoltmann,thisgivesall ofcreationahighstatus:‘ThisdignityisconferredonthembyGod’slove towards them,Christ’sgivingofhimself for them,andtheindwellingofthe HolySpirit in them.’283

283 WJC,p.307.

TheworkofGodtoenableco-creativitygiveshumanityaresponsibility tomakechoicesthatsharetheTrinity’screativeaims.Inthiswaythedesired ecologicalreformisgivenbothmotivationandassistancebythedivineworks. ThisisconsideredingreaterdetailinChapters7and8.Eventhoughthere maybealackofchoiceintheactionsofnature(suchasfortrees)thisdoes notremovethesignificanceoftheirparticipationinGod’screativeactivity. Consciousornot,thegrowthofthetreeisprocessbywhichthetreeis co-creativewiththeCreatorandhelpsaccomplishthecontinuallifeofthe planet.Thishelpshumanitytomoveawayfromtheideathatplantsand animalsareincapableofimportantactionandonly exist forGodorhumanity’s pleasure,andinsteadmovetowardstheideathatallcreationhassignificance toitsdailyactivitiesfortheoveralllife.Thisisatheologicalsignificance toplacealongsidetheecologicalsignificanceofeachpartofcreationabout whichsciencehasalreadytaught.Thisstrengthensoverallprogresstowards ecologicalreformation.

AsGodsendstheSpiritandtheSonintocreation,forMoltmann,‘Godis inhimselfopentohiscreation,andallowshimselftobedeterminedbyits continuinghistory’.284 TheaccountcontainedwithinMoltmann’stheology, andthusofferedtothetheologicalarchitecture,ofGod’sopennesstobe affectedbycreationaswellasaffectitisthenextfocusofthisstudy.

284 Badcock, LightofTruth,p.197.

Chapter5 God’sOpennesstoCreation

5.1INTRODUCTION

ThischapterconcentratesonMoltmann’sviewofthewayinwhichGod’slove bringscreation into theopentrinitarianrelationshipsandisacounterpartto thepreviouschapter’sdiscussionoftheﬂowofthatlove out tocreation.This opennessisastrengthforatheologicalarchitecturethattakesthenatural worldseriously,andthuscomprisesaweightycomponentofthepleafor ecologicalreformation.

ThefirstpartofthisinvestigationconsiderstherootsofMoltmann’sview oftheTrinity’sopennessandincludestheparticularopennessofboththe SpiritandtheSon.Followingthisisanexplorationofonespecificaspectofthe divineopennesstocreation:suffering.Thiswillbeginwithaconsiderationof Moltmann’sgeneralapproachtodivinepassibilitybeforeadiscussionofGod’s suffering withcreation.Hisviewsonthistopicattractconsiderablecritique fromthewidertheologicalcommunitywhichthischapterwillrelatetohis workwithfurtherreflection.

ThischapterseekstodemonstratethatMoltmannsetsoutacoherent theologyofGod’sopennesstowards,andsufferingwith,creation.Thisin turnbringswithitnotableimplicationsforthestatusofcreation,andforthe importanceofrelationshipswithinit.Throughtheinclusionofnotionsof divineopennessandsuffering,thetheologicalarchitecturegrowsinthevoice itbringstoecologicalconcerns.

5.2THE OPENNESSOF GODTO CREATION

ThefoundationofGod’sopennesstowardscreationis,forMoltmann,the witnessoftheChristianScriptures;theyare‘thetestimonytothehistoryofthe Trinity’srelationsoffellowship,whichareopen’.1 ThisaspectofMoltmann’s theologystemsfromtheopennessoftheTrinitytotheworld.Healsogives specialattentiontotheparticularopennessoftheSpiritandtheSonintheir distinctrelationshipswithcreation.

TheOpennessoftheTrinity

OpennessofRelationships

ForMoltmann,theTrinity’sopennessisintrinsicallyconnectedtoitsinnerrelationships.Firstly,heconsiderstherelationshipwithcreationtodemonstrate similarprinciplestothosepresentinGod’strinitarianrelationships.Secondly, forhim,GodcanbeopentocreationbecausetheTrinity’sunityisthrough relationships.

WithregardstothewayinwhichGod’souterrelationshipsmirrorthe innerrelationships,Moltmannwrites:‘ThehistoryofGod’strinitarianrelationshipsoffellowshipcorrespondstotheeternalperichoresisoftheTrinity.’2 Hehadpreviouslymovedinthisdirection:‘wemustbecarefulnottopicture theTrinityasaclosedcircleofperfectexistenceinheaven’,rathertheTrinity’s relationshipswithcreationareperichoreticandthereforeopen.3 Moltmann describesa‘livingqualityofGod’srelationshiptotheworld’.4 Thisliving qualityisthusonethatMoltmann’sworkcanlendtothenewtheological architecture.

OnthesubjectofGod’sopennesstocreationonaccountoftheTrinity’s relationalunity,Moltmannbelievesthatifdivineunitywasfoundsolelyin substanceorsubjectthenthatwouldpreventopennesstootherswhoarenot ofthesamesubstanceorsubject.5 Sohesetsouthispremise:‘theunityofthe

1 TKG,p.19(cf.p.64).

2 Ibid.,p.157.

3 ‘The"CruciﬁedGod"’,p.298(cf. CPS,pp.55-56).

4 CPS,p.52.

5 Cf. TKG,pp.149-50,alsoWilliamP.Alston,‘SubstanceandtheTrinity’,in TheTrinity: AnInterdisciplinarySymposiumontheTrinity,ed.byStephenT.Davis,DanielKendallSJand GeraldO’CollinsSJ(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1999),pp.179–201(p.197).Inthis wayMoltmannalsoshowsdisagreementwithJohnMcIntyre’ssuggestionthatGod’sinner relationshipsarebasedonaunityofsubstanceandthatcreation’srelationshipwithGod cannot,therefore,reﬂectthedivineunity(citedinDeane-Drummond, Ecology,p.111).

triuneGodisnottobefoundsolelyinthesingledivine substance,ormerelyin theidenticaldivine subject;itconsistsaboveallintheunique community ofthe threePersons’.6 ThroughthelocationofGod’sunityprimarilyinrelationships, Moltmannprovideswhathebelievestobeasuitablefoundationforopenness tothedifferent‘Other’.7

OpennesstotheWorld

Whatdoesthis‘Other’include?SomeofMoltmann’searlyworkseemsto restricttrinitarianopennesstohumanityalone.8 Soon,however,heexplicitly andunmistakeablyincludesallofcreation,aboveandbeyondhumanity.He speaksofGod’sopennesstocreation’shistory,9 time,10 theworld,11 andallof creation.12 Theresultofthisis,asBauckhamconcludes:

ThetrinitarianhistoryofGod’srelationshipwiththeworldisthusareal historyforGodaswellasfortheworld:itisthehistoryinwhichGod includestheworldwithinhisowntrinitarianrelationships.13

Inaddition,thelanguageofGod’sopennessisnotrestrictedtotheinclusion ofcreation in God;MoltmannalsosaysthattheTrinity’sopennessleadsGod togo out tocreation.Thisisconnectedtothepreviouschapter’sdiscussionof God’slovinginvolvementincreation,whichidentiﬁedtheSpiritandChristat workincreation.Thedifferencein this discussionisthatitdebatesnotsimply thewayinwhichChristandtheSpiritareatwork,butthewayinwhichtheir presenceincreationcontributestotheTrinity’sopenness.ForMoltmann,for theFathertosendChristandtheSpiritrevealstheeternalopennessofthe Trinity.14

ThissendingisalsoakeytotheprocessofGod’sinclusionofcreation inthedivineself.Itisnotthatunknownandmysteriousforcesdrawor compelcreationintoGod,butratherthatGod’sactivity gathers creation. Therefore,forMoltmann,trinitarianopennessincontinuouscreationtakes

6 ‘TheFellowship’,p.289.Hefollowsthisbyemphasisingthepointthatsubstanceand subjectarestillelementsofGod’sunity.

7 SeeChapter2ofthiswork,p.17.

8 Suchas:‘opentothefutureforallofforsakenhumanity’(‘The"CruciﬁedGod"’,p.298). However,eventhisisdebatableastowhetherhesimplyreferstothehumanpartofamore universalopenness.Thisisbecausehefollowsthepreviousstatementwith:‘thatis,they pointtowardanewcreationofallthings’.

9 FC,p.75.

10 CPS,p.56; SpL,p.294.

11 CPS,p.56; FC,p.85; TKG,pp.19,64; SpL,p.294.

12 CPS,pp.55,60,62; TKG,pp.90,96.

13 Bauckham, TheTheology,p.15.

14 CPS,p.56; FC,p.85.

placeprimarilythroughtheSonandtheSpirit.ItisGod’s‘seekinglove’, and‘byenteringinto[history]throughhissendingoftheSonandtheSpirit’ Godexperiencesthewholeofhistory.15 ForMoltmann,thecrossofChristis indispensableforGod’sexperienceofhistory:‘themostconcisestatement ofthetrinityisGod’sworkonthecross,inwhichtheFatherletstheSonbe sacriﬁcedthroughtheSpirit’.16 Moltmann’sdiscussionofGod’sopennessto creation,however,progressesbeyondthisevent,asshownbelow.

AccusationsofPantheism

Moltmanndoesincludeacaveatwhenunderstandingtheworldasbeing in God.Thereisaneedto‘distinguishbetweentheoneindwellingand theother’because‘theydonottakeplaceonthesamelevel.[...]God’s indwellingintheworldisdivineinkind;theworld’sindwellinginGodis worldlyinkind’.17 Whilethisdoesnotspecifythedifferenceexactlyitdoesat leastdemonstrateitspresence,andsignalthatMoltmann’sthoughthereisa reﬁnedanddeliberatebalanceofideas.

DifferentiationisanimportantseparatorofMoltmann’stheologyfrom pantheisttheologies.Inhisuseoftheterm perichoresis (mutualindwelling)tospeakofGodandcreation’srelationship,Moltmannhasattracted theaccusationthathecomes‘closetopantheism’,asalreadynotedbutnot concededbyBauckham.18 AlthoughBauckhamgivesnoreferencestothese criticisms,therearesimilaraccusationselsewhere:JohnMcIntyrequestions whetheramutuallyopen,perichoreticrelationshipbetweenGodandcreationisacceptable,becauseitconfusesthetwoanddoesnotleaveenough difference.

19 Similarly,ThomasMcCallarguesthatMoltmann’suseof‘perichoresis’todescribeintra-divineanddivine-worldrelationshipsrequiresthat thesamewordmeanstwodifferentthingsandintroducesconfusiontohis arguments.20 MatthewBonzoalsobelievesthatMoltmanntriestomixdivine perichoreticrelationships,whicharebasedonfundamentallikeness,withthe Divine/creationrelationship,whichisbasedonotherness.Therefore:‘The verydifferencethatallowsGodtostandoveragainstthe creatiooriginalis is calledintoquestionbythecalltocreationtogiveitselffreelyandtotallyover

15 FC,pp.92-93.

16 ‘The"CruciﬁedGod"’,p.291,quotingBernhardSteffen(cf. CrG,p.264; SpL,p.294).

17 GiC,p.150.

18 RichardBauckham,‘JürgenMoltmann’,in TheModernTheologians:AnIntroduction toChristianTheologysince1918,ed.byDavidF.Ford,3rdedn(Oxford:Blackwell,2005), pp.147–62(p.160).

19 CitedinDeane-Drummond, Ecology,p.198.

20 McCall, WhichTrinity?,pp.157,172.

tothedivinecommunity.’21

Others,however,respondtothesecriticismswiththeclaimthatMoltmann’sthinkingis‘trinitarianpanentheism’.Thisdescribesarelationshipof differentiationwhichhelps‘todistinguishbetweenGodandcreationwithout separatingGodfromcreation’,andsoavoidsthechargeofpantheismwhileit alsoallowsforboththeimmanenceandtranscendenceofGod.22 TheconfusionwhichMoltmann’suseofthesamewordtodescriberelationshipswith differentdynamicsofalikenesscreatesisunfortunatebutnotinsurmountable.

EqualOpennesstoNatureandHumanity

Moltmann’senthusiasticsupportforGod’sopennesstoallcreationleads Deane-Drummondtocriticisehimforinsufficientdistinctionbetweenthe divineloveforhumanityandthatfortherestofcreation.Inorderbest tounderstandtherelationshipwithnaturerequiredofhumanity,sheis concernedtounderstandthenatureoftherelationshipbetweenGodand nature,whichshebelievesisdifferentfromtherelationshipbetweenGodand humanity.23 Itseems,however,thatMoltmann’sintentionisnottoseekout ordefinethedifferentiationbetweenGod’slovefornatureandforhumanity. RatherhetriestoensurethathistheologygivessufficientweighttoGod’slove forallcreation.Anynuanceddifferencesintheopennessoftherelationships certainlymakesnodifference,forhim,totheexistenceofGod’sdeeplovefor allcreation.

OpennessthroughtheSpirit

AFellowshipMarkedbyReciprocity

ThepreviouschapterdiscussedthewayinwhichtheSpiritcreatescommunity increation,andbringsnatureandhumanityintorelationshipwithGod.A roundedtheologicalarchitecturerequiresanexplorationofthereciprocityof thisrelationship.Moltmannclaimsthismustbepresentbecause‘[f]ellowship

21 Bonzo, Indwelling,p.126.

22 Bauckham,‘JürgenMoltmann’,p.160;Deane-Drummond, Ecology,pp.120,124.See alsoBouma-Prediger, TheGreening,pp.253-55;StevenBouma-Prediger,‘CreationAsthe HomeofGod’, CalvinTheologicalJournal,32:1(1997),72–90(pp.78-81).HereBoumaPredigeragreesthatthisisMoltmann’saimbutisnotentirelysureMoltmanncompletely succeeds.However,thisislinkedheavilytothedoctrineof zimsum,theinﬂuenceofwhich thisresearchhasalreadyattemptedtosuggestcanbedownplayedinMoltmann’slaterwork (seethiswork,p.42).

23 CeliaDeane-Drummond,‘ACritiqueofJürgenMoltmann’sGreenTheology’, NewBlackfriars,73:865(1992),554–65(p.563).

isnevermerelyunilaterallydetermined’.24 Thereissurelyatendencywithin ChristiantheologytoviewtherelationshipbetweenGodandcreationasone inwhichGodsupplieseverythingcreationneedsandcreationsimplyreceives ingratefully,inaratherone-sidedtransaction.25 Moltmann’sviewofthis relationshipisinsteadmarkedby‘mutuality’.26 Forhim,becausetheSpirit is‘pouredout’,creation‘hasacloserrelationshiptotheCreatorthantheact hastotheactorortheworktothemaster’.27 Thisviewoftherelationship, markedbyreciprocityandmutuality,leadshimtoconcludethattheSpirit ‘allows[those]people[infellowshipwithhim]toexertaninfluenceonhim, justasheexertsaninfluenceonthem’,althoughtheseinfluencesshouldnot beunderstoodasequal.28 ThroughtheSpirit’sownpresenceineverypartof creation,thereisanopennesstoexperiencingthewholesweepofcreation’s history.29 AsthelifeoftheworldbecomesGod’sexperience,theimportance ofanecologicalreformationtopromoteandprotectthislifegrowsclearerin Moltmann.

DrawingCreationintoGod

ForMoltmannthereexistsmorethanmerelyanopennesstotheHolySpirit’s ownrelationshipwithcreation,sincethereisalsotheworkoftheSpiritto drawincreationsothatit‘acquiresashareintheinnerlifeoftheTrinityitself’ andisenabled‘toparticipateinGod’seternallife’.30 Moltmannspeaksofthe SpiritasthepowerbehindtheunityofGodandcreation,whichisultimately completedonlyinthefuture,butisataskthatcontinuesinthepresent.31 By ‘unity’hereferstomorethanmerelyadrawingtogetherofcreationandGod next toeachother.Asinhistrinitarianthought,theunitybroughtaboutby theSpiritisa‘perichoreticrelationship’,inwhich‘God[is] in theworldand theworld[is] in God’.32 Heusessuchphrasesas‘anorganiccohesion’and ‘interpenetration’todescribetherelationshipwhichtheSpiritbringsbetween Godandcreation.33 Thisbondallowscreationto‘exertaninﬂuence’over

24 SpL,p.218.

25 Asimplisticstatement,butoneinpartdemonstratedbyopinionsbelowthatcreation cannotaffectGod.

26 GiC,p.14; SpL,p.218.

27 TKG,p.113(cf. EoG,p.77).

28 SpL,p.218.

29 GiC,p.206.

30 TKG,p.113(cf. EoG,p.77); GiC,p.97.

31 FC,p.91; CPS,p.60; TKG,p.126.

32 GiC,pp.17,206,258.

33 SpL,p.285.

thewholeTrinity,notjustovertheSpirit.34 ItisastheSpiritdrawscreation intoGodthattheworldisunitedwithChristandhishistory,ahistorythat includesthecross.35

OpennessthroughtheSon

BeforecommencingtheexplorationoftheopennessofGodtocreation throughtheSon,itisnecessarytonotethatMoltmanndoesnottrytogive theSonandtheSpirit separate roles,althoughhedoesseektodiscerntheir distinct rolesinhistory:‘ForthroughtheHolySpiritthehistoryofChristwith GodandthehistoryofGodwithChristbecomesthehistoryofGodwithus andhenceourhistorywithGod.’36 TheopennesssharedwithintheTrinity onlybecomescompleteopennesswithallcreationthroughtheworkofthe Son and theSpirit.

MoltmannprimarilydescribesChrist’sopennesstotheworldthroughthe incarnation.WhileChrist’ssigniﬁcanceforhumanityinparticularhas,somewhatunderstandably,dominatedchristologydebates,Moltmannconsiders thatChristexperiencesthelifeofthewholeofcreation.Thisdemonstrates theSon’sopennessashe‘hasdealingswithit’and‘embracesit’.37 From Christ’swholelifeonearth,however,itisthecrossthatheconsiderstobe God’sfullestexpressionofopennesstotheworld.

TheCross

Moltmannspeaksofthe‘God-relationship[being]ﬁrstopenedup’intheevent ofthecross,becauseitisthiseventwhich‘createstheconditionsnecessary’ foranopenrelationship,orcommunion,toexist.38 Theseconditionsare createdintwomainways.Firstly,as‘GodwasinChrist’sotheTrinityis opentoanyrelationshipsthatChristhas.39 Itisthusthroughfellowshipwith Christthatcreationisdrawnintothetrinitariancommunity.Throughthe ‘brotherhood’whichpeoplehavewiththeSontheycanenterthetrinitarian relationships,andtheFatherbecomestheFatherofmany.40 Thislanguage isheavilyanthropocentric(andandrocentric),theresultofamixtureof thecontextandthedateofthesewritings,yetthelinkbetweenChrist’s

34 GiC,p.258.

35 FC,p.82; CPS,p.28.

36 FC,p.82.

37 ExH,p.79(cf. TKG,p.116).

38 ExH,p.78; CrG,p.285.

39 CrG,pp.285-86.

40 TKG,p.122.

relationshipsandthegeneraltrinitarianrelationshipsremainsconstantas Moltmann’sexplicitintentiontoincludeallofcreationgrows.

Thesecondwayhedescribesthecreationofanewrelationshipisless concernedwiththeunityof‘GodinChrist’thanwiththeseparationofthe cross:the‘Trinitarianself-distinctionofGodinthedeathoftheSononthe crossissodeepandsobroadthatallthoselostandabandonedwillﬁnd aplaceinGod’.41 TheTrinity‘throwsitselfopen,asitwere’sothatthe relationshipsformedbyChristcanbeincluded.42 ThereforeGod’sopenness isinabandonmentaswellasinbrotherhood.

TheCross:ChangingRealityandRevealingEternity

ThroughoutMoltmann’sworkheappearstodescribetrinitarianopennessin thecrossintwodivergentways:asanewopennesswhichstemsfromthe cross,andasaneternalopennessshownatthecross.Isthisopennessnewor eternal?Alternatively,doesthisparticularcontributiontothenewtheological architecturedescribeachangeinGod?

OntheonehandMoltmannspeaksofanewrealityofGod’sopenness whichistheresultofthecross:‘InthegivingupofChristonGolgothaGodis [...]openeduptotheexperienceofhistory.’43 Heelsewherestatesthatin thecross‘allbeingandallthatannihilateshasalreadybeentakenupinGod’ andthat‘thewholeofman’srealityisacceptedbyGodinthecross’.44 These sentencesseemtoimplythattheTrinitywasnotopentotheexperienceof historybeforethecross.Statementssuchas‘norelationshipofimmediacy betweenGodandmanisconceivablewhichisseparatedfrom[Christ]and hishistory’contributetothisconclusion.45

Ontheotherhand,however,Moltmannsometimescommentsthatthe crossreveals,ratherthancreates,arealityofopenness,asinthisstatement:

God’sessenceisfrometernityalovewhichis[...]readytosacriﬁce andgiveitselfup.[...]TherewasacrossintheheartofGodbefore thecrosswasraiseduponGolgotha.InthedeathoftheSontheeternal heartoftheTrinitywasrevealed.46

Elsewhereheputsthesameideaalittledifferently:‘God’sopennessforthe

41 Lapideetal., JewishMonotheism,p.53.Itisinterestingthattheself-distinctionofGod onthecross,whichhasbeencriticisedforintroducingtoomuchseparationintoGod,isalso hereusedastheprocessthatunitesallpeople.

42 TKG,pp.121-22.

43 Lapideetal., JewishMonotheism,p.54.

44 CrG,p.287; HP,p.106(thischapter(IV)isoriginallyfrom1960).

45 CrG,p.285.

46 Lapideetal., JewishMonotheism,p.54.

worldisrevealedinthesufferinganddeathofChrist.’47 Thesestatements implythattheopennesswasalreadypresentandthatthecrossdemonstrated it.ThissupposesthatGodwasalwaysopenandthatthecrosswastheresult oftheopennessasopposedtotheoriginatorofit.

ThisapparentcontradictioninMoltmann’swritingcanbeexplainedifit isseenasanattempttocomprehendboththeuniquenessofthiseventand theeternalloveandopennessoftheTrinity.Tothisendhemustspeakbothof thecrossastherevelationofGod’s ever-presentopenness towardscreation and ofGod’s newexperience ofthecrossandtheparticulareffectofthisspeciﬁc eventoncreation.Therefore,ontheonehandthereistheTrinity’seternal opennesswhichconstantlyexperiencesandinteractswithcreation’shistory, andontheother,adecisiveactatthecrosstoincludeandaffectcreation inadistinctway.ThissecondeventofopennessisanexpressionofGod’s eternalopenness,yetitchangescreationinawaythatisdifferenttoGod’s widerinvolvementincreation.WhiletheTrinity’sopennessiseternal,the incarnationintroducessomething‘new’forGodandcreation.48 Through thesecontributions,thetheologicalarchitectureoutlines,toacertainextent, aﬂuidrelationshipbetweenthetwo.

ProcessConcerns

Moltmann’sworkhereleadshimtotheconclusionthatGodisopentothe historyofcreationandassumestheexperiencesofcreation,especiallyasis sopowerfullydemonstratedonthecross.Thecriticaldiscussionconcerning thisareaofhisthoughtisvast.Itincludesconcernsaboutthewayinwhich hehandlestheconceptsoftheimmanentandeconomicTrinity,49 whetherhe haseternalisedGod’sexperiencesoftemporalhistory,50 madecreation’shope vulnerable,51 orthreatenedGod’sperfection.52 Todiscussalltheabovewould surpassthespaceavailabletothisproject,andnoneofthesedifﬁcultiesare fataltoMoltmann’sproposalofGod’sopennessandsufferingwithcreation.In

47 ‘CreationandRedemption’,p.128(cf. FC,p.124).

48 FC,pp.93,123-24.

49 Farrow,‘InTheEnd’,p.436;JeremyThomsonLaw,‘TheFutureofJesusChrist:AConstructiveAnalysisoftheDevelopmentoftheEschatologicalStructureofJürgenMoltmann’s Theology:1964-1996’(unpublisheddoctoralthesis,UniversityofOxford,1998),p.325-27.

50 RichardBauckham, Moltmann:MessianicTheologyintheMaking (Basingstoke:Marshall, Morgan&Scott,1987),p.109;Law, TheFuture,pp.333-34;RowanWilliams, OnChristian Theology (Oxford:Blackwell,2000),pp.160-61;Chester, Mission,p.48;Bonzo, Indwelling, p.81.

51 Law, TheFuture,p.335.

52 Chester, Mission,p.49.

ordertokeepthefocusonthethesis’stheme,thisdiscussionwilladdressonly thefearthathistheoryofGod’sopennesstocreationisactuallydetrimental totheTrinity,andtherelationshipwithcreation,throughGod’sentanglement intheprocessofcreation.

Ingeneral,somehaveaskedwhetherMoltmannhasshiftedintothe categoryofprocesstheologian.53 Butheisalsoswiftlydefendedagainst thischarge.Forexample,Deane-Drummondtakessometimetocontrasthis conclusionswiththoseofprocesstheology:‘hisinsistencethatGodcreated theworld exnihilo,andthatthefutureofcreationemergesfromGod’sfuture ratherthancreationitself,distinguisheshisviewfromprocessthought’.54 AgainMoltmann’strinitarianemphasishelpssethimapartasthis‘isaclear departurefromprocesstheologywhichresistsaTrinitarianconceptofGod altogether’.55 Hewouldalsoinsistthatthistrinitarianismincorporatesthe transcendenceofGodinsuchawaythatitalleviatesthechargeofprocess theology.56

GodinProcess?

RegardlessofMoltmann’scleardifferencesfromprocesstheology,forsome criticshestillremainstooclosetoit.Thistooisanextensivedebateinwhich therearemanyavenuesofdiscussion,soonlyaselectionofkeypointswith somefurtheranalysisispossible.

Tobegin,forexample,JeremyLawisconcernedaboutwhetherMoltmann hasmadeGodpartofacommonprocesswithcreation.57 Morespeciﬁcally, manyfearthathehassettheTrinity’sinvolvementwiththecreationandits historyatsuchahighlevelthatGodisa‘productofhistory,or‘dissolved intohistory’.58 Inaddition,God’sfreedomandsovereigntyaresaidtobe compromised,withtheassociatedsuspicionthat,inMoltmann’swork,Godis dependentoncreationanditshistory(withalltheassociatedevils)forwho

53 Theseconcernsarenotedthoughnotnecessarilysharedby:RogerOlson,‘Trinityand Eschatology:TheHistoricalBeingofGodinJürgenMoltmannandWolfhartPannenberg’, ScottishJournalofTheology,36:2(1983),213–27(p.222);Farrow,‘InTheEnd’,p.427; Neal, TheologyAsHope,p.119,n.137(Nealalsopointstodiscussionsthatbringoutthe distinctionbetweenMoltmann’spositionandprocesstheology).

54 Deane-Drummond, Ecology,p.297(cf.p,208; GiC,pp.78-79;Bauckham, TheTheology, p.206).

55 Deane-Drummond, Ecology,p.207.

56 CrG,p.264(cf.‘TheCruciﬁedGod’,p.14); SpL,p.227.

57 Forexample:Law, TheFuture,p.321.

58 Olson,‘TrinityandEschatology’,p.221;Bauckham, Moltmann,p.106-09;Badcock, LightofTruth,p.210;StanleyJ.GrenzandJohnR.Franke, BeyondFoundationalism:Shaping TheologyinaPostmodernContext (Louisville,KY:WestminsterJohnKnoxPress,2001),p.191.

theDivinewillbecomeineschatologicalglory.59

Moltmannanticipatestheseaccusationsandmaintainsthatopenness definesGod’srelationshipwithcreationwithoutthe‘dissolutionofGodin worldhistory’.60 Bonzoassertsthatfreedomisstillthecharacterofthisrelationship.61 JoyMcDougallremindsreadersthatinMoltmann’stheology Godis‘thesourceofthecreativefreedomthatempowersthehumancommunity’stransfiguration’anddivinesovereigntyremains.62 Harviealsooffers anunderstandingofMoltmann’sworkthathelpsclarifythisproblem.He emphasisesthat,forMoltmann,Godactivelyshapeshistoryfromwithout aswellaswithin.63 ThiswillalsobeidentifiedinMoltmann’seschatology inthenextchapter:thecomingGodindwellsandtransformscreationwith anticipationsofthefullyconsummateddwellingofGodincreationwhich approaches.

Previouschaptersexaminedthewayinwhich,forMoltmann,theoriginal actofcreationwasoneinwhichGodfreelycreatessomethingotherthan Godoutoflove.Inaddition,intheTrinity’songoingrelationshipwiththe worldthereislovingactivitythroughoutallofcreation.Thecurrentchapter demonstratesthewayinwhichMoltmanndevelopedthisthinkingtothe conclusionthatloveleadstoopenness.Fromhereitwillconsidertheway inwhich,forhim,thisopennessleadstosufferingwhenthis‘lovedOther’is suffering.

ForMoltmann,Godlovescreationandthereforeiswillingtoaccompany it.Thisisnotdependency,nordoesitdescribeadeityatthemercyofa process.Rather,itclaimsthatGoddoesnot‘become’throughcreation’s processes,butthatcreation‘becomes’throughGod’sprocess.TheTrinity maybechangedthrougharelationshipwithcreation,butthisisdependent ontrinitarianloveandopenness.Admittedly,thechangesthemselvescould besaidtobe,inaqualiﬁedsense,dependentoncreation’sexperiencesand

59 GeorgeHunsinger,‘Review:TheTrinityandtheKingdomofGod:TheDoctrineofGod’, TheThomist,47:1(1983),129–39(pp.133,136);Walsh,‘TheologyofHope’,p.73;Gunton, Theologythrough,pp.72-73;Torrance, PersonsInCommunion,pp.310-13;Milleretal., FortressIntroduction,p.122;Molnar, DivineFreedom,p.197-234;BenQuash,‘HansUrsvon Balthasar’,in TheModernTheologians:AnIntroductiontoChristianTheologysince1918,ed. byDavidF.Ford,3rdedn(Oxford:Blackwell,2005),pp.106–32(p.116);Chester, Mission, pp.45-49;JeffreyHensley,‘TrinityandFreedom:AResponsetoMolnar’, ScottishJournalof Theology,61:1(2008),83–95(p.90);Neal, TheologyAsHope,p.119;McIlroy, ATrinitarian, p.35.

60 FC,p.75.

61 Bonzo, Indwelling,p.45.

62 McDougall,‘ReturnofTrinitarianPraxis’,p.195.

63 Harvie, JürgenMoltmann’sEthics,p.116.

actions.However,thisisonlypossiblegiventhehigherrealitythatthisprocess ofchangeisultimatelydependentonGod’slove,grace,faithfulness,andthe freeactofcreation.God’schanges,andhencetrinitarianhistoryandbeing, areinfactdependentonGod.Thereforetheworld,alongwithitshistoryof goodandevil,lifeanddeath,arenotnecessarytoGod’sfutureasifcompelled bysomepowerexternaltoGod.Instead,Moltmann’stheologyisoneinwhich God’sfreelovestandsatthebeginningofallandremainsthedrivingforce ofhistory,bothofGodandcreation.Moltmann’seffortsherealsoensure thatthenewarchitectureisalsofreedofanynotionsofGod’sdependencyon creation.

5.3THE CASEFOR DIVINE SUFFERING

ForMoltmann,therelationshipwhichGodhaswithcreationisthoroughly trinitarian.Whilehehimselfrecognisestheinadequacyofthefollowing statement,hehasbroadlydescribedGod’sroleas‘transcendentasFather, immanentasSonandopen[ing]upthefutureofhistoryastheSpirit’.64 Asthisprojecthasdiscussedeachelementinthatstatement,noanalysisis necessaryhere.MoltmannhassetoutthetrinitarianinvolvementofGod inhistoryfromanearlystage.Furthermore,forhim,God’sinvolvementin thehistoryofallcreationmeansthatitshistorybecomesGod’shistoryalso. Thereforecreation’ssufferingbecomesGod’ssuffering.65 Thisrevealstohim thedepthofGod’sloveforcreation.

TheissueofwhetherornotGodsuffers,andifsothemannerofthatsuffering,isaparticularlycontentioussubject.Thereforethefollowinganalysis willproceedcarefully.Itbeginswithanoutlineoftheexactwayinwhich Moltmannjustiﬁeshisversionofdivinepassibilityandbydrawingoutthe variousstrandsofdivinesufferinginhiswork.InMoltmann’stheologydivine sufferingcannotbedescribedassimplyanabstractphilosophicalconcept;for him,wecan‘onlytalkaboutGod’ssufferingintrinitarianterms’.66

64 CrG,pp.264-65.

65 Ibid.,pp.264-65.ThisisincontrasttoDeane-Drummond’sreadingthatitisin Godin Creation thatMoltmannintroducesthistheme(Deane-Drummond, Ecology,p.209).

66 TKG,p.25.

OpennessandSuffering

TheopennessofGodtotheworldwhichstemsfromtheperichoreticrelationshipsoftheTrinity,isforMoltmannthe‘seekingloveofGod’as‘hislove seeksoutthebelovedbeingshehascreated’.67 ItisMoltmann’sargument thatthisloveandvulnerabilitymovestheTrinitytosuffer.Loveleadsto sympathy,whichisopenness,andthereforesufferswhenitmeetssuffering.68 Inhiswords:‘Godtakesmansoseriouslythathesuffersundertheactionsof manandcanbeinjuredbythem’,andGod‘sufferswithhisforsakencreation becausehelovesit.’69 Loveisthesolereasonforsuffering.70 Thiscontribution tothenewtheologicalarchitecturepointstoahumanloveforcreationthatis alsoauthenticenoughtoinvolvesuffering.

InMoltmann’searlierworkstheoriginalactofcreationpointstoGod’s suffering:

Thecreationoftheworldisthereforenotmerely‘anactofGodoutwardly’[...]itisatthesametime‘anactofGodinwardly’,which meansthatitissomethingthatGodsuffersandendures.ForGod,creationmeansself-limitation,thewithdrawalofhimself,thatistosay self-humiliation.Creativeloveisalwayssufferingloveaswell.71

Yetevenwithoutanemphasisonthedivineself-withdrawalincreation,God’s ‘resolve tocreate alsomeansaresolve tosave’.72 Trinitarianlovemeansthat Godisready‘toendurethecontradictionsofthebeingshehascreated’,for ‘God’sbeingisinsufferingandthesufferingisinGod’sbeingitself,because Godislove’.73 Godhasapassionforcreation’speace.74 Godisreadytoredeem throughsufferingand‘self-humiliation’.75 ThereforetheTrinity’scapacityfor sufferingisthefoundationforitscreativework,throughwhichitmaintains andrepairs‘breached’communication,‘open[s]up’closedsystems,brings liberation,andgivespossibilitiesforlife(includingevolution).Thiscreative powerisseenthroughthepowerofGod’ssufferingtosustaincreation.76

So,forMoltmann,theTrinity’ssufferingisbounduptogetherwith

67 SpL,p.299.

68 CrG,p.281; TKG,p.56.

69 CrG,p.280; FC,p.98.

70 HP,p.148(61).

71 TKG,p.59.

72 GiC,p.90.SeeChapter3ofthiswork,p.36,forMoltmann’sdevelopmentofGod’s self-withdrawalinoriginalcreation.

73 GiC,p.15; CrG,p.234.

74 PP,p.102.

75 GiC,p.90.

76 Ibid.,pp.210-11(cf. TKG,p.60;‘TheScope’,p.103).

creationsincethebeginningofcreation,whichmeansGodseeks‘deliverance fromthesufferingsofhislove’.77 Thissuggeststhatthefocusshiftstothe ‘self-deliverance’ofGod.Moltmann,however,rejectsthatideaandinstead preferstoviewGodandcreation’sdeliveranceasa‘mutualhappening’.78 The Trinity’sstrugglethereforeremainsfocusedoncreationanditssuffering.

ForMoltmann,redemptionandfreedom‘canonlybemadepossible bysufferinglove’.AsGod‘desiresfreefellowshipwiththeworldandfree responseintheworld’,sufferingistheinescapableconsequenceofsucha creativelove.79 Suchanimmediatelinkbetweenloveandsufferingneedsto avoidtheimplicationthatlovecan never existwithoutsuffering.However, thestatementbelowdoesnotcontributetothedevelopmentofnuanced understanding:

ThelovewithwhichGodcreativelyandsufferinglylovestheworldisno differentfromthelovehehimselfisineternity.Andconversely,creative andsufferinglovehasalwaysbeenapartofhislove’seternalnature.80

ItishardtoacceptthatsufferinghasbeenaneternalpartoftheTrinity beforeallcreation.DonaldMacleodconcursatthispoint.Hebelievesthat MoltmannmakesGod’ssufferinginevitable,almostnormal,andthathe neglectsitsanomalouscharacter.HestressesthatwithoutsinGodwould notsuffer,andthatsinisadisruption,an‘anomia’.Macleodimpliesthathe wouldrequireMoltmanntoemphasisethatsuffering shouldnot bepartof God’snature.81

MoltmanndoesnotactuallydiscussthesufferingoftheTrinityoutside thecontextoftherelationshipwithcreation,butoccasionallyhiswordsdo seemtogroup all lovetogetherwithsuffering.ThiscouldimplythatGod didsufferoutsideofthisrelationshipwithcreationanditsevils.Different emphasesinhislanguage,however,canbringbalancetothediscussion.For example,elsewhereMoltmannofferstheoptionofviewingGod’seternal loveas‘capable’ofsufferingandsacriﬁcealthoughnotnecessarily actually suffering.82 ThismakesmoresenseofGod’seternalexistence.Another

77 TKG,p.60(cf. CoG,p.305).

78 ‘Shekinah’,p.175.

79 TKG,p.60(cf. PP,p.101;‘TheScope’,p.103).

80 TKG,p.59.

81 DonaldMacleod,‘TheChristologyofJürgenMoltmann’, Themelios,24:2(1999),35–47 (p.43).MacleodalsoclaimsthatGodisimpassibleuntilsincomesintoexistence,atwhich pointGodbecomespassibleandinvolvedinpainandsuffering.Thisisnotthebestwayto usethewords‘impassible’and‘passible’.Theyarebetterusedtoindicatetheontological capabilityforsuffering.

82 Lapideetal., JewishMonotheism,p.54(cf.‘theCreator’sopennessforredeeming

argumentagainsttheTrinity’seternalsufferingisthesenseinwhichMoltmann commentsthatGodchosetosuffer,‘thevoluntarylayingoneselfopento anotherandallowingoneselftobeintimatelyaffectedbyhim’.83 Goddesires tosufferbecauseoflove,andthissufferingﬂowsoutoftherelationshipGod haswithcreation.84 SoitisthatMoltmanncanwriteof‘God’sself-subjection tosuffering’.85 Thisimpliesthattherewasastateofnot-sufferingbeforethat self-subjection.

Inthisway,Moltmannaddsaqualiﬁcation:itisonlywhenthereislove forasufferingandunlovingcreationthatloveinevitablybringssufferingto God.Macleod’spointdoeshowevershowthatMoltmanncouldemphasise morethatGod’sloveforcreationisagraciousgiftandleanawayfrom languagethat,atleasttosome,makesGod’ssufferingsoundlikesimplya logicalnecessity.

Ontheotherhand,Moltmann’stalkofGod’s‘self-subjection’and‘voluntarylayingoneselfopen’hasbroughtcriticismsfromanotherangle.Forsome, hehasmadeGod’sexperienceofsufferingtoocontrolledandnotsubjectto risk,unlikecreation’sexperienceofsuffering.Fiddesisconcernedabouttheologiesthatexpress‘semi-passibility’.InFiddes’swords,thesearetheologiesin whichGod‘voluntarilychangesthedivineselfinresponsetothesufferingin theworld’.FiddesimpliesthatMoltmannﬁtsintothiscategoryandpoints tohisphrasethatthissufferingis‘God’ssupremeworkonGodhimself’.86 It isunfair,however,toputMoltmanninthiscategoryforthisphrasedoesnot refertoeachinstanceofsufferingwhichGodendures.Ratheritseemscloser tohisoverallworktocommentthat‘God’ssupremeworkonGodhimself’ indicatesthattheTrinitybroughtitselfintoalovingrelationshipinwhich sufferingwouldoccur.Discussionhasalreadyoutlinedthewayinwhich,for Moltmann,God’sfreedomdoesnotequatetothefreedom not tolovethe world.Accordingly,iflovebringssufferingasaresponse,andlovecannot bedenied,thenGod’sfreedomdoesnotstretchtofreedomoverinstances ofsuffering.Therefore,inhiswork,God’s suffering isnotbestdescribedas voluntary.AbetterdescriptionwouldbethatGod’s relationship withcreation, whichismarkedbysuffering,wasenteredintofreely.Theresultisthatnow Godisheldinsufferingthroughthatselfsameloveandfaithfulness.While sufferingandhisreadinessforhisownself-humiliation’, GiC,p.90.

83 TKG,p.23.

84 CPS,p.160; ExH,pp.75-76.

85 TKG,p.60.

86 PaulS.Fiddes, ParticipatinginGod:APastoralDoctrineoftheTrinity (London:Darton, LongmanandTodd,2000),p.174; TKG,p.99.

thisisdistinctfromtheinvoluntarysufferingofthecreaturethatneverchose therelationshipsthatharmthem,itisstillalongwayfromthe‘voluntary change’,andGod‘mak[ing]Godsuffer’,whichFiddesisworriedabout.

AnothercriticismofMoltmann’sgeneralviewofGod’ssufferingcomes fromBonzowhoquestionswhetherthatsufferingis‘real’orwhetherthereis anyrisktoopennesstocreation.Thisisbecausehebelieves,forMoltmann, thatthereisa‘fail-safe’inGod’sownredemptiveactionsthatmakessuffering onlytemporary.ForBonzo,creation’ssufferingisdifferentbecauseitisnot fail-safe,butcanonlyhopeforGod’ssavingactions.87 Firstly,inresponse,the criticismthatGodandcreationaredifferentinrespecttotheguaranteefor theendoftheirsufferingisdebatable.ForMoltmann,Godhaspromisedthat allcreationtoowillberedeemedandanendtoitssufferingcome.Secondly, thequestionofwhethersufferingistrulysufferingifitisonlytemporary andguaranteedtoendseemsanunfairone.Ifsufferingwassimplyequated withfearthenthismightbeplausible,butobservinganotherwhoisloved inpainmustsurelybecountedasauthenticpainfortheloverevenifthey canseeanend.BonzoiscorrectthatthereisacertainguaranteetoGod’s planforcreationbutthisspeaksmoreoftheworthwhilenatureofthewhole enterprisethanitdoesaboutalackofmeaning.

Beforethisdiscussionproceeds,itisimportantatthispointtorecognise Moltmann’sviewofwhatincreationactuallycausesGod’ssuffering.The answertothisisessentially:allthesufferingofcreation.Moltmannspeaks ofGod’sowncry‘inthegroansofthehungry,inthetormentofprisoners andinnature’ssilentdeathpangs’,in‘creation’shistoryofsuffering’,andin the‘deathofcountlessotherlivingthings’whicharenothumanbuthave diedfromhumanity’sselﬁshacts.88 Thesearethethingsthatheassertscause Godsuffering.HeseesGodasconcernedfornatureandhumanityalike:the wholeofcreationislovedandsoanysufferingwithinitis‘totheagonyof God’.89 HeisexplicitthatGod’ssufferingisbasedonthe cosmic loveofGod.

TheIncompatibilityofImpassibilityandLove

Moltmannrejectsdivineimpassibility,basedontheimplicationsforGod’slove forcreationifsufferingisdisallowed:‘aGodwhoisincapableofsuffering isabeingwhocannotbeinvolved.[...][H]ecannotbeaffectedorshaken

87 Bonzo, Indwelling,pp.109-10.

88 FC,pp.75,98; GSS,p.20. 89 HP,p.35(articlefrom1968).

byanything.[...He]cannotlove’.90 ForMoltmannlovecannotbetrueifthe predicamentoftheobjectofthatlove(creationinitssuffering)innoway affectsthesubject(God).Therefore,ifoneweretodenytheTrinity’scapacity forsufferingthenthatwouldalsoeliminatethecapacityforlove.91

MoltmannarguesthatGod’ssufferingdoesnotandshouldnotimplyany ‘deﬁciencyinhisbeing’,butratherisbasedonthe‘fullnessofhisbeing’.92 TheTrinityisopentochangeoutoffreedomandsuffersbecauseinthat freedomandloveitisreceptivetocreation’spain.93 Godisneitherincapable ofsufferingor‘fatefullysubjected’toit;Godsuffersinfreedomandlove.94 Therefore,forMoltmannsufferingisaninescapablepartoftheTrinity’s involvementintheworldifthereistruelovinginvolvementinacreationthat suffers.95

ThomasWeinandyopposesthisview.Hisopinionisthatimpassibility doesnotdenyGod’slove.Rather,‘apassibleGodisactuallylesspersonal, loving,dynamicandactivethananimpassibleGod’.96 Forhim,theimmutable andimpassibleGodistheultimatestandardofself-givinglove,‘utterlyand completelydynamicandactive[...]andcouldnotpossiblybecomeanymore dynamicoractive[...]andcannotbecomemorepassionate’.Weinandy considersthatanychangetoGodwouldhaveanimpactonGod’sactivity becausehisviewoftheTrinityisthat‘thepersonsoftheTrinityarenotnouns; theyareverbsandthenameswhichdesignatethem–Father,SonandHoly Spirit–designatetheactsbywhichtheyaredeﬁned’.97 Thereforebecause theTrinity’sactivityisperfect,and‘Godispureact’,Godcannotchange.God isalreadyinthemostloving,activerelationship,andthisismatchedbythe Trinity’srelationshipwithcreation.Therefore,theTrinitycannot‘acquire moreperfection’throughchange.98

Weinandy’sviewofGod’simmutabilitylogicallyaffectshisviewofimpassibilityandsuffering,inwhichWeinandybelieveshereﬂectspatristic

90 CrG,p.229.

91 Ibid.,p.237; EoG,p.15.

92 CrG,p.238.

93 CPS,p.62(cf. FC,p.93).

94 TKG,p.23.

95 Foraselectionofexamplesbeyondthediscussionabovesee CrG,pp.220,255-57,264; ExH,pp.71,80,83;Lapideetal., JewishMonotheism,p.46,50; GiC,p.210.

96 ThomasG.Weinandy, DoesGodSuffer? (NotreDame,IN:UniversityofNotreDamePress, 2000),p.26.Forclarity,Weinandy’sdeﬁnitionofpassibilityisthis:‘thatGodexperiences inneremotionalchangesofstate,eitherofcomfortordiscomfort,whetherfreelyfromwithin orbybeingacteduponfromwithout’(p.39).

97 Ibid.,pp.118-19.

98 Ibid.,p.123.

thought.99 Forhimsufferingis‘thelossofsomegood’fromabeing,and thusequalschange.ForhumansWeinandyassertsthisoccurscontinually, whereasGod‘possess[es]allgoods’completelyandcannotchangesodoesnot experiencethisloss:‘SincethepersonsoftheTrinitycanneverbedeprived oftheirdivineperfection,theyneverexperienceanyinner angst overtheir ownstateofbeingwhichwouldcausethemtosuffer.’100 DenisEdwards hasalsonotedthewayinwhich,forWeinandy,itiscompletelynecessaryto retainGod’s‘totalotherness’and‘ontologicaldistinction’,andthatWeinandy believesthatasufferingGodunderminesthis.101

InWeinandy’sopinion,God’sactiveimpassiblelovehas‘fargreater signiﬁcance’thanhumansufferinglovebecauseitbearsmorefruit:Godis abletodispeltheevilandsufferingoftheworld.102 Thesameargument wouldappeartosuggestthathumanlove,asseenincompassionandmercy, isoflessersigniﬁcanceorworthwhenitcannotsolveapresentingproblem. Thereareobviousdangershere,philosophicalandpastoral.Evenso,for Weinandy,loveisbestregardedbywhatitdoesandnotwhatitfeels.Soinhis propositionthatGodfeelsnosufferingasaresultofhislove,Weinandydoes notintendtodetractfromthatlove.HebelievesthatGodisstillfullyactivein ‘goodness,commitment,affection,joy,kindness,aswellasmercy,compassion, griefandsorrow’.Theseactivitiesare,toWeinandy,moreimportantforGod’s lovefortheworldthanany‘divine“emotional”self-expression’whichothers mightclaimisvitalforGodtofeel.103

Furthermore,WeinandyactuallyclaimsthatGod’sloveisbetteroff withoutsuffering.Itsabsence‘purifies[God’s]loveofallselfishconcerns, andsoallowsittobethoroughlyaltruistic’.104 Thisseemstobeanodd claim.Firstly,itappearstocontendthatiftheTrinityhadanyconcernsof itsowntoaddressthenselfishnesswouldinevitablyoccur.Secondly,one mightsay,infact,thattheabovepositiondoesnotdojusticetotheconcept oftheTrinity’ssacrificiallove.Weinandy’sviewimpliesthatGodisnotbeing selfless,ifselflessnessisunderstoodasputtingothersbeforetheself,because God’s‘self’willnotbeaffectedonewayortheother.Thirdly,itseemsto misunderstandtheoverallschemeofMoltmann’s(andsurelyothers’)view oftrinitariansufferinglove.ForMoltmann,eventhoughhespeaksofthe

99 Ibid.,pp.83-112.

100 Ibid.,p.226(cf.p.153).

101 Edwards, Breath,p.113(cf.Weinandy, DoesGod,pp.40-63).

102 Weinandy, DoesGod,p.229(cf.pp.165-8).

103 Ibid.,pp.227-29.

104 Ibid.,pp.226-27.

questofGodtoﬁnd‘deliverancefromthesufferingsofhislove’,itisnotthat Godactsprimarilyinordertoalleviatedivinesuffering,asifthatwerethe primaryproblem.105 Rather,Moltmann’sworkdescribesasituationwhereGod lovescreationandsuffersbecausethatloveobservescreation’spredicament. Therefore,theTrinity’sownsufferingisnottherootoftheproblem,butis asecondorderfactor.Theproblemtobedealtwithiscreation’spain,and assuchGodactstohealthatpain.ForMoltmann,theendofGod’ssuffering isthemutualconsequence,nottheselﬁshaim.106 Thisisnottosaythatwe mustconcludefromhisworkthatwithinthelovingrelationshipsoftheTrinity thereisnotthedesiretoseetheothers’paindissipated.Instead,heappears tosaythatGod’ssufferingisnotprimarilyseenastheconcern,itisrather the resultoftheconcern whichGodhasforcreation.Thereforethefocusremains primarilyonthesufferingandtheneedsofcreation.

Moltmann’sworkobviouslyhasadifferentphilosophicalfocustoWeinandy’sandhesetshimselfagainstthefoundationswhichWeinandyhasinhis work:

WemustdropthephilosophicalaxiomsaboutthenatureofGod.Godis notunchangeable,iftobeunchangeablemeansthathecouldnotinthe freedomofhisloveopenhimselftothechangeablehistoryofhiscreation. Godis notincapableofsuffering ifthismeansthatinthefreedomofhis lovehewouldnotbereceptivetosufferingoverthecontradictionof manandtheself-destructionofhiscreation.Godis notinvulnerable if thismeansthathecouldnotopenhimselftothepainofthecross.God is notperfect ifthismeansthathedidnotinthecravingofhislovewant hiscreationtobenecessarytohisperfection.107

AsRyanNealsays,Moltmann‘isnotconcernedwithprotectingGod’s immutabilityand/orimpassibilitybecauseheisprimarilyconcernedwith God’sfaithfulnesstohispromiseandinsuffering’.108 Withsuchdifferent startingpointsMoltmannandWeinandyareunlikelytoreceiveeachother’s criticismorcometoamutualconclusion.Thewidertheologicalcommunity hasbynomeanstakentheviewsofthoselikeWeinandyastheﬁnalword ondivinepassibility.Edwards,forexample,disagreeswiththeconclusions whichWeinandydrawsfromGod’stotalotherness.Hearguesthatotherness

105 TKG,p.60.

106 ‘Shekinah’,p.175.

107 CPS,p.62(cf. FC,p.93).

108 Neal, TheologyAsHope,p.127.NealproceedstocommentthatthismeansMoltmann’s ‘doctrineofGodisdictatedbythecriterionofGod’sfaithfulness(nothisfreedom)inthe crossandresurrection’(pp.127-28).ThishowevermayneglectthefactthatGod’spromise stemmedfromafreecreativeact.FaithfulnesstocreationmustalwayscomeafterGod’s freedomtocreate.

shouldnotruleoutsuffering.Divinesufferingshouldbeseenasanalogical tohumansuffering,an‘identificationwithcreationthatispropertoGod’. TheTrinity’ssufferingcanbeseenas‘infinitely beyondanythingpossible forhumanbeings’and‘theveryexpressionofGod’sinfiniteotherness’.109

ThedebateonGod’spassibilityiscertainlynotclosedandMoltmann’svoice remainsasapassionatecalltotakeseriouslyGod’sownsufferinginvolvement inthesufferingofcreation.

TheCrossandDivinePassibility

ForMoltmannthecrossreveals‘theeternalheartoftheTrinity’;itshows thatGod‘iscapableofsuffering,readytosacriﬁceandgive[Godself]up’.110

Alongsidehisargumentsforthereasonablenessofdivinesufferingthecross standsashisevidenceforaGodwhosuffers.ApersonoftheTrinity,God’sson, sufferedonthecross.ForMoltmann,thiseventworksagainsttheargument fordivineimpassibility:‘ThedeathofJesusonthecrossisthe centre ofall Christiantheology.[...]AllChristianstatementsaboutGod,aboutcreation [...]havetheirfocalpointinthecruciﬁedChrist.’111 Therefore,inthelight ofthesufferingofJesusonthecross,‘faithmustunderstandthedeityof Godfromtheeventofthesuffering’.112 ‘Godandsufferingarenolonger contradictions’.113

Thisthemeisnotconfinedto TheCrucifiedGod,andMoltmannreturns toitinhissystematiccontributions:‘HowcanChristianfaithunderstand Christ’spassionasbeingtherevelationofGod,ifthedeitycannotsuffer?’114 ThisisexactlythequestionhisworkposestoWeinandy,whoclaimsthatthe crossdoesnotdemonstratedivinepassibilitybutrathershowsthescandal oftheimpassibleGodwhowouldgotosuchlengthsastotakeonhuman fleshandsuffer asahumanbeing.ForWeinandythen,divinepassibility actuallydiminishestheuniquenessofthecross.Sowhile‘fromalleternity’ Godknewwhathumansufferingwaslikethroughdivineknowledge,itwas notuntiltheincarnationthatGodexperienceditforGod’sself‘inahuman manner’.115 HowcantheincarnateSonofGodsufferasahumanbeingbut notasGod?ForWeinandy,asChristiswhollyGodandwhollymanheretains

109 Edwards, Breath,p.113.

110 Lapideetal., JewishMonotheism,p.54.

111 CrG,p.210.

112 Ibid.,p.222.

113 Ibid.,p.234(cf. HP,p.106(articlefrom1960); WJC,p.181).

114 TKG,p.21.

115 Weinandy, DoesGod,pp.173,206.

theimpassibilityofthedivinenature.Tobeotherwisewouldtobenotwholly God.ThusChrist‘isnotdeprivedofanygoodwhichwouldcausehimtosuffer asGod’butonlydeprivedof‘humangoods’inwhichhesharedthehuman experienceofsuffering.116 ForWeinandy,thecrossdoesnotshowthatGod divinelysufferedforcreation,butthatGod,fullyandauthentically,humanly sufferedwithcreation.117

Moltmann’searlierworkdisagreeswiththisconclusion.Hedoesnot acceptadoctrineoftwonaturesofChristandsothinksitimpossiblethat thehumanityofJesuscouldsufferwithoutthesameinvolvementofhisdeity. MoltmanndoesnotrejectthestanceofchristologywhichstatesthatChrist isfullyGodandfullyhuman.Ratherhesimplywishestohold,indeliberate contrasttopositionssuchasWeinandy’s,thatChristexperienceshisincarnate life,includingthesufferingofthecross,asfullyGodandfullyhuman.118 WaiteWillisbelievesthatMoltmanncandrawsupportfromAthanasiushere. Willisarguesthat,giventhatforAthanasius,onlyasfullyGodistheSon ‘worthytosufferonbehalfofall’,‘[t]herecanbenodoubt,then,thatitisthe intentionofAthanasiustoclaimthatGodintheworkoftheSonsomehow tookonhumansufferinganddeath’.119 AsforthewayinwhichMoltmann retainstheuniquenessofthecrossinthelightofawidercosmicsuffering ofGod,thatwillbeconsideredbelowalongsideanaccountoftheSon’s particularsuffering.

5.4GOD’S SUFFERINGAND CREATION

ForMoltmann,authenticandlovingdivineopennesstowardscreationopens uptheTrinitytosuffering,andhasledtoactionsbyGodtoassumethe sufferingoftheworld.Hereisthedeepestpointoftherelationshipwith creation,aboldstatementthatcanbeaddedtoatheologicalarchitecture thatseekstovaluethewholeworld:God’slovefortheearthissuchthatGod sufferswithitspainandloss.Suchanargumentcannotpermitindifferenceto creation’stroubles.Itcallsforaradicalreconsiderationofecologicalattitudes.

116 Ibid.,p.205.

117 Ibid.,p.214.

118 ‘The"CruciﬁedGod"’,pp.286-88; CrG,pp.91,212-13,235-43,253(cf.DeaneDrummond, Ecology,p.195).

119 W.WaiteWillisJr, Theism,AtheismandtheDoctrineoftheTrinity:TheTrinitarian TheologiesofKarlBarthandJürgenMoltmanninResponsetoProtestAtheism (Atlanta,GA: ScholarsPress,1987),pp.215-16.

AlthoughGod’ssufferingisalwaysseenastrinitarianbyMoltmann, theSpiritandtheSonhavetheirownparticularroleinit.Inaddition,he attemptstoincludeandinvolveallthepersonsoftheTrinityineachother’s suffering.Thisdiscussionbeginsbylookingatthewayheunderstandsthe Spiritsufferingwithcreation.

TheSufferingoftheSpirit With and In Creation

AtmanypointsMoltmannhasspokenspeciﬁcallyofthesufferingoftheSpirit withhumanity.Thiswillbethesubjectofabriefconsiderationbeforethatof hisinclusionofallcreationinthissuffering.FromJewishkabbalistictheology heappreciatesinparticulartheconceptof Shekinah,whichheunderstands asthepresenceofGodinthesufferingsofGod’speople.120 Thisideacomes originallyfromtheOldTestamentwitnesstotheaccompanimentofGod withtheIsraelitepeople.ForMoltmann,inhisChristiancontext,thisisthe indwellingoftheHolySpiritwiththepeoplethroughtheirexileandtheir sufferings.TheSpiritsharesinthosevarioussufferings,whichincludethe people’spain,sorrowanddeath.121 ThepresenceoftheHolySpiritisnot simplyasympathyforthevictimsofothersbutisapresenceinallpeople, despitetheir‘mostfrightfulerrors’.TheoutcomeofthisfortheSpirit’s indwellingofthesepeopleisthatthe‘ShekinahisnowalienatedfromGod himself’.122 Therethereforeexists‘adistinctioninGod[...]betweenGod andtheindwellingspirit[sic]ofGod’.123

ThisthemeofthealienationofGodinthe Shekinah hasarousedtheconcernofcommentators,bothnegativeandsympathetic.BushﬁndsMoltmann’s appropriationofthetermalittleincoherent:‘theideathatGodisa“Self” whocutshimselfofffromhimselfdoesnotseemtobeentirelyconsistentwith his social analogyoftheTrinity’.124 Bush’sconcernisunderstandable.This alienationdoesnotreﬂecttheeternal,perichoretic,andlovingrelationships ofwhichMoltmannissorightlykeentohighlight.Ontheotherhand,another writer,Beck,correctlyrecognisesthatthe Shekinah stemsfromtheSpirit’s solidaritywithcreationandinsomeway‘drawsusupintothelifeofGod’. Beckassumesfromthisthat,forMoltmann,the Shekinah is‘notabsolute’in

120 TKG,p.28.

121 See CrG,pp.282-83; ExH,p.77;Lapideetal., JewishMonotheism,p.50(Moltmann herereferstoPeterKuhn,butseeminglyagrees); GiC,p.15; CJF,p.34; SpL,pp.47-51; CoG, p.305;‘Shekinah’; GSS,p.185; EiT,p.288.

122 SpL,p.50.

123 CrG,p.283.

124 Bush, RecentIdeas,p.338(cf.Chester, Mission,p.27).

itsseparationfromGod.Tosayotherwisewouldbringdifﬁcultiesandwould leantowardstritheism.125

MoltmanndoesnotrestricthisconversationsabouttheSpirit’ssuffering tohumanityalone.Asthepredicamentofthenaturalworldbecameapparent tohimhewasincreasinglydeterminedtoincludetheconcernsofthewider creationinhiswork.Inthisway,thepresenceoftheHolySpiritin all creation, andsufferingwith all creation,isathemethatgrowsinhisworkfromthe 1970s:‘Godhimselfhungersandsighs[...]innature’ssilentdeathpangs. [...]Godisaffectedbytheworld’shistoryofsufferingthroughhiscreative Spirit,[...].HisSpirithungers,sighsandcriesoutforliberty.’126 In Godin Creation Moltmanndeliberatelytakesthelanguageofthe Shekinah ofGod withpeopleandmirrorsitfortherestofcreation:

ButthesamethingistrueinitsowndegreeoftheindwellingofGod inthecreationofhislove:hegiveshimselfawaytothebeingshehas created,hesufferswiththeirsufferings,hegoeswiththemthrough themiseryoftheforeignland.TheGodwhointheSpiritdwellsinhis creationispresenttoeveryoneofhiscreaturesandremainsboundto eachofthem,injoyandsorrow.127

TheSpiritexperiences,andispresentin,the‘evolutionsandthecatastrophes oftheuniverse’andispartoftheunfoldinghistoryofcreationwithits highsandlows,‘participatinginthedestiny’ofcreation.128 TheSpiritis‘coimprisoned’withcreation,suffersbecauseofitssuffering,andexperiencesthe world’s‘annihilations’.

129 Moltmannalsoissuesthereminderthatthese‘cries’ oftheSpiritoftencomefrompartsofcreationthatarevictimtohumanity’s exploitation.130 Thesethemesrunalongsidethevariousaspectsofthe‘Spirit oflife’seeninthepreviouschapter:wheretheSpiritispresenttobring freedomandthepowertoliveandgrow,theSpiritisalsopresentinthe sufferingofaccidentsandmistakesthatstemfromfreedom.

OnthewholeitseemsthatMoltmanncaneffectivelyholdtogetherthe twodynamicsoftheSpirit’ssufferingwithpeople and withnature.His discussionsoftheformerneednotbeseenasexclusiveofthelatter.For him,theSpiritispresentthroughoutallofcreationandparticipatesinallits

125 Beck, TheHolySpirit,pp.158-59.

126 FC,p.98.AlthoughthiswaspublishedinEnglishinthelate1970s,theGerman publicationdatewas1977andthearticleitselfisarevisionfrom1972,soitispossiblethat thesecommentsdatefromeventheearly1970s.Seealso GiC,p.69.

127 GiC,p.15(cf.p.97; SpL,pp.50-51).

128 Ibid.,pp.16,96(cf.‘TheScope’,p.103).

129 GiC,pp.68-69,96-97(cf.p.102); TKG,p.111.

130 SpL,p.77(cf. WJC,p.194,forChrist’sinvolvementwithhumanity’svictims).

experiences.Therefore,whenhespeaksofanyparticularinstanceofsuffering increation,whetherhumanorotherwise,henaturallydescribestheSpirit’s sufferinginthatparticularcontext.Forthisreasonhesometimescomments speciﬁcallyonthesufferingoftheSpiritwithpeople.

Inaddition,theSpirit’ssufferingisnotexclusivetotheSpiritalone. Moltmannhaswrittenthat:‘Godisaffectedbytheworld’shistoryofsuffering through hiscreativeSpirit’.131 Thereislittleexplicitmaterialfromhimon thissubjecttoexplainexactlywhathebelievestohappen.However,fromhis trinitariantheologywecanconcludethatnosufferingoftheSpiritistaken ontotheSpiritaloneinabstractionfromtheperichoreticrelationshipthat existsbetweenthethreepersons.

Theabovediscussionhasdemonstratedthewayinwhich,forMoltmann, theSpiritsuffersboth with creationinthepainsofcreation,andalso in creationwithitsseparationfromGod.However,boththeseconclusionshave beenquestioned.

QuestioningtheSpirit’sSuffering

NealclaimsthathecandetectacertainshiftinMoltmann’sworkasithas developedfromthecentralityofthecrossin TheCrucifiedGod and TheTrinity andtheKingdomofGod towardsafocusontheresurrectioninlaterwork. Nealseesthisshiftasamovefromthenegativeexperiencesoflifetopositive ones,andthatthismovecoincidedwiththegrowthofMoltmannemphasis onpneumatologyandthe‘Spiritoflife’.ThesignificanceforMoltmann’s pneumatology,Nealasserts,isthatit‘seemedtopassovertheimportanceof atheologyofthecross’,‘tooeasilyslipsintopositiveexperiencesoftheSpirit’, and‘seemedtolosesightofthenotionoftheSpiritsufferingwithandfor creation’.132 Nealadmitsthatthisisanunlikelyconclusiontomakeabout Moltmann’swork,giventhelatter’sattentiontothemesofpainandsuffering. ButNealremarksthat,whenMoltmannspeakspecificallyoftheSpirit’s involvementintheexperiencesoflifeheisusually‘one-sidedinfavorof fulfilledexperiences,notdisappointedfailures’.Moltmannmaycommendably betryingto‘informacultureofdeathwithanaffirmationoflife’,saysNeal, butheshouldalsorelatetheSpirittoits‘negativedimensions’.133 SoNeal callsfor‘acoherentvisionoftheSpiritasfellowsufferer’,rootedintheSpirit’s involvementintheeventofthecrosstobalanceanemphasisonthe‘Spiritof

131 FC,p.98,emphasisadded.

132 Neal, TheologyAsHope,pp.189,198,228.

133 Ibid.,pp.191-92,197.

theresurrection’.134

TheresearchoutlinedabovedemonstratesthatMoltmannhasmade greatefforttopresenttheSpiritas‘fellowsufferer’.Neal’sdesiretoseethis themeexplorediswhollyappropriate,yetsuchaclaimasaboveisnotwholly justiﬁedinrelationtoMoltmann.Forinstance,hestatesthatMoltmann shouldhaveconnectedtheSpirittoJesus’all-inclusivesufferingin TheSpirit ofLife.Nealclaimsthathe‘comesclose’inhisworkonthe Shekinah butfails todosoinrelationtothecross.ThiscriticismisstrikinginthatNealpoints toapassagein TheSpiritofLife forMoltmann’sworkonthe Shekinah,while onlyalittlelaterinthesameworkMoltmannasksthequestion‘Whereisthe SpiritinthedeathofChrist?’andproceedstoworkthroughananswer.135 Nealmakesnoreferencetothis.Beck,bycontrast,noteshowtheSpiritwas absentfromMoltmann’sworkontheeventofthecrossinhisearlywork,but importantlyhealsothenmakesreferenceto TheSpiritofLife astheplace whereMoltmannbeginstobringpneumatologyandthecrosstogether.136 Neal’sgeneralcommentsdonotseemfullytoreﬂectthepresenceofthetopic inMoltmann’swork.EvencriticsofMoltmann’ssuchasTimChesterand DavidMcIlroyconsiderthethemeoftheSpiritandsufferingtobepervasive inhiswork.137 Neal’scommentsaboutthelackoftheSpirit’spresencein conversationsaroundthecrossofChristdohavesomevalidityifaimedat Moltmann’searlierwork,buthedevelopsthisintime,especiallybytheperiod Nealmakeshiscriticism.Thisparticulartopicwillbeconsideredindetail belowaspartofthediscussionexaminingthetrinitarianinvolvementinthe crossevent.

BalancingtheSpirit’sSufferingwiththeCross

Beforeconsideringthecrossevent,Neal’scommentscanbecontrastedagainst theviewthat,inMoltmann’swork,theSpirithassufferedsocomprehensively withcreationthateventhecrossseemstobringnothingnew.Itisfascinating thatNealcansaythattheSpiritdoesnotadequatelyconnectwithsuffering, whileotherscansaythattheSpiritsufferssomuchthatthecrossisrendered superﬂuous.138

134 Ibid.,pp.198,228(cf.p.199).

135 Ibid.,pp.199-200,n.156.Nealpointsto SpL,pp.47-51andthesubsequentdiscussion isfoundonpp.60-68.

136 Beck, TheHolySpirit,pp.94-95,148-49.

137 Chester, Mission,p.34;McIlroy, ATrinitarian,p.74.

138 However,thisisnottheonlyplacewhereMoltmanniscriticisedfromtwodiffering directions.Forinstance,asabove,heiscriticisedforembracingdivinesuffering,andfornot makingdivinesufferingauthenticenough.Inanotherexample,FarrownotesthatMoltmann hasfacedcriticism‘bothforabandoningtheimmanent/economicdistinctionandfornot

McIlroyisonewhoholdsthelatterview.HebelievesthatMoltmann, throughtheemphasisonsufferinginhispneumatology,hasunwittingly removedthereasonforthecross.McIlroybelievesthatMoltmann’sprimary understandingofthecrossis‘sufferingsolidarity’withcreation.Yet,heasks, ifthissufferingwasalreadyincludedintheSpirit’sexperiencewhyisthe crossnecessary?Whatadditionalpurposedoesitserve?139 Headmitsthat MoltmannalsoincludessinasareasonforthecrossbutfindsMoltmann’s definitionofsininsufficient,inthatitis‘quintessentially’violenceagainst creationasopposedto‘violationofGod’scommands’.Itisthisviolence againstcreationwhichMcIlroythinks,inMoltmann’sthought,isdealtwith bytheSpirit’sidentificationwith,andconsolationof,thevictims.140 For McIlroy,itseemsthatinMoltmann,theSpiritdealswiththesinoftheworld. Therefore,whyisthecrossstillnecessary?

Thequestiondoesnothaveagoodfoundation,however.BothMcIlroy’s descriptionofMoltmann’stheologyofthecrossandthedeﬁnitionofsindrawn fromhisworkdonotappearwhollyaccurate.Firstly,McIlroy’sevidencefor hisclaimaboutthecrossisunconvincing.Thepageshereferencesdoat leastshowthewayinwhich,forMoltmann,solidaritywithcreationis part of Christ’ssuffering,yetinnoneofthemdoesMoltmannindicatethatthis‘sufferingsolidarity’ishisprimaryunderstandingofthecross.Hisunderstanding ofthecrossdoesemphasisethesufferingofChristwithcreation,butthere ‘ismoreinthis[thecross]thanChrist’s solidarity [...]Inthisisthedivine atonementforsin’.141 OnthecrossChrist‘died“thedeathofalltheliving”so astoreconcileeverythinginheavenandonearth,[...]andtobringpeace tothewholecreation’.142 ThatisnotsomethingwhichMoltmannattributes totheSpirit’sworkandsothecrossisstillnecessarytohisviewofsalvation history.143

Secondly,McIlroy’sassertionthatMoltmanndeﬁnessinasviolencetowardscreation,andnottheviolationofGod’scommands,isdebatable.Itis truethathestressesthatsinisviolenceagainstcreation,butitisalsomuch abandoningit’(Farrow,‘InTheEnd’,p.436).

139 McIlroy, ATrinitarian,p.74.Aboutsufferingsolidarityhecites: FC,p.22; TKG,pp.4, 99; WJC,p.168; JCTW,pp.38-40;Bauckham, TheTheology,pp.11,15.Aboutsufferingof theSpirithecites: GSS,p.104; TKG,p.111; GiC,pp.68-69,102; SpL,pp.34-35,47-51,62, 64; EiT,p.288.

140 McIlroy, ATrinitarian,pp.32,74.Hecites: HTG,pp.116-17; OHD,pp.30-31; WJC, pp.127,254; SpL,pp.132,139,171-73; CoG,pp.90-95,210; EiT,pp.295-96.

141 SpL,p.136.Moltmannworksthisoutthroughoutthechapterconcerned(pp.123-43. Cf. GSS,pp.187-88;Moltmannetal., Passion,p.76).

142 WJC,p.255(cf. SpL,p.134).

143 Healsoarguesforthisviewin SpL,pp.212-13.

morethanthis.ClosetooneofMcIlroy’schosenexamplesfromMoltmann, isanargumentforthespeciﬁcneedfor obedience totheSermononthe Mount.ThisindicatesthatMoltmannisconcernedwiththe‘violationofGod’s commands’.144 Inotherpassagestoo,citedbyMcIlroy,Moltmannsaysthat violencetowardscreationneedsbeincludedina broader deﬁnitionofsin.He writes:‘sinisnot merely rebellionagainstGod;itis also violenceagainstlife’, andisconnectedto‘ecologicaldeath’.145 ForMoltmann,sinisviolenceand rebellion.Thushistheologyofthecrossgrappleswithissuesbeyondthat whichisincludedintheSpirit’ssufferingsolidarity.

RandallBushiscriticalheremoregenerallythanMcIlroy.Heclaimsthat injusticeisbothsuffered and overcomebytheSpiritinMoltmann’sthought. Therefore,accordingtoBush,itishardtoseewhattheSon’s‘particular experienceofsufferingintheCrossandovercomingofthissufferingbythe Resurrection’bringsandwhyitis‘trulynecessary’.146 However,Moltmann hasnowheregiventheimpressionthattheSpiritaloneistheanswertoallof creation’sproblems.AsaboveinanswertoMcIlroy’sconcerns,thecrossstill containsparticularredemptivesufferingthattheSpirit’sparticularsuffering doesnot.147 ThefollowingstatementmakesitclearthatMoltmann’sintention, fromthebeginning,istokeepthecrossasessentialtoGod’ssalvationplan:

[T]heearthlyindwellingofGodinanewcreationwithoutsuffering, deathandlamentation,isinnowaythenegationofthecrossofChrist inthemidstofthishistory,butrathertheperfectionofhislordship. ChristianhopefortheworldisnotdirectedtowardsanabstractotherworldlypantheisminwhichallthatChristhasdonetoovercomethe worlddisappears,butrathertowardsthefactthat‘Godwillbeallin all’.148

InproceedingtoexaminethesufferingoftheSononthecrossitwillbe apparentthatMoltmanngivestheSon’ssufferingparticularsigniﬁcancethat isdifferenttothatoftheSpirit.

144 WJC,pp.126-27.Thereisscopeforfurtherresearchtoexaminetheinterplaybetween theresistancetoviolenceandobediencetoGod.Moltmanndoesmakeboldstatementsabout violencebeingwhatsinreallyis(p.127).Thereisthoughstillspacetointerpretthisasan additiontothedeﬁnitionofsinasdisobedience.

145 CoG,p.90,emphasisadded.

146 Bush, RecentIdeas,p.341.

147 ThisisnottosaythateithertheSpiritortheSonsufferwithouttheother’sinvolvement inMoltmann’sthought.AsseenabovewithregardtotheSpirit,andseenbelowwithregard totheSon,thesufferingofGodisalwaystrinitarian.

148 HP,p.50(from1968).WhilethiscomesbeforeMoltmann’spneumatologyfully developedthesamesentimentcanstillbefoundlaterinhisworkwherehespeaksofthe crossas‘thetruegroundofthehope’ofsalvation(CoG,pp.250-55).

TheSufferingoftheSon For and With Creation

BelowfollowstheconsiderationofMoltmann’sviewofthesufferingoftheSon anditscontributiontoatheologicalarchitecturethatembracesallcreation. ThatGod’sSon,theChrist,sufferedinhisdeathonacrossisoneofthecentral tenetsoftheChristianfaith.Moltmanndoesnotdivergefromtraditionin thisregard:Jesustookonsufferinganddeathatthecross.149 Alsoimportant tohimisthatJesusactivelyandfreelyofferedhimselftoit.150 Itisfroma trinitarianbasisthatMoltmannoriginallyconstructedhistrinitarianviewof God’ssuffering,andsoinaddition,thisconversationpaysparticularattention totheinvolvementofallthreepersonsoftheTrinity.

Moltmanndisplaysanevidentconcernthattheredeemingpowerofthe sufferingofChristonthecrossincludesallofhumanity’sexperiences,‘Godin AuschwitzandAuschwitzinthecrucifiedGod’.Forhim,thecross‘redeems menfromdeath’.151 Butwhileheaffirmsthatthecrossisan‘atoningevent [...]ofhumanguilt’,healsoclaimsthatsuchanintentisnotthewholestory: thereisagreater‘universalsignificance’.152

Asearlyasthe1960sthereisevidencethatMoltmannwishestoavoid toonarrowaninterpretationofthecross:‘Notonlythemartyrsareincluded intheeschatologicalsufferingoftheServantofGod,butthewholecreation isincludedinthesufferingofthelastdays.’153 Forhim,‘thesufferingofthe lastdays’referstohisbeliefthatthesufferingofthecrosshaseschatological signiﬁcancefortheredemptionallthings.154 Shortlyafterthis,intheearly 1970s,helamentsinanarticlethereductionofthescopeofthecrossbysome, inthiscasehistoricalcritics,whichleadstoanegationofitssigniﬁcancefor the‘wholeworld’.155 Inthispieceheproposesthat‘cosmic,historicaland personalsuffering’shouldallbetakenintoaccountinChrist’ssuffering.156 Theeventofthecrossthushasabroadreach;itiswhere‘Godisconfronted withthemiseryofallcreation’.157

Moltmann’sworkrepeatsthethemeoftheuniversalorcosmicrelevance

149 ToH,p.19(p.5’02ed.); CrG,p.48; CPS,p.85.

150 CrG,p.47; CPS,p.85.

151 CrG,pp.48,288; ExH,p.73.

152 TKG,p.52.

153 ToH,p.137.

154 Seealso:‘ThefellowshipofChrist’ssufferingsreachesbeyondthecommunityofChrist anditsmartyrs,forthesesufferingsareend-timesufferings,whichtakepossessionof the wholecreation.’(WJC,p.157.)

155 HP,p.40(thisparticulararticleisfrom1968).

156 Ibid.,p.35.

157 Ibid.,p.49.

ofthecrossfromthistimeonwards.158 Thereisasustainedconversation onthesubjectin TheWayofJesusChrist wherehediscussesatlengththe implicationofChrist’sdeath.159 Forhim,thisdeathneedstohave‘relevance fornaturewhichistodaysufferingundertheirrationalityofhumanbeings’.160 HeassertsthatChrist‘diedforthenewcreationofallthings’.161

Healsobeginstosay,notjustthatChristsuffers for creation,butsuffers theverysuffering of creation,and with creation.162 TheSon‘suffersthe self-destructionofcreation’;heisamartyramongothermartyrsinnature.163

Christsufferstheworld’srealities‘prolepticallyforthewholesufferingcreation’andsuffersthe‘deathofalltheliving’,‘violentdeath’aswellas‘tragic death’.164 TheSonsuffersallthesufferingsofcreationfrombeginningto end.165 HereMoltmannmakesaclearbreakfromtheologieswhichareconcernedonlywiththepunishmentofhumansinsreceivedbyChrist.Tospeak ofChrist’sdeathasbeingforandwithcreationenablesMoltmanntoinclude, indifferentways,boththeguiltwithincreationandthesufferingofthe guiltless.Thisallowsthecrosstoconnecttothesufferingsofcreationaswell.

GiventhecosmicreachofChrist’ssufferingonthecrosswhichMoltmann describes,Deane-Drummondwondersifthereisadangerthathispneumatologyofsufferingcouldbe‘weakened’.By‘channelling all thesufferingofthe cosmosintoChrist’ssufferings’shebelievesMoltmannmayinadvertentlylose theimpactofhistheologyofthesufferingSpirit.166 Deane-Drummondwould preferMoltmanntoallowforChristtoshareinthepainsofcreationindirectly throughtheSpirit.IftheSpiritislinkedwithcreation’ssufferings,then ‘throughtheSpiritthewholecreationparticipatesinboththesufferingand reconciliationinChrist’.SheviewsthisaseasilycompatiblewithMoltmann’s thought.167 Deane-Drummondarrivesatthisideapartlybecausesheisnot convincedthatheeffectivelyconnectsallofcreation’ssufferingstoChrist’s sufferingonthecross.Forher,theideathatthesufferingofallofcreation canbebroughtontothecruciﬁedChrist‘isalittlestrained’.168

BushalsoquestionsMoltmann’sinclusionofallofcreation’ssufferingsin

158 CrG,p.60; CPS,pp.74,222,261; FC,p.164; CJF,p.68; WJC,pp.155,282.

159 WJC,pp.151-212.

160 Ibid.,p.195(cf.p.279).

161 Ibid.,p.155(cf.p.181; CrG,p.61).

162 JCTW,p.38.

163 GiC,p.16; SpL,p.130(cf. WJC,p.194).

164 WJC,pp.152,169-70,253.

165 Ibid.,p.155.

166 Deane-Drummond, Ecology,p.256.

167 Ibid.,pp.256,262-63.

168 Ibid.,p.209.

thecrossofChrist.Heassertsthatitisnotclearexactly how theparticular sufferingofthecross‘alsoembracesandovercomestheproblemof universal suffering’.169 Bush’sconfusionabouttheexactprocessbywhichChrist’s sufferingsjoinwithallcreation’sisreasonable,yetitmaybethatthisisneither afrailtyuniquetoMoltmann,nordoesitmakehispositionunreasonable. ChristiantheologyhaslongspokenoftheparticularsufferingofChrist(which isnotfullyunderstood)anditsrelationtothesufferingofallhumanity(in awaythatisalsonotfullyunderstood,despitetheeffortsofsometoclaim otherwise).Inthistradition,Christcameanddiedasahuman.Accordingly, hissolidaritywithhumanityisclear.YetChristalsobecameﬂeshandaliving partofcreation.Thissuggestsasolidaritywithcreation.Furthermore,Christ diedandtookonthesinsoftheworld,sohisatonementforhumansinisclear. YetChristalso‘died thedeathofalltheliving’,thedeathofmortalcreation.170 Thissuggeststhatitispossiblealsotoseearedemptiveplanforallﬂeshand thewholeearthwithinatraditionalstreamofthought,asRomans8.18-24 indicates.

Deane-Drummond,however,isfurtherconcernedthathumanitywillﬁnd itmoredifﬁculttoidentifywithChristifhissufferingsareall-encompassing: ‘Whileitmightencourageustobecomemoresensitivetonature’spain’,she says,‘itcouldalsohaveadifferenteffect,namelytoalienateusfromthe personofChrist’.171 TheproblemwhichDeane-Drummondoutlinesisan understandableone,butthisproblemwouldnotberemovedifChrist’ssufferingswereexclusivelyconnectedtohumanity.EventhenChrist’ssufferingsgo beyondwhatahumanbeingcaneasilyidentifywith.

DespitetheseconcernsofDeane-DrummondandBush,Moltmanndoes describethewayinwhichChristsuffersthesufferingsofthewholeofcreation inawaythatdoesnotremovethesignificanceoftheSpirit’ssufferings.The universalaffirmationofColossians1.20(‘throughhimGodwaspleasedto reconcileallthings’)isasignificantbuttresstohisefforts.Theopennessofthe Spiritincreationisalsoanaidhere,foraccordingtoMoltmannitistheSpirit whounitescreationwithChrist’shistory.172 Sohowcanthecrossembrace thesufferingsofallcreation?Moltmann’sansweristhattheSonisincarnate increation,andtheSpiritisatworkthroughoutallcreationtojoinitshistory toChrist’s.

169 Bush, RecentIdeas,p.298.

170 WJC,p.255.

171 Deane-Drummond, Ecology,pp.300-01.

172 FC,p.82; CPS,p.28.

TheCrossasTrinitarianSuffering

FromtherelationshipbetweentheFatherandtheSon,andfromtherelationshipoftheSpirittoboth,itiscleartoMoltmannfromanearlystagethatthe crosshastobeunderstoodasatrinitarianeventinwhichtospeakof‘God’s suffering’,notjustChrist’s.173 Butmorethanthat,theTrinity’ssufferingisnot a‘self-contained’suffering,wheretheFatheronlysufferstheSon’spredicament,andtheSpiritonlysufferstheSonandFather’spredicament.174 Rather thewholeTrinityexperiencessomethingofcreation’ssufferingsthroughthe cross.175

TolookbeyondthephysicalsufferingsofChrist,Moltmannalsospeaksof theSon’s‘abandonment’byGodtheFather.176 Furtherthanthat,hegoessofar astosaythat‘arupturetears,asitwere,throughGodhimself’.177 Moltmann’s talkof‘deathinGod’(andonlyrarely,andinaspeciﬁccontext,‘deathof God’)iscontentiousenoughtohavedrawnmuchdiscussionandcriticism.178 Inthesameway,hisemphasisonthewaytheFatheractivelyabandonedand forsooktheSonisalsodebated,bothintermsofthecontradictionofthelove oftheFather,andtheimplicationsforthetrinitarianunity.179 However,this projectwillnotengagewiththosediscussionsbecauseitsmainfocusliesin thewayinwhichGodsuffersandsharesincreation’shistory.IfMoltmann’s talkofdeath‘in’or‘of’God,orofthewayinwhichtheFatherabandonedthe Son,isunsuitablethentheprimaryproposalsneverthelessremaincoherent.

ForMoltmannitisplainthatwhiletheSonsuffersdeathandseparation fromtheFather,theFathermustalsosufferthedeathandseparationofthe Sonwhomheloves.Thisisnottheunderstandingof patripassianism seen asanancientheresy,ratheritis‘patricompassianism’.180 Hepointsoutthat theFatherdoessuffer,but‘notinthesamewaysastheSon’.181 Infact,he

173 HP,p.106(articlefrom1960); CrG,p.222; ExH,pp.80-81; FC,p.74.

174 CrG,p.257.

175 Ibid.,pp.255-58; ExH,p.81; FC,p.75;Lapideetal., JewishMonotheism,pp.54-55.

176 CrG,pp.33,60,151; CPS,p.85.

177 ExH,p.80.

178 SeeFiddes, Participating,pp.235,238;AlisterE.McGrath, ChristianTheology:An Introduction,3rdedn(Oxford:Blackwell,2001),p.280;Neal, TheologyAsHope,p.111.

179 SeeC.S.Song, Third-EyeTheology:TheologyinFormationinAsianSettings (London: LutterworthPress,1980),p.62;Fiddes, TheCreative,p.137;Bush, RecentIdeas,p.297; Molnar,‘FunctionofTheTrinity’,p.694;Gunton, Theologythrough,p.79;Weinandy, Does God,p.227;Williams, OnChristian,pp.121,160-61;GregoryC.Higgins, TheTapestryof ChristianTheology:ModernMindsintheBiblicalNarrative (NewYork:PaulistPress,2003), pp.129-30;Chester, Mission,p.66;Beck, TheHolySpirit,p.93,n.2;Neal, TheologyAsHope, pp.48-49(nn.44-45),59-62,119,187(n.89);Harvie, JürgenMoltmann’sEthics,p.106.

180 FC,p.73.

181 ExH,p.80.

goesasfarastosaythatwhileJesussuffers‘dyinginforsakenness’,itisthe Fatherwhosuffersdeathitselfbecausethedeadcannotsuffer.TheFather istheonewhosuffers‘theinﬁnitegriefoflove’.182 Athisstrongestlevelof language,Moltmannstatesthatthroughthesufferinganddeathofthecross bothFatherandSonsuffer:bothare‘inthedeepestsenseseparated’,‘tothe utmostdegreeofenmityanddistinction’.TheFatherforsakesandtheSonis forsakensotherelationshipbreaksdown.Thisleadstothedeepestseparation ofdeath,andthatbrokenrelationship,forMoltmann,istheessenceofthe trinitariansufferingofthecross.183 Butevenifthisdegreeofseparationis resisted(asmanywouldwishto),thedemonstrationoftheFather’sown sufferinginthecrossandthegriefbroughttotherelationshipsthereisclear. Moltmannnotesthatforhimtherelationshipsbetweenthepersonsofthe TrinityarecentraltoGod’sbeingandthereforethedeathofJesuscannot simplybehissufferingalone,butmustbeunderstoodasatrinitarianevent.184

Takinginaccountthatlastremark,andotherslikeit,itislegitimateto commentthatthisdiscussionhasonlyconcernedFatherandSon.Itisnotfully trinitarianandthusMoltmann’sreaderswereunderstandablydisappointedto readthesentencethatcandescribethecrossas‘atrinitarianeventbetween theSonandtheFather’withoutanymentionoftheSpirit.185 Thediscussion sofarhasalmostexclusivelyfocusedonMoltmann’sworkfrombefore1980 inwhichhehasnotyetsettledintohislaterhabitofreferringtoallthree personsoftheTrinityina‘trinitarian’debate.Butthisearlierpatternisnot necessarilyanunorthodoxuseoftheword‘Trinity’byhim,oranexclusion oftheSpiritfromthecrossevent.Ratheritcouldbethat,forhim,itis simplythatthetrinitarianviewofGodwhichallowstheidentiﬁcationofthe FatherasintimatelyconnectedtothesufferingoftheSon.TheSpiritisnot excluded,butonemightsaytheSpiritwaspartiallyneglectedinMoltmann’s discussions inhisearlywritings.‘Partially’becauseeveninhisearlywriting hementionsallthreepersonsoftheTrinityinconnectionwiththecrossona fewoccasions.186 ElsewhereheatleastlinkstheSpirit’s work tothecross,if

182 CrG,p.251.

183 HP,p.43(articlefrom1968);‘The"CruciﬁedGod"’,pp.293-95; CrG,pp.154,254; ExH,p.81.

184 CrG,pp.210-14,253-54.Inaddition,seeChapter2ofthiswork,p.17.

185 Ibid.,p.254(cf.D.LyleDabney,‘PneumatologiaCrucis:ReclaimingTheologiaCrucisfor aTheologyoftheSpiritToday’, ScottishJournalofTheology,53:4(2000),511–24(pp.52021);Beck, TheHolySpirit,pp.94-95,243;Neal, TheologyAsHope,pp.73(n.24),178(n.25), 182-3(n.57);Harvie, JürgenMoltmann’sEthics,p.109,n.43).Thispatternisrepeatedin FC,p.93.

186 CrG,pp.210-14,242.

nottheSpirit’s suffering 187 Thisdemonstratesthattheawarenessofthefull trinitarianimportanceofthecrossispresentinMoltmann’sworkoftheearly 1970s.

Overtime,however,Moltmannhasdevelopedtheconnectionbetween theSpirit’ssufferingandthecross.188 Aswasnotedabove,in TheSpiritofLife hemakesaconcertedeffortexplicitlytomakethisconnection.Beckoutlines thisdevelopmentwell:iftheSpiritwaswithJesusthroughhislifethenthe SpiritwaswithJesusthroughhisdeath;theSpiritsuffers‘butnotinthesame way’;theSpiritisa‘companion’inJesus’suffering.189 TheSpiritwaswith Christinhisforsakenness.190

TheTrinitarianSufferingofGodwithCreation

ThroughthesufferingsoftheSpiritandtheSon,Moltmannhasdeveloped atrinitarianviewofGod’ssufferinginconnectionwithcreation.Dueto thetrinitarianopennesstoallcreationhecansaythatthere‘isnosuffering whichinthishistoryofGodisnotGod’ssuffering’.191 Divinesufferinghas tobeunderstoodastrinitarian;astherevelationsoftheTrinity’ssufferings throughouthistory,asidentiﬁedbyMoltmann,whichdemonstratethat‘God sufferswithus–Godsuffersfromus–Godsuffersforus’.192 Thus:

ItisthesufferingoftheCreatorwhopreservestheworldandenduresits conﬂictsandcontradictions,inordertosustainitinlife.Itisthespecial sufferingofChrist,whoinhiscommunitywithusandhisself-givingfor us,suffersthepainsofredemption.Itis,ﬁnally,thesufferingofGod’s Spiritinthebirth-pangsofthenewcreation.193

HeobservesthisopennessofGodtotheworldmostsigniﬁcantlyinthe indwellingoftheSpiritandtheincarnationoftheSon,yetalsoreachesback toGod’sintentionsintheoriginalactofcreation.Thisopennessmeansthat ‘evenforGodhimselfwithintheTrinity’thereisbroughtaboutsomething new:Godexperienceschangeforcreation.194

187 ‘The"CruciﬁedGod"’,pp.293-95; ExH,p.81.

188 SeeNeal, TheologyAsHope,pp.178(n.25),182-3(n.57);KornelZathureczky, The MessianicDisruptionofTrinitarianTheology (Lanham,MD:LexingtonBooks,2009),pp.13738,n.41;Bauckham, TheTheology,p.157.

189 Beck, TheHolySpirit,pp.148-49(cf. SpL,pp.60-68).

190 SpL,pp.67-68

191 CrG,p.255.

192 TKG,p.4(cf.p.25).

193 WJC,p.179.

194 CPS,p.62(cf. FC,p.93).

5.5CONCLUSIONS

ThischapterhasobservedhowthecontributionsofMoltmann’stheologyto thetheologicalarchitectureincludeGod’sopennesstowardsallcreation.This themeisstronglytrinitarianwithattentiongiventotheparticularexperiences oftheSpirit’sindwellingandtheSon’sincarnation.Thisopennessisrooted intheTrinity’sinnerrelationshipsasmuchasaloveforcreation.TheSpirit andtheSonaresaidtohavedistinctbutnotseparateroles,astogetherthey shareincreation’slifeanddrawcreationintotheTrinity’slife.Concernshave beenraisedaboutMoltmann’stheologyinthisareainrelationtopantheism, processtheology,andGod’sdependencyoncreation.Yetthisreadingofhis workindicatesthatheprotectshimselffromthesedangers.

Divineopennessandloveleads,forMoltmann,totheconclusionthat Godsuffersforcreation.Inhisview,God’sloveforcreationnegatesabelief inGod’simpassibility.Whilethispositionhasbeenchallenged,Moltmann stillhasthesupportofmuchofthetheologicalcommunityinthisendeavour. Mostimportantly,forhim,ifthecrossrevealsGodthenitrevealsasuffering God.Thissufferingisconnectedtoallcreation,notjusthumanity,and,for Moltmann,boththeSpiritandSontouchallofcreation’ssufferingsanddo notmaketheother’sexperiencessuperﬂuous.Atthesametimethewhole TrinityisinvolvedinthesufferingsofboththeSpiritandtheSon.

ThroughthesedevelopmentsMoltmannfurnishesthetheologicalarchitecturewitharobustdescriptionoftherelationshipbetweenGodandcreation thatisauthenticandmutual.HehastriednottoanthropomorphiseGodyet wishestoexplorewhatconsequencesGod’sloveforcreationhasforthedivine self.HeconsidersGodtohavevulnerabilitybecausethisiswhathebelieves lovetomean.Moltmanndoesnotseektousecreation’svulnerabilityasa modelforGod’srelationshipwithcreation.Tothisendheoffersatheologyin whichGod’swelcominglovemeansthatintherelationshipwithcreationGod iswillingtotakeonthebadaswellasthegood,thesufferingalongwiththe joy.

ThelovethatGodhasforcreation,exploredthroughouttheselastthree chapters,isnowextendedfromacreative,caringlovetoonethatsufferswith thepainsofcreation.ThisaddsanotherleveltothedepthinwhichGodloves allcreationinMoltmann’stheology.Notonlyisthemistreatmentofcreation incontrasttoGod’slovingwishesforcreationbutitalsobringsarelated agonytoGod’sself.Howmuchagony,andforhowsmallapartofcreation? Theseareunanswerablequestions,yetMoltmann’sworksuggeststhatno-one

shouldbesoquickastoassumethattherearethingsincreation,however small,thatareinsigniﬁcanttoGod’slove.ForMoltmann,theTrinity’ssuffering withcreationgivesastrongleadtotherecognitionofcreation’srights,dignity, andvalue.195 ThisisoneofthepowerfulargumentswhichMoltmannhas towardsagreatercareofallofcreation:ifthewayhumanitytreatstheplants, animalsandecosystemsofthisworldmightactuallycauseGodsufferingthen thoseactionsshouldbebroughtswiftlytolightandaddressed.Theecological reformationisnotsimplyforcreation’ssake.

Bauckhamquestionsthisconclusion.Heworriesthatsuchauniversal viewofChrist’ssufferingwithcreationasabasisforthevalueofallnature andhumanitycanactuallyconfusehumanity’sethicalconsiderations.For BauckhamthesolidarityofChristwithallthingsdoesnotprovideanydistinctionbetweentheethicalimpactofmurder,animalcruelty,andeveneating vegetables.HeclaimsMoltmann’stheologyhereis‘plainlyinadequate’for theseimportantethicaldistinctions.196 Therearetworesponsestothis.Firstly, itisimportanttonotethatMoltmanndoesnotbasethevalueofcreation solelyonChrist’ssolidaritywithit.TherearemanyavenueswhichMoltmann takestoprovidearenewedvisionofnatureandhumanity,whichthetaskof thisprojectistoshow.Forexample,heincorporatesthebiblicalwitnesstoeat food.Thismeansthattheend-of-life-eventofavegetableisnotlikeableto murder.

197 Secondly,thetaskinwhichMoltmannisengagedgivesahelpful contexttointerpretation.Moltmannattemptstorehabilitateaparticularview ofcreationandsohiseffortisprimarilydirectedtoencouragehisreaders toconsiderthatGod’srelationshipwithcreationhastrueconsequencefor all creation.Whatisimportantisthatplantsandanimalshavevalue,inthis particularinstance,becauseofGod’sopenrelationshipwiththem.Sowhile MoltmanndoesnotgoontoexploreexplicitlytheethicalnuancesofGod’s relationshipwithplants,animals,andhumanity,theaccusationof‘plainly inadequate’doesnotgiveduerecognitionofthecontributionhehasmade giventheproblemwithwhichheisfaced.

ThatGodsufferswithallcreationisitselfsigniﬁcant,yettherearealso morepositiveimplicationsbeyondthenegativesideofthisopenrelationship. InMoltmann’sworkthelifeofcreationisintimatelyintertwinedwithGod’s lifeforpleasure:‘Thestoryoftheconversionofhiscreaturestolifeisalso

195 CJF,p.68; WJC,p.256.

196 Bauckham, TheTheology,p.211.ThisisnotsuchasigniﬁcantproblemforBauckham thathewouldrejectMoltmann’sworkaltogetherforheislargelyappreciativeofit.Inhis opinion,Moltmannshouldbethankedforhisexplorationofamuchneglectedarea(p.212).

197 GiC,p.289.

astoryofGod’sjoyinhiscreatures.’198 Forthisreasontherelationship sharedbetweenGodandcreationisoneofmutualencouragementwhere thecommonlife,whichstemsfromGod’slife-givingwork,growsfromthe participationofeachintheother.Forgoodorforill,eachparticipantisboth influencedbyandinfluencestheothers.Herelifeisshared.ForMoltmann, thisopennessleadstogreaterunityandafinaleschatologicalconsummation oftherelationship.Thenextchapterdevelopsthisidea.Anothersignificant effectforcreationisthatitisenabledtoparticipateinGod’slifeandmission. Chapter7willreturntothistopic.

WhilethepreciseworkingsoftherelationshipbetweenGodandcreation inthepresentare,forMoltmann,unknowntohumanity,whatisimportant forhiscontributionheretothetheologicalarchitectureisthatthecoreof God’srelationshipsislove,for‘Godlovestheworldwiththeverysamelove whichhehimselfisineternity’.199

198 ‘TheScope’,p.103. 199 TKG,p.57.

Chapter6 TheEschatologicalGoalof Creation

6.1INTRODUCTION

ThischapterlookstowardsthefutureofcreationandconsiderswhatMoltmann’seschatologicalviewofcreationofferstothisgraduallygrowingtheologicalarchitecture.Theentiretyofhiseschatologyistoolargeaﬁeld,soitis necessarytorestrictdiscussiontothefutureofcreationinparticular.Thisis onepartofamoreextensivetheology.1 Alreadythisworkhasdiscussedthe eternalTrinity,theoriginsofcreation,andGod’songoingrelationshipwith creation,allofwhichcontributetohisconstructionofaviewoftheworld andtheDivinewhichpowerfullyadvocatesthatecologicalconcernsaretaken seriously.Thischapterwillfurtherprogressthisaimandexploretheshared futureofallcreation.

ForMoltmann,natureandhumanityareequallydestinedforaredeemed eternity.Thevolumeofreferenceswhichhemakestoaneschatologicalhope thatincludesafutureforallcreationisimpressivelyhighandinstancesare presentinhisfirstmajorpublicationthroughtohislatest.2 Thisfutureshows continuitywithhisworkonoriginalandcontinuouscreation,whichleads toasharedfutureforGodandcreation.Godworkstowardsaperichoretic relationshipwithallcreationthatreflectstheTrinity’sownlovingnature.The significanceofMoltmann’seschatologyforecologicalattitudesisgreat.His workgivesvaluetoallofcreationasitis,andvaluetotheinteractionswhich

1 Forexample:‘Allthesehorizonsofpurposeandmeaningemergefromthehistoryof Christ.Theﬁrstgoalisjustifyingfaith.Thesecondgoalislordshipoverthedeadandthe living.Thethirdgoalistheconquestofdeath,andnewcreation.Thefourthgoalisthe gloriﬁcationofGodthrougharedeemedworld.’(WJC,p.183.)

2 Forexample: ToH,pp.15,33,205; EthH,pp.116-18.Manyotherexampleswillbeseen throughoutthischapter.

humanityhaswithnature.Accompanyingthisishopeandcomfortforall thosecaughtupintheunredeemedrealityofcreationtoday.

Asthischaptercontinues,itproceedswithtwocaveats.Thefirstisthat theword‘eschatology’maynotperfectlyfitthesubjectmatterathand.Tim ChesterpointsoutthatasallGod’sworkincreationissocloselyconnectedto thedivineredemptiveworkthatitisdifficult,‘andatworstinappropriate’,to differentiatethem.3 T.DavidBeckassertsthat‘reservingthelabel“eschatological”fortheagetocomereflectsthetendencyofsystematictheologyto regardthepresentageasonlyquasi-eschatological’.ForBecktheeschatologicalkingdomisinaugurated,nowandnotyet,presentandfuture.4 This thesis,withan‘eschatological’chapter,superficiallysharesthesameproblem. However,thischapterseekstodescribemorecloselyMoltmann’sviewofthe eschatological goal ofcreation.Forthisreason‘eschatology’remainsthebest termtohandtodelineatethischapter’scontentsfrompreviousdiscussions. Theterm‘eschatologicalfuture’thusdistinguishesthatfuturefromthemore immediatefuture.Itdoesnotimplythateschatologymustreferonlytodistant events.

ThesecondcaveatreallybelongstoMoltmann.Giventhesubjectofhis workthatthischapterstudies(itsconcernwithfutureeventswhoseextent cannotbeknown),acertainamountofspeculationoftheunknowablehas resulted.Forhim,this‘expectantandcreativeimagination’isnecessaryand helpful.Withoutthisimaginationhesaysthataconsiderationofcreation’s futurewouldbeimpossibleandtheologywouldbepoorerinitsabsence.5 Thatsaid,hedoesnotconsiderthegeneralhopeofGod’splanforafuture forallcreationtobemerespeculation.Ofthishopeheiscertain,evenifits preciseshapeisasyetunknown.Tothishope,andthehopewithwhichit infusesthetheologicalarchitecture,thischapternowturns.

6.2ACOMMON FUTUREFOR NATUREAND HUMANITY

AtthecoreofMoltmann’scosmiceschatologyistheinclusionofplanetas wellaspeople.Thisensuresthatthehighconcernshownfornon-human

3 Chester, Mission,p.144.

4 Beck, TheHolySpirit,pp.20,154.

5 GiC,p.4.

creationthroughouthistheologyremainsconsistenttotheend;thusitcanbe reﬂectedwithinthenewtheologicalarchitecture.Thisgivesaﬁrmplatform tothecallforanecologicalreformation.

Hopefor All Creation

Moltmannhasconsistentlyusedthephrasethe‘newcreationofallthings’. Itappearsattheverybeginningofhisworkandcontinuesthroughout.6 Onotheroccasionshereferstoafutureforthe‘earth’andfor‘creation’.7 Inthesestatementshehasdemonstratedaclearbeliefinanall-embracing characterforGod’sredemptivework.Heelucidatesthecontrastbetweenthe redemptionofhumanity from theworldandredemption with it.8 Itisthis ‘redemption with’,anditspotentialtodrawnatureandhumanitytogether, uponwhichhefocuses.9

ForMoltmann,thiscommonfuturemeansmorethanthatbothnature andhumanityhavetheirownpathsthattakethemtoafutureexistence,for ‘[l]ivinghopeisalwaysconnectedwithrelationships’.10 Forhim,allofcreation shares acommonfuture,afutureof‘universalfellowship’.11 Elsewherehe states:

thismeansthat–alltogether,eachcreatedbeinginitsownway–they willparticipateineternallife[...]onewithanother,theywillenterinto anunhinderedcommunicationtowardseveryside,acommunication whichhasbeenknownfromtimeimmemorialas‘thesympathyofall things’.12

Thephrase‘createdbeings’canassumemanymeaningsbutinthiscaseits contextis‘thesympathyofallthings’,whichforMoltmannincludesallof creation.13 This‘unhinderedcommunication’doesnotimplythatnaturewill

6 ToH,pp.15,33,205; RRF,p.203; HP,p.183(1966); CrG,p.352; CPS,pp.63,294; FC, p.94; SpL,p.9; CoG,pp.70,238-39(hereMoltmannafﬁrmstheviewofcertainnineteenth Centurytheologiansandusesthephrase‘allthethingsofnature’),261; TheSource,p.124; GSS,p.104; SRA,pp.67-73; EthH,pp.23,41,126.

7 RRF,pp.12,41,46,119; HP,pp.21-22,26(1966),p.49(1968),p.144(1961),p.215 (1966); ExH,p.60; CPS,pp.xxiii(prefacefrom1989),69;‘Hope’,in ANewDictionary ofChristianTheology,ed.byAlanRichardsonandJohnBowden(London:SCM,1983), pp.270–72(p.272); WJC,pp.45-46;‘TheScope’,pp.102,106; SpL,pp.57,112; CoG, pp.xiii,xiv-vi; GSS,pp.104-05;‘JesusChrist,theHolySpirit’,p.252; SW,p.52.

8 SpL,p.89(cf. TheSource,p.74).

9 Foranearlyexample,see HP,pp.21-22(1966).

10 CPS,p.134.

11 Ibid.,p.256.

12 GiC,pp.183-84.

13 ThisismademoreclearshortlyafterinthesameworkwhenMoltmannusesthephrase inconnectionwith‘alllifesystems’,andcallsthissympathy‘universal’(Ibid.,p.213).

thenbeabletorelatetothingsarounditjustashumanitydoes,orappreciate eternallifeinthesameway.Differenceswillstillremain:‘Humanbeingsand naturehavetheirowndestiniesontheirownparticularlevels’.14 Thepoint hereisnotthattheseareseparatedestinies,forthereisstillacommonfuture. Rather,itmeansthatthedestinyofeachisnottobecomeidentical.

Whatacommonfuturealsomeans,forMoltmann,isthat‘newcreation doesn’tabolishbodiliness’,ratherit‘renewsitforeternallivingness’.15 He commentsonthereasonablyprevalentreductionofsalvationtothe‘existentialsituation’ofhumanity,whichatapopularlevelmightbecalledtheir relationshipwithGodortheir‘spiritual’existence,andwishestosee‘physical andmoral,economicandsocial’concernsalsotakenintoconsiderationas well.16 ForMoltmann,theseareallpartofexistenceandthereforesalvation needstoaddressthem.Hopeneedstorelate‘tothewholeman,tosouland body,[...]maninandwithhisconditionsandhisconditionsinandwith him’.17 Hispictureofthefutureisonewherephysicalandsocialexistence arepartofeternity,andthereforephysicalrelatednessremainspartofeternal life.

HopefromGod

TherearemanyreasonsforMoltmann’scosmichopeandthemotivationfor hiscontributiontothisaspectofthetheologicalarchitecture.FirstisGod’s character,actionsandwords.Followingthisisthepatternofcreation’scurrent existenceasitisnow.

God’sCharacter

MoltmannpaysparticularattentiontotheloveandfaithfulnessofGod.For him,asisdemonstratedthroughoutthisproject,thedivineloveisforall creationandsoGod’sfutureisforallthings.18 TheTrinity’sembracereaches outtoeverything,notonlyfigurativelyspeaking:‘themutualrelationshipsof theTrinityaresowideopenthatinthemthewholeworldcanfindawide space,andredemption,anditsownglorification’.19 God‘pressestowards’the gatheringofallthingssothatlovemayfinditsfulfilment,ultimatelytobring

14 Ibid.,p.69.

15 TheSource,pp.24-25.

16 WJC,p.45.

17 HP,p.125(1960).

18 ‘The"CruciﬁedGod"’,p.299; CrG,p.264.

19 CoG,p.335(cf. CPS,p.135).

thewholeofcreationbeyondthereachofsinanddeath.20

God’spurposesthusinclude all ofcreationbecauseGodisfaithfulto allthattheDivinehasmade.21 Sincetheonewhocreatedallofcreation isthesameastheonewhoredeemsit,forMoltmann,thetwoeventsmust sharethesamescope:‘theReconcilerisultimatelytheCreator,andthus theeschatologicalprospectofreconciliationmustmeanthereconciliation ofthewholecreation,andmustdevelopaneschatologyofallthings’.22 So the‘resolve tocreate alsomeansaresolve tosave’.ForMoltmann,then,an intentionandreadinesstoundertakethewholeprocessthatwouldcomplete creationwasalreadypresent.23 Accordingtohim,thewayinwhichGod remainstruetothedivineworksis‘righteousness’.AsGodisrighteous,hope isuniversalandallthingshavearighttolife.24 ForthisreasonGodwould ‘contradicthimself’ifGoddidnotcarryallofcreationtotheend.25

ThisgenerallineofreasoningattractsadegreeofcritiquefromMcIlroy evenwhenMoltmannappliesit,forexample,specificallytohisbeliefinthe salvationofallhumanity:‘inMoltmann’saccount,God’screativerighteousnessbecomesalawwhichGodisboundtoobey’.26 Chester’sconsiderationof MiroslavVolf’sworkalsoprovokesacomplaintagainstthenotionthatGod’s lovenecessitatesredemptiveactions.Chesteraskswhethertherearenegative connotationsforGod’sfreedom.However,evenashebringsthischarge Chesteroffersasolutionwhichisactuallyhelpfulforunderstandingwhy Moltmanncanholdthisviewand not compromiseGod’sfreedom.Chester states:‘Itissurelybettertoseetheeschatologicalperspectiveintermsofthe reaffirmationandfulfilmentofGod’spurposesincreation.’27 Thisisexactly whatMoltmanndoes.Forhim,God’spurposesaretobringallofcreation toredemptionbecauseofthegreatdivinelove.Thisisobviouslynotwhat Chesterintends,forherejectsuniversalism.28 Yetitsupportstheprinciple thatGodsetout,inloveandfreedom,toaccomplishcreation’sredemption, andthereforeintendstofinishthejob.29

20 CrG,p.264; TKG,p.116.

21 Cf.Ps.145.

22 ToH,p.223(cf. GiC,p.39; SpL,p.112).

23 GiC,p.90.

24 ToH,pp.204-05.

25 CoG,p.259(cf.p.132).

26 McIlroy, ATrinitarian,p.53.

27 Chester, Mission,p.130.

28 Ibid.,pp.145-46,215,130.

29 Chapter3ofthisworkreferstothisdiscussioninmoredepth(see‘God’sFreeCreativity’, p.29),whilethediscussionofcreation’sfreedomalongsideGod’spurposescontinuesbelow (seep.154).McIlroyremindsusthatthereisstillfurtherthoughtneededonthewayinwhich

God’sActions

ForMoltmann,God’sactiverelationshipwith all creationdemonstratesan eternallovefor,andfaithfulnessto,theworld.God’sactionsthusspeakofa hopeforallcreation.InwhatwaydoesMoltmannconsiderthistobeso?His ownwordssummarisehispositionwell:

[T]heoutpouringoftheHolySpirit‘onallﬂesh’ must befollowedby‘the resurrectionofthebody’,justastherebirthofmenandwomenfromthe Spirit must befollowedbytherebirthofthecosmos.Theresurrection ofChristfromthedead must befollowedbytheresurrectionofallthe dead,andtheannihilationofdeathitself.Thereconciliationofthe worldthroughChrist’sdeath must befollowedbythenewcreationof theworld,justasthebecoming-humanofGod must befollowedbythe transformation,transﬁgurationand‘divinization’ofthecosmos.30

Atleastthethreefollowingtopicsemergefromthis.

TheSpirit’sActivityinCreation

TheactivitiesoftheSpirit,alreadyexaminedabove,areforMoltmannpart ofthereasonforuniversalhope.TheSpiritsighswithallofcreationand indicatesthatthereisalongingfortheredemptionofall.31 TheSpiritenlivens allofcreationanddirectsandsustainsittowardsnewcreation.32 TheSpirit indwellsallcreation,makesitholyandjoinstheworldandGodinanenduring relationship.33 ItistheSpiritwhounitescreationtoChrist’shistoryandbrings thepowerofnewcreationtooldcreation.34 ForMoltmann,theSpiritis‘the pledgeofthefuture’and‘thepresenceofthefuture’inthepresent,again God’spromiseofthenewcreationtocome.35

Christ’sSufferingandDeath

Moltmannstates:‘intryingtomeasurethebreadthoftheChristianhope wemustnotwanderoffintofar-offrealms,butmustsubmergeourselvesin thedepthsofChrist’sdeathonthecrossatGolgotha’.36 Asseenbeforein Moltmann’swork,Christ’sdeathandsufferingwasconcernednotonlywith auniversalismsuchasMoltmann’sretainsthefreedomofhumanitywhichassumedlyhasthe choicetorejectGod(McIlroy, ATrinitarian,pp.53-54).Thehumanaspecttouniversalismis howeveroutsidethefocusofthisproject.

30 ‘JesusChrist,theHolySpirit’,p.249.

31 HP,p.22(1966).

32 CPS,p.xxiii,writingin1989; WJC,pp.253-54; SW,p.53.

33 CoG,pp.317-18.

34 CPS,pp.28,287-88; SpL,pp.9,153.

35 HP,p.22(1966); CPS,pp.295-96(cf. ToH,p.68; TKG,p.89;‘TheFellowship’,p.298).

36 CoG,p.250.

thepredicamentofhumanitybutthatofthewholeofcreation.37 Thatcosmic horizonofChrist’ssufferingleadsto,andallows,acosmichorizonforthe redemptionbroughtaboutbyChrist.38 Christsufferedanddiedforcreation andthereforeallofcreationmustexperiencethe‘annihilationofdeath’and suffering,forChrist’sdeathis‘thegroundofliberation’.39 SoforMoltmann, Christianspeculationonthefuture‘canonlybesatisﬁed’withaviewofthe transformationofallthings;‘thewholeofreality’.40 TheSonbecamehuman forthesakeofallcreation.41

Christ’sResurrection

MoltmannbelievesthatthewholehistoryofChristwasopentoallofcreation, forthepurposeofitssalvation.42 Theresurrectionﬁndsitselfatthepinnacle ofthisprocess:‘HoperecognizesthepowerandalsothefaithfulnessofGod inthisstoryoftheresurrectionofthecruciﬁedone.Suchaneventcannot beforgotten!’43 Aswithhisviewofthecross,whenJesussufferedforand with all creation,Moltmannunderstandstheresurrectiontoincludealland anticipatethegeneralresurrectionandnewcreationofall.44 Forhimthe resurrectionisaclearsignofthethingstocomeforallcreation.Itcould bearguedthatforhimthereisnostrongerpromiseofwhatistocomethan Christ’sbodilyresurrectionfromthedead.45

ChesterclaimsthatinMoltmann’sworktheresurrectiondoesnotserve asabasisforanyhopeactually inthepresent butratherpointsonlytoan eschatological hopeforresurrection.ForChester,thismakeslittledifference forthepresentday.46 Yet,forexample,Moltmann’stheologyoftheSpirit’soutpouringatPentecosttobringthenewexperienceofthecrossandresurrection tocreationshowsatransformationofthepresent.47

God’sPromises

Hopeforthefuturealsocomes,forMoltmann,fromthepromisesofGod. ThesepromiseshavevaliditybecauseofGod’scharacterandactions.Molt-

37 SeeChapter5ofthiswork,p.128.

38 CrG,pp.60,91-92,224-25; WJC,p.247; CoG,p.233.

39 WJC,p.253; CPS,pp.256-57(cf. ToH,p.137).

40 HP,p.36(1968).

41 TKG,p.116.

42 ToH,p.164; HP,pp.182-83(1966); CrG,p.106; WJC,p.183.

43 HP,p.183(1966).

44 ToH,p.21; RRF,pp.33,36-37; HP,p.87(1962); CrG,p.173; CPS,pp.287-88; GiC, p.7; WJC,pp.170,247-53;‘TheScope’,p.105; SpL,p.153; CoG,pp.234,338.

45 ToH,pp.69,88,171; HP,pp.182-83(1966).

46 Chester, Mission,pp.23,150.

47 SeeChapter4ofthiswork,p.91).

mannreadilyspeaksofGod‘promising’thefuturenewcreationofallthings.48 BoththeresurrectionofChristandthepresenceoftheSpiritserveaspartsof thispromisebutthefoundationsforthisviewaredeeperstill.

Onanumberofoccasions,Moltmannconsidersscripturalverseswhich refertotheresurrectionalsotoincludethephysical.Inthegospelaccounts hepointstoMatthew19.28,whereJesusmentions‘therenewalofallthings’, whichimpliestoMoltmann‘the rebirth[...]ofthewholecosmos’.49 From thelettersoftheNewTestamenthehighlightsotherverses.‘[God]willgive lifetoyourmortalbodies’,speaksoftheexpectationofthephysicalnatureof theresurrection.50 1Corinthians15andRevelation21.4speakoftheendof death,whichforMoltmannis‘ofalltheliving’.51 Heunderstands‘[Christ] willtransformthebodyofourhumiliationthatitmaybeconformedtothe bodyofhisglory’,asanemphaticstatementthatis‘notmerelyspeakingin aspiritualsense’.52 ‘Iammakingallthingsnew’thusmeansthatnothing islostandeverythingis‘broughtbackagaininnewform’.53 Thesubject ofsabbathisanadditionalimportantpartofthepromiseofafutureforall thingsforMoltmann.HeseesitsfoundationsintheChristianScriptures: ‘Accordingtobiblicaltraditions,creationisalignedtowardsitsredemption fromtheverybeginning;forthecreationoftheworldpointsforwardtothe sabbath,“thefeastofcreation”.’54 Sohespeaksofthesabbathasapromise ofthefuture‘builtintotheinitialcreation’.55 Earlierdiscussionalsoshould notbeforgotten,namelyhistheorythat‘allﬂesh’,seeninvariousbiblical passages,explicitlyincludesalllife(animalsandplants).Thisalsoinﬂuences hisdiscussionofthefutureresurrection.56

HopethroughtheInseparabilityofNatureand Humanity

HavingexaminedatthefoundationsforMoltmann’shopeofafutureforall creation,nowdiscussionmovestothewayinwhichtheinterrelatednessand interdependencyofcreationalsocontributestothishope.Thattheuniverse

48 ToH,p.337; ExH,p.45; CPS,p.256.

49 EoG,p.30(cf. WJC,p.249).

50 Rom.8.11; CoG,p.69.

51 WJC,p.194; CoG,pp.65-66.

52 Phil.3.21; TJ,p.62.

53 Rev.21.5; CoG,p.265.

54 GiC,p.5(cf.p.6).

55 CoG,p.264(cf.p.266).

56 Ibid.,pp.69-70.SeethediscussioninChapter4ofthiswork,p.55.

wascreatedinsuchawayspeakstohimofitseternaldestiny.Forhim,the Christianhopeisforaneternalbody,andthereisnoconceivableexistence forabodywithoutanenvironmenttowhichthebodyrelates.Inobserving thepowerofdeathoverthebodywhichaffectsallcreationhestates:‘The corporealitywhichthuscomestotheforeinhopeisplainlythestartingpoint forthesolidarityofthebelieverwiththewholeofcreationwhich,likehim, issubjectedtovanity–inhope.’57 Thisthemeisretainedinthelater,more overtlyenvironmentallyconcernedwritings:

[Humanity]isviewedasbelongingwithintheenduringcohesionofthe wholecreation.Creationhasitsmeaningforhumanbeings,andhuman beingshavetheirmeaningforthecommunityofcreation.Ifweare tounderstandwhathumanexistenceis,andwhathumanbeingsare destinedorcalledtobe,wemustseethesehumanbeingsasbelonging withintheall-embracingcoherencesofGod’shistorywiththeworld,the historyofcreationandthehistoryofredemption.58

Moltmanncontinuestowriteoftheinvolvementanddependencywhich natureandhumanityshareinthisworld,andwhichheclaimsiscarriedon intotheredeemedeternity.Someofthephrasesusedarestriking:‘Inphysical terms,believersareboundtogetherinacommondestinywiththewhole worldandallearthlycreatures’and‘humanhistoryisconsummatedin“the resurrectionofnature”,becauseonlyinandthroughthatisa“deliverance” ofhumanlifeconceivable’.59 Forhim,humanityis‘embeddedinnature’and willremainsointoeternity.60

Thisraisessomeinterestingquestionsconcerningtheexactnatureofan eternalexistencewithphysicalinter-relatedness.Humanity’spresentexperienceofphysicalexistenceisapparentlyinseparablefromtheprocessesof materialexchangeandcompetitionwhichinevitablyleadtolossforsome andgainforothers.Moltmannanticipatessomeofthesequestionsandposes themhimself:‘Willhumanneedsandhumandependenceonfood,air,climate andsoforthbeabolished?’Theanswerforhimisclearly‘no’;thatwould resultinanendtothe‘communityofcreation’whichlivestogetherininterrelatedness.Wastheinteractionandco-supportbetweennatureandhumanity onlytemporary?Again,‘no’.61 Moltmannalsooffershisownquestionin reply:‘howarewesupposedtoeatanddrinkinthekingdomofGodifthere

57 ToH,p.214.

58 GiC,p.189.

59 Ibid.,p.68; WJC,pp.253-54(cf.p.274); CoG,p.260.

60 CoG,p.132(cf. CPS,p.134).

61 WJC,p.262.

arenolongertobeanybodilyneeds?’.62 Asimpleresponsewouldbethat suchideasweremeanttobetakenmetaphoricallyoranthropologically,or thattheyspeakofactionswithinthepartiallyrealisedkingdomthatisalready presenttocreation.This,however,stillleavesthequestionconcerningthe natureofabodilyeternalexistenceforthosewhobelieveintheresurrection ofthebody,asigniﬁcantideainChristianity.Moltmannisnottheonlyoneto grapplewiththemysteryofaphysicalresurrectionofthedead.63

ThiscomponentofMoltmann’seschatologyispossiblyvulnerabletoa moregeneralcriticismofhiswork:thatheisoverlyspeculative,andon occasiongoesbeyondwhatishelpful.64 Forexample,canChristiantheology claimthatthestructuresofcreationasweknowthem(andthatonlypartially) aresettoremainforever?Thiswouldbeaboldclaim.Evenso,Moltmann’s basisforthisapproachseemstobe:‘ThisisthewayGodmadeitandsothis isthewayitmustbe!’However,evenPaulatthesametimeasadefenceof theresurrectionofthebodyspeaksofitsdifferencetotheexistingbody:‘you donotsowthebodythatistobe,butabareseed’.65 Thedifference,though, betweenseedandbodydoesnotreallygiveanywarrantfordeclarationsthat therecanbe no similarities.Theseedandthebodysharemanycharacteristics atthesametimeasnotbeingidentical,otherwisetheywouldsimplybe separateentities.66 Theunpredictabilityofthefutureshouldnot,therefore, disallowthespeculationofsimilaritiesbetweencreationnowandinitsfuture. ThuswhileMoltmann’sreasoningmaybespeculativethisisnotprohibited. Indeed,CatherineLaCugnaencouragesspeculationaslongasitsstatusas speculationisremembered.67 Moltmann’scentralconcerninthesethoughts aboutcreation’scommonfutureisthatnatureandhumanityarerecognised tobejourneyingtogether,andtheconceptoftheredemptionofonewithout

62 Ibid.,p.373,n.62.

63 1Cor.15.Theconcretenatureofwhatphysicalco-dependencyineternitylooks likeisextremelydifﬁculttoenvisage.Iffoodiseatenthenwhatofthesupposedeternal permanenceofallcreation?However,theassertionofaneternaldigestivesystemisa problemofspeculativedetailandneednotdetractfromthewiderimplicationsofMoltmann’s claimthatallcreationwillexistineternity.

64 Forexample:Bauckham, TheTheology,p.167;RichardBauckham,‘Eschatologyin The ComingofGod’,in GodWillBeAllInAll:TheEschatologyofJürgenMoltmann,ed.byRichard Bauckham(Edinburgh:T&TClark,1999),pp.1–34(p.12);Chester, Mission,p.27;Beck, TheHolySpirit,p.105;McIlroy, ATrinitarian,p.2.

65 1Cor.15.37.

66 Moltmannallowsforthissimilarityanddifference:‘Humanbeingsandnaturehave theirowndestiniesontheirownparticularlevels;butintheirenslavementandtheirliberty theyshareacommonhistory.’(GiC,p.69).

67 CatherineMowryLaCugna,‘PhilosophersandTheologiansontheTrinity’, Modern Theology,2:3(1986),169–81(p.180,n.24).

theotherseemsuntenabletohim.Theinventiveideasthatcomewiththis concerncanbewelcomedfortheircontributiontothecommunity’swider debateandtheirsuggestionsforecologicalre-imagining.

ACommonFuture

AboveisMoltmann’sreasoningforaneschatologicalfutureforallcreation. Thiscommonfuturefornatureandhumanityisspeciﬁcallyoneinwhich allofcreationisnewlycreated.Heassertsthatsalvationisnotaspiritual eventforhumanity’sspiritualexistence,ratherittakesholdofthewhole personandwholeworldtogether.Thereisnotaseparatefuturefornature fromhumanity’sfuture.Hegivesvariousreasonstohopeforafuturethat embraces all ofcreation.

Thisthemeofacommonfuturefornatureandhumanityisimportantto Moltmann’senvironmentalconcernasitspeaksofacommonhopeforallof creationsothatitisnotgivenupinhopelessness,norisitssufferingignored. Thiscommonfuturebringssolidaritybetweennatureandhumanitywhich bringstheirlivestogether.68 Inthisheprovidesastrongvoiceforthelasting valueofallofcreationthatcountersthedepreciationofnatureinmany contemporarysocieties.Hefurthercontributestoatheologicalarchitecture thathasnotemporalboundariesforitscareofcreation.

6.3ASHARED FUTUREFOR GODAND CREATION

Moltmannspeaksofaneschatologythatdoesnotonlyinvolveafuturefor God’screation,asinanewstateofexistence,ratherhelookstowardsa newfutureinwhichGodandcreation together ﬁndsomethingnew;a‘closer fellowship’.69 This‘sympathyofallthings’towhichhehasreferredisnot simplyforcreationbutincludesGod,andindeedcentresaroundGod.70 ThelinkbetweentheTrinityandcreationissuchthat:‘Godcomestohis gloryinthatcreationarrivesatitsconsummation.Creationarrivesatits consummationinthatGodcomestohisgloriﬁcation.’71 Godconsummates

68 HP,pp.21-22(1966).

69 TJ,p.62.

70 GiC,pp.6,183-84,213.

71 FC,p.94.

thisrelationshipthroughthefullreconciliationofcreationtotheDivine andtherepairoftherupturesthathaveoccurredthroughouthistory.72 It isalsoarelationshipinwhichcreationnowfullyknowsandpraisesGod.73 Perhaps,however,theoverridingimageoftheTrinityandthenewcreation, forMoltmann,istheiruniﬁcation.Inthisheholdstogethertheconceptsof relationality,care,andopennessconsistentlythroughthefutureaspectsofhis theology.Incorporatingthisthemeintothenewtheologicalarchitecturegives thelatterasimilarlyconsistentemphasisonthedivineloveforcreation.

CreationandGodUniﬁed

ThelanguageofunificationseemstoencapsulateMoltmann’svisionofthe futureasithighlightstherelationalaspectofthegoalofredemption.The loving,seekingopennessoftheTrinitytowardstheworldfindsitscompletion in‘thegatheringandunitingofmenandthewholecreationwithGodandin God’.74 ThemissionofChristwasaimedtowardsthisgoal,asistheactivityof theSpirit.75 Likewise,MoltmannpresentsitasataskoftheChurchifitisto reflecttrulythedivinelove.76 Forhim,Goddoesnotdesireafuturewithout creationsafelypresentalso.77

Thisunionismorethanthesimplelocationoftwoseparateentities alongsideeachother.Itisaunionwhichreflectstheperichoreticrelationships oftheTrinityitself.78 AccordingtoMoltmann,God’sopennessisoneof therootsofsalvationforcreation.InareflectionoftheTrinity’seternal perichoreticrelationshipshedescribessalvation’srelianceontheopenness oftheTrinity‘forthereceptionandunificationofthewholecreation’.79 Itis thisopennesswhichmeansthat‘thewholeworldcanfindawidespace,and redemption,anditsownglorification’.80 Godisopensothatallthingscanbe ‘gathered’togetherandbothGodandcreationcanfindthe‘joyofunion’.81

72 ToH,p.205.

73 Ibid.,p.281; WJC,p.183.

74 CPS,p.60(cf. CrG,p.335; CPS,pp.59-64; FC,p.91; TKG,pp.90,96,148-50,157, 178;‘TheFellowship’,p.300;‘SomeReﬂectionsontheSocialDoctrineoftheTrinity’,in The ChristianUnderstandingofGodToday:TheologicalColloquiumontheOccasionofthe400th AnniversaryoftheFoundationofTrinityCollege,Dublin,ed.byJamesM.Byrne(Dublin:The ColumbiaPress,1993),pp.104–11(p.105)).

75 CPS,pp.59-60.

76 Ibid.,p.65.

77 Ibid.,pp.60-63; FC,p.94;Lapideetal., JewishMonotheism,p.55.

78 CoG,p.295.

79 TKG,p.157.

80 CoG,p.335.

81 CPS,pp.60,64; FC,p.91.

Thisideapresentstwoperspectives:Godincreation,andcreationinGod.

GodinCreation

AnoftenrepeatedphraseofMoltmann’sis‘allinall’,andthissumsupforhim thepresenceofGodineternity.82 Godwillbe‘immediately’and‘universally’ presentincreation.83 Anotherwordwhichheusesregularlyistheword ‘dwell’.84 Theconceptofindwellinghelpshisdescriptionsoundlesslikea mechanicalideaofGod’slocationwithincreationinsomespatialsenseand moreliketherelationallyorientatedideathatGodmakescreationthedivine home.85 Heretheideaoftheeschatologicalsabbathcomesintoplay.The endwillreﬂectthebeginning,inthattherestwhichGoddemonstratedinthe sabbathdayofthecreationaccountwillbereclaimed;Godwillcometorest inGod’s‘eternalsabbath’.86

Moltmannwritesoftheeschatologicaldivineindwellingasthegoal forGod’s Shekinah,particularlyin TheComingofGod. 87 Hedifferentiates between Shekinah andsabbath:thelatteris‘thepresenceofGod inthe time ofthosehehascreated’(orthe‘presenceofeternityintime’),and Shekinah is‘thepresenceofGod inthe space’ofcreation.88 Yethealsolinksthetwo throughtheconceptofrest,the‘menuhah’,whichistheaimofbothsabbath andindwelling.Healsodescribesthesabbathastheinitialpromiseand the Shekinah asthefulfilment,althoughthisisnottorestricttheconceptof sabbathawayfromthefulfilmentofcreation.Inaddition,hewritesofthe arrivalofGod’s Shekinah atitsownrestand‘eternalsabbath’.89 Thisrestisa visionforhimofallthelandstobefilledwithGod’sglory,andhumanityto be‘atonewithGod,nature,and[it]self’.90

82 ToH,pp.88,278,281; HP,pp.50(1968),87(1962); CrG,pp.264,349; ExH,p.40; ‘CreationandRedemption’,p.125; CPS,p.100; FC,p.120; GiC,p.288; SpL,p.212; CoG, pp.238,294,335; GSS,p.185; EiT,pp.50,100,310; SW,p.60; SRA,pp.32,95,152,157, 168,184-85,207; EthH,p.122.

83 ToH,p.282(cf. SpL,p.57).

84 RRF,pp.36-37,61,67; HP,pp.49-50(1968); TJ,p.60; CrG,pp.282,335,349; ‘CreationandRedemption’,p.129; CPS,pp.60,100,294; FC,p.125; EoG,pp.77-78; GiC, pp.xii-xiii,5,64,96,150,183-84,213,288;‘TheScope’,pp.101-02; SpL,p.57; CoG, pp.266,295;‘Shekinah’,pp.171,176,182-83; GSS,pp.104-05;‘JesusChrist,theHoly Spirit’,p.251.

85 GiC,pp.5,96;‘TheScope’,p.102.

86 EoG,pp.77-78; GiC,p.288;‘TheScope’,p.102.

87 CoG,p.xiii.

88 Ibid.,p.266.

89 Ibid.,pp.266,295;‘Shekinah’,pp.182-83.

90 RRF,p.61; CrG,p.282.

ForMoltmann,Godisactiveincreationtomakecreationintoasuitable home,toridtheworldofthenegativesof‘death,suffering,tears,guilt,and evil’.91 HereistheworkofGodinhistorytobringabouttheperfectionof creationandmakeitahomeﬁtforGod:

IntheoperationandindwellingoftheSpirit,thecreationoftheFather throughtheSon,andthereconciliationoftheworldwithGodthrough Christ,arriveattheirgoal.ThepresenceandtheefﬁcacyoftheSpiritis theeschatologicalgoalofcreationandreconciliation.Alltheworksof GodendinthepresenceoftheSpirit.92

YetaswellasGod’spreparationofcreation inreadiness ofthedivineindwelling,MoltmannalsospeaksofGod’seschatologicalindwellingas theevent thatultimatelytransformscreation.Creationisbothprepared for God’spresenceandultimatelytransformed through God’sfuturefullerpresence.God’s comingpresenceisthatwhichbrings‘meaning’andallowscreationfullyto takepartinGod’smeaning,andsoitisthispresencewhichconsummates creation,makesitthenewheavenandthenewearth,andmakesit‘thehouse ofGod’.93 Itisthedivinepresencethatconquersdeath.94 SowhileMoltmann speaksofcreation’spreparationtobeﬁttoreceiveGod,alsoGod’spresence enablescreationtobeitstrueselfandbe‘holyandglorious,good,whole, andbeautiful’asitreﬂectstheindwellingGod.95

Thisisnottoforgettheimportanceoftheincarnationforthetransformationofcreation.EventhoughGod’sfutureindwellingispivotal,Moltmann’s Christ-centredeschatologystillhighlightsSon’scrucialrole:

Thisvisionofanendofthehistoryoftorture,bytheearthlyindwelling ofGodinanewcreationwithoutsuffering,deathandlamentation,isin nowaythenegationofthecrossofChristinthemidstofthishistory,but rathertheperfectionofhislordship.Christianhopefortheworldisnot directedtowardsanabstractother-worldlypantheisminwhichallthat Christhasdonetoovercometheworlddisappears,butrathertowards thefactthat‘Godwillbeallinall’.96

BoththeworkofChristandthecomingpresenceofGodmakedecisiveand indispensablecontributionstohistoryandtheredemptionofcreation,for theyareinterrelatedpartsofGod’swiderrelationshipwiththeworld.Aview ofGod’sindwellingastheturningpointforcreation’stransformationdoes

91 RRF,p.61.

92 GiC,p.96.

93 CrG,p.349; GiC,pp.xii-xiii.

94 ‘CreationandRedemption’,p.125; FC,p.120.

95 GiC,p.279;‘Shekinah’,pp.182-83.

96 HP,pp.49-50(1968).

notneglecttheworkofChristbecauseitis Christ’s workwhichmakesthe eschatologicalfuturepossible.InMoltmann’stheologythisisclear:Christis ‘theredeemerofthewholecreationprocess’.97

CreationinGod

ForMoltmann,Godcomestodwellfullyincreationattheeschaton.Yetthisis notthefullpicturebecausehisviewoftheeschatologicalfuture,aselsewhere, manifeststheperichoreticnatureofhistrinitarianism:

Tothrowopenthecirculatorymovementofthedivinelightandthe divinerelationships,andtotakemenandwomen,withthewholeof creation,intothelife-streamofthetriuneGod:thatisthemeaningof creation,reconciliationandgloriﬁcation.98

Moltmanndemonstratesthathebelievesitisimportantthattheconsummated relationshipbetweenGodandcreationmaintainsboththedynamicsofGod increation and creationinGod.The‘eternalsabbath’is‘therestofGodand restinGod’.99 TheTrinitynotonlyﬁndsahomeincreationbutalsobecomes thehomeforcreation.100 Inthiswaycreationcomestoafullyparticipative relationshipwithandinGod.101

ItisimportanttonotethatMoltmanndoesnotclaimthattheperichoretic relationshipofGodandcreationisexactlythesameastheperichoretic relationshipoftheTrinity.Thiswouldcertainlybeproblematic.102 Hestates thatthewayGodindwellscreationandthewaycreationindwellsGodare distinguishable:‘God’sindwellingintheworldisdivineinkind;theworld’s indwellinginGodisworldlyinkind.’Whatexactlydoindwellingsthatare ‘divineinkind’and‘worldlyinkind’looklike?Moltmanndoesnotgivea detailedbreakdownofwhatthesemean.Hesimplyattemptstoemphasise thatGodindwellscreationmostdefinitely asGod andcreationindwellsGod mostdefinitely ascreation.Forhealsohighlightsthatthetransformedcreation isstill‘finiteandcreated’,unlikeGod.103

Anumberofcommentatorsshowacertainuneasinesswiththisviewof Godandcreation’sfuturebecauseitcombinesawkwardlywithMoltmann’s

97 WJC,p.286,explicitlyreferredtoasthe creationova

98 TKG,p.178.

99 EoG,p.78.

100 GiC,p.5(cf. HP,p.36(1968);‘SomeReﬂections’,p.106).

101 GiC,pp.150,184(cf.Bonzo, Indwelling,p.73).

102 Forexample,McCall, WhichTrinity?,pp.156-74.

103 GiC,pp.150,184.

useof zimsum,andthecreationofthe nihil,intheoriginalactofcreation. Inshort,ifincreationinthebeginningitwasnecessaryforGodtowithdraw thedivineselftoallowan‘Other’toexist,canthisothernessbesaidtopersist whenGodreﬁllsthespacethatwasforsakenandcreationfullyindwells God?104 Deane-Drummonddisagreesandarguesthatascreationhasalways beenessentiallydifferenttoGoditsdifferenceisretainedevenwithGod’sfull indwellingpresence.105 Deane-Drummond’spointispersuasive,especially giventhepossibilityofashiftinMoltmann’semphasistoGodasthe‘living space’ofcreation.106

Moltmannisquestionedsimilarlyinrelationtocreation’stime:ifGod restrictedthedivineeternityinordertogivecreationtime,butthengoes ontoderestrictit,thisresultsintheunknownstatusofcreation’stime.107 A similarcritiquecouldbemadeofthenotionofthefreedomofcreationcoming throughGod’sself-restrictionofthedivineomniscience.108 DoesMoltmann takeintoaccounthisownassertionthatGod’s fullpresence bringsthefullness offreelifetocreation?Onepossibilityforaligningthesedifferingfoundations forfreeisthatacertainkindoffreedomwasgiventhroughself-restriction whileafullerfreedomwillcomethroughdivineindwelling.Thisinvitesthe questionofwhythisfullerfreedomwasnotgivenintheﬁrstplace.Itseems bettertoconcentrateonhisideathatGod,fromthebeginning,isthe‘living space’ofcreationbecausethisideaismorecoherentwithhisworkasawhole.

AGoodFuture

Thissharedfutureisessentiallyagoodfutureforallcreation;itwillhave ‘statusandbeing’,‘everlastinglife,enduringcontinuance,andeternalglory’.109 Moltmanngivesastatementearlyonwhichgivesagoodfoundationforhis approachtothefutureofcreation:‘Godwilldwellin[creation]withhis essence.Thisistosaythatthenewcreationcorrespondstotheessenceof GodandisilluminatedandtransﬁguredbyGod’searthlypresence.’110 By itself,thephrase‘correspondstotheessenceofGod’couldeasilybecomea hostagetomisinterpretation.Fortunately,however,hegoesontoexpandon

104 Walsh,‘TheologyofHope’,pp.74-76;Bouma-Prediger, TheGreening,pp.254-55;Bonzo, Indwelling,p.74,n.10.

105 Deane-Drummond, Ecology,p.119.

106 Seethiswork,Chapter3,p.43.

107 Law, TheFuture,p.315;Neal, TheologyAsHope,p.217,n.109.

108 CoG,p.282.

109 ToH,p.205; SpL,p.9.

110 RRF,p.36.

theidea.Hestatesthatitmeansthatcreationbecomesthatwhichisﬁtting tobeindweltbyGod.Creationﬁndsitselfin alignmentwithaspects ofGod’s essence,asopposedtosomehowbeingre-madetobethe same essenceas God.Thatis,allthingswillshareGod’screativity,life,perfectcommunication, andplay.Theseeffectsareaccompaniedbyanendtopainandindifference becauseallthingscorrespondtoGod’sgoodessence.

Itisinthisnewcreationthatdeathwillbenomore.111 Thethreatof annihilationwillbegonefromthewholeofcreation.112 ForMoltmann,this givesaclearmessageofwhathumanity’sattitudetowardsdeathandsuffering shouldbe,notjustthedeathofhumansbutthedeathwhichtroublesevery partofcreation:humanityshould‘standinsolidarity’withcreationand intercede‘onbehalfofit’.113 Hisdesireforeschatologytoinformecologyis clear.

Inthenewcreationpeacewillreignovercreation.Itistobea‘day ofrest’forallthings,humanorotherwise.114 ForMoltmannthisdoesnot implytheseparationofthegoodelementsofcreationfromthebad,suchas goodpeoplefrombadpeople,oroftheremovalofhumanityoutofanatural worldthatrestrictsandharms.Rather,forhimitisthetransformationof everythingtobewhatitshouldbe;humanitytotruehumanity;natureto truenature;therelationshipsbetweeneverythingmadewholeandhealthy; Godandcreation’srelationshipconsummated; Shalom isfound.115 This‘bliss’ ofcreationisagainsomethingwhichaffectsthepresent;theHolySpiritis alreadyatworktobringitaboutincreation,aworkwhichhumanitycan hopefor,correspondto,anticipate,andalreadyparticipateorlivein.116

ForMoltmannthishopeforanendtosufferingmakesadifferencefor allcreation.117 Allofcreationis‘enslaved’bydeathand‘transitoriness’, whichcausesittosuffer.118 Heevengoessofarastosaythatnature‘liesin anguish’,thatcreation‘eagerlyawait[s]’andis‘longing’foritsfreedomfrom suffering.119 HeisofcoursereferringbacktotheNewTestament,suchas Romans8whichdescribestheeagerwaitingofcreation.Butthesearestill difﬁcultconceptstograsp;inwhatwaydoplantsorothersimplelife-forms

111 Ibid.,p.67;‘TheScope’,p.106; SpL,p.74; CoG,p.xiii; TheSource,p.124.

112 ToH,pp.161-62;‘CreationandRedemption’,p.130; FC,pp.125,171.

113 ExH,pp.188-89; HP,p.21(1966).

114 ExH,p.176; GiC,p.296.

115 ToH,p.329.

116 CPS,p.291;‘TheFellowship’,p.299.

117 RRF,p.136.

118 Ibid.,pp.74,93,218; HP,p.21(1966); CPS,p.83; SpL,p.9.

119 RRF,p.93; HP,p.21(1966); CrG,p.101.

suffer?

ThesearenotchallengesforMoltmannalone;thewholeoftheChristian traditionhastowrestlewiththemeaningofthoseversesfromRomans.He does,however,interprettheminsuchawaythateverypartofcreation ﬁndseternallifeandbliss,whichisnotnecessarilytheviewofallChristian traditions.Yethisworkissuesastrongchallengetotakeseriouslythefuture ofallcreation.Forhim,thesharedfutureofGodandcreation’sperichoretic indwelling‘leadstoacosmicadorationofGodandanadorationofGodin allthings’.120 Italsospeaksoftheimportanceof this creationwhichisbeing preparedtobeGod’shome. This creationmatters.CreationinGodshows afutureofperfectparticipation,andinspiressuchbehaviourinthepresent. Thepictureofthefuture,forMoltmann,inspirestheactionsofthepresentso thatpeopleseektoaligncreation’spresentwithitsanticipatedfuture.The eschatologicalgoalgivesatasktohumanity.

6.4CONTINUITYAND DISCONTINUITY: FROM CREATIONTO REDEMPTION

AswellasthehopeforagoodfutureforGodandallcreation,Moltmannalso considerstherelationshipofthateschatologicalfuturetothepast,present, andmoreimmediatefutureofcreation.Heseeksabalancebetweena viewthatsaysthefutureofcreationiscompletelydifferenttothepresent (discontinuity)andonethatsaysthefutureissimplyaproductofthepresent (continuity).Tosettleononeortheotherwouldbeinsufﬁcientanddangerous. Completediscontinuityleadstoadespairforallactionsinthepresentas theywillnotmakeanylastingdifference.Completecontinuityalsoleadsto despairbecausetheextrapolationofcurrenttrendsgivesaverybleakpicture ofthefuture,andgivesnohopeformistakesalreadymade.Thebalance betweenthetwoinMoltmann’sbothmakesavailablebothencouragement andresponsibilitytothenewtheologicalarchitectureandtheecological reformation.Activitytoaidcreationinthepresentismeaningfulwhilethere ishopeforthetransformationofmistakesandinadequacies.

ThediscussionconcernsMoltmann’suseofthethemeofdiscontinuity beforeanexaminationofthethemeofcontinuity.Therearevariouscriticisms

120 GSS,p.104.

ofhisworkinthisareatoassessalongsideaconsiderationofthewayinwhich thetwoideasﬁttogether.

Discontinuity

ThethemeofdiscontinuityhasbeenunderstandablyopentomisunderstandinginMoltmann’swork.Fromthebeginningofhiscareerhehasseemingly spokenofafuturewhichwillnot‘developfromthepresent’andisin‘contradiction’toit.121 Histheologypointstowardsthe‘newcreationofallthings’.122 Itis‘totallynew’:‘notbythedevelopmentorevolutionoftheold[...]not outofthepossibilitieswhichwepossess[...]thenewshowsitselfasGod’s creativeact.God’snewrealityisalwayslikea novumexnihilo’.123 Someof Moltmann’sstatementsofthediscontinuousfutureseemtospeakofdiscontinuityatsuchahighlevelthatthereseemstobeaconﬂictwithhisview ofarealfutureforthiscreation.Forexample:‘Thenewisprecededbythe destructionoftheold,thatwhichhasbecomeguilty’.124 Andanother:

Thenewcreationdoesnotemergeoutoftherestorationoftheold creation;itfollowsfromcreation’send.Outof‘thenegationofthe negative’aBeingarisesthathasovercometheconﬂictbetweenbeing andnon-beingandishenceabsolutelynew.125

Thesearestrongstatements,yettheircontextwarnsusawayfromanoverly literalinterpretation.Theprevioustwocommentsaredirectedathumanityas wellasnatureandsosuchanunderstandingwouldalsonecessitatehumanity’s destruction.Thiscannot,however,beMoltmann’sintentasthediscussions aredirectedatthehopefor all creationthroughGod’snewcreation.Afurther examinationofthecontextgivesmorereasontomoderateinterpretation. Theearlierquotation,forexample,precedesthenotionofarealhopefor thepast:thefuturecomes‘likeaspiritofresurrectionintothedeadbones (Ezekiel37),creatinghopeagainsthope’.126 Itdoesnotseemthatalltheold hasbeendestroyed.Concerningthesecondquotation,whilehisfocusmaybe onthenewnessofcreation,atthesametimeheclearlyﬁnishesthechapter withanafﬁrmationthatthepresentcreationisrenewedandtransformed.127

121 ToH,pp.102-06.

122 CoG,p.261.

123 RRF,pp.9,12.

124 Ibid.,p.9.

125 FC,p.164.

126 RRF,p.9.

127 FC,pp.168-71.

Therejectionofthe‘restorationoftheoldcreation’isaspeciﬁcreference totherestorationoftheoldoriginalstateofcreation(whichsubsequent discussionwilldemonstrateMoltmanncertainlydoesreject),andfollowing thistrajectory‘creation’send’referstotheendofthiscurrentstateofcreation. Creationwillbe‘absolutelynew’inthatitwillneverhavebeforeexisted withoutthe‘conﬂictbetweenbeingandnon-being’.Hencetheoldwayof thingspassesaway;allismadenew.Theoldhasgone;thenewlifeofcreation hascome.

Moltmann’spointisthatthefutureisverydifferenttothepresent,that is,towhatisseeninhistory.ThisfuturecanonlycomeaboutfromGod’s interventioninsomewaytodosomethingdifferent.Heassertsthatbecause ofthiswecannotbuildapictureofthefuturethroughanextrapolationfrom presenttrends.Thisisnotsimplybecausetherearetoomanyvariablesfor humanitytocomprehend,butbecausethe‘courseoftheworldprocess’does notleadtothe‘wholenessandunityofreality’.128 Forhim,thefuturewhichis awaitedisinconﬂictwithlifeonearthinthepresent.Historyitselfneedsto betransformed,otherwiseitleadstoresignationthatthingswillneverchange enoughtoreachtheintendedgoal.Thetrendsofhistorydonotgivemuch comfort.129 Similarlyevolutioncannotreachthedesiredgoalforcreation.130 Thisisnotaclaimthatthereshouldbe no extrapolationusedtoassess thedevelopmentofthenearfuture,onlythatitisnotatooltodeclarewhat thefuturewillultimatelybe.Ratheritisawaytojudgethesuccessesofour currentendeavours:‘Socialpolicyonlyemergeswhensociological,economic andpurelyscientiﬁcextrapolationsarelinkedwithethicalanticipations.[...] [T]helinkingofwhatweknowandcandowithwhatwehopeforand desire.’131 Extrapolationisavitalpartofhumanity’sstrugglethroughlife,but onitsownitdoesnotrecognisethatthereisanothermovementsweeping throughhistory.

Moltmann,however,makesusawareofanapparentcriticismofhis declarationin TheTheologyofHope thatextrapolationisnotenough:

HendrikBerkhofmaintainedthethesis:‘Thefutureisanextrapolation ofwhathasalreadybeengiveninChristandtheSpirit.’Hedeveloped thisfurther[...]:‘Eschatologycanonlyexistasanextrapolationof experienceswhichwehaveofGodinourownworldandhistory.’132

128 ToH,p.278.

129 RRF,pp.119,196-98(cf. FC,p.48).

130 WJC,p.287(cf.Southgate, TheGroaning,p.76).

131 FC,p.56.

132 Ibid.,p.41.

Berkhof’stheoryofextrapolationseemstobemorenuancedthantheone Moltmannhaspresentedandrejected.ForBerkhof,extrapolationdoesnot excludeGod’swork.Ineffect,Berkhofsays:‘Wecannotclaimanythingfor thefuturewhichisnotincontinuitywithwhatwehavealreadyseenof God.’ItwasoutlinedabovethatMoltmannbaseshishopeforthefutureon God’scharacter,actionsandpromises.Inthiswayhistheoryofhopefrom GodissimilartoBerkhof’stheoryofextrapolatingfrom‘whathasalready beengiveninChristandtheSpirit’.Forexample:‘Itisnothumanactivity thatmakesthefuture.ItistheinnernecessityoftheChristeventitself’.133 Moltmann’sproposalmayhaveanadditionalemphasisonGod’spromises, yetessentiallytheargumentseemstoconcernsemantics.BothseeGodas deﬁnitiveintheworld’stransformationbutuseextrapolationindifferent waysinthediscussion.Unfortunately,theconversationbetweenthesetwo writersishamperedbecauseoftheoppositedirectionsinwhichtheythinkin thisinstance:Berkhofspeaksclearlyofthepastmovingintothefutureand God’sworktogetitthere.ForMoltmannitisthefuturethatismovinginto thepast.Hedoesnotwishtoextrapolatethefuturefromthepastbecause hesimplydoesnotbelievethatthatisthewayinwhichithappens.This isdifferenttoothercritiquesthatcallintoquestionthediscontinuityofthe futurewithhistoryitself.

Moltmann’srejectionofanextrapolationfrompasttofuturehasmerit. ForChristiantheologysimplytospeakoftheextrapolationofGod’sactionsin historycouldbetomisstheradicalnewnessofthenewcreation.Forinstance, ifthefutureisextrapolatedfromtheimpactalreadyhadbyGodoncreation andsocietythenaguaranteedoutcomeofgoodnessmaynotbeobvious.God’s workhasevidentlynotmadecreationperfect.ForMoltmann,itisimportant torecognisethegreatdifference‘betweenthe“realmoffreedom,”whichwe hopewillultimatelyfreethewholecreationfromitsmisery,andthebeginning offreedomhereinthemidstofaworldfullofbondageandslavery’.134 In otherwords,GodhasnotyetdoneallGodwilldo.Thereforetheextent ofGod’sactionsshouldnotbeextrapolatedfromthelimitedamountGod hasalreadydone.Moltmann’semphasisondivinepromisesnowgrowsin signiﬁcance.WhileGod’sactionsinthefuturewillhavecontinuitywiththose actionsofthepast,Godhaspromisedtodoanewthing.

133 ToH,p.216.

134 RRF,p.66.

NewCreationVersesRestoration

Onenoteworthyexampleofthediscontinuitybetweenthefutureandthe historyofcreationisMoltmann’sviewthatthenewcreationisnottherestorationofanoriginal,pre-fall,andperfectcreation.Insteadthenewcreationwill beunlikecreationhaseverbeen,andistheultimategoalofGod’screative activity.Creationandredemptionarepartofoneasyetunﬁnishedprocessin whichredemptionistheguidingpartandorientation,andoriginalcreationis not.

Concerningthestateoforiginalcreation,MoltmannseeswithinChristian traditiontheviewthattheworldwillreturntotheoriginalperfectstatethat ithadinthebeginning.135 Hedoesnotholdtheviewthatcreationshouldgo backexactlyto‘whatitwas’forseveralreasons.Firstly,forhimthisdoesnot matchthewitnesstothenewcreationintheChristianScriptures,whichhe understandstodeclarethat‘Omegaismorethanalpha’.136 Secondly,God’s relationshipwithcreationisdifferentintheendfromatthebeginning:‘God himself,withhiseternallifeandglory,willdwellinthiscreationandbe “allinall”.’137 Thirdly,Moltmannsuggestsasimple,morephilosophically basedobjection:‘Therestorationoftheoriginalcreationwouldhavetobe followedbythenextFall,andbythenextredemption’.138 Forhimthen,the newcreationisnottherestorationofcreationtoitsoriginalstate.Godwilldo somethingnew.139 Theseclaimshaveinevitablybroughthimintoconﬂictwith others.GordonSpykman,forinstance,arguesthattheChristianScripturesin factdescribearestorationtotheoriginalcreationandheseemstoassertthat itisthepotentialforperfectionwhichwaspresentinthebeginningthatis restored.140 Moltmanncouldstillargueinreplythatwhatisimportantisto removethepotentialfor imperfection whichwaspresentinthebeginning.

ForMoltmann,theoriginalcreationcontainedthepromiseofwhatisto comeandinthatsensethenewcreationcorrespondstotheold.However, it‘surpasseseverythingthatcanbetoldaboutcreationinthebeginning’.141 Thecreationinthebeginningwasgood,althoughitsgoodnesswasnotinits completenessbutinitsidentityasthebeginningofaprocessthatwouldend withaneternalcreation.Itwasfromthebeginninganopencreation,‘not

135 CoG,p.263.

136 RRF,p.36.

137 CrG,p.270; CPS,p.100.

138 CoG,p.263.

139 ‘CreationandRedemption’,p.121; FC,p.164; GiC,p.207.

140 GordonJ.Spykman, ReformationalTheology:ANewParadigmforDoingDogmatics (GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,1992),p.255.

141 GiC,p.207.

perfectbutperfectible’.142 Thenewcreationisthearrivalofthatperfection (althoughheinsistsitdoesnotloseitsopenness143).

ThisleadsMoltmanntoreasonthat‘inthislightcreationatthebeginning appearsas“incomplete”’.144 IsthisarejectionofthegoodnessofGod’s initialcreativeactivity,asifitwasnotgoodenough?145 No,ratheritisa wishtoseetheoriginalcreationasthebeginningofanongoingjourneythat hasnotyetreacheditsdestination.Hedoesnotwishtoviewcreationand redemptiondualistically,asiftheyweretwoseparateprocesses.146 Rather, heseesredemptionandcreationaspartofthesameprocesswhichspansthe wholeofhistory,aprocesswhichcapturesthe‘wholedivinecreativeactivity’: creationinthebeginning(creatiooriginalis),continuouscreation(creatio continua)andnewcreation(novacreatio).Helamentsthat‘creation’has oftenbeentakenonlytorefertotheoriginalactandwishestoseethemas equalpartsintheoverarchingschemeofGod’sworktocompletecreation. Moltmannwarnsthatiforiginalcreationandredemptionareseenasseparate actionstheneithertheactofcreationis‘down-graded’toa‘preparationfor redemption’,orthenewcreationbecomesnothingmorethanareturntothe beginning,‘rewindingtheclock’. Bothofthesemeanthatcreationasitistoday losesvalue. 147

Continuity

Aswellastheemphasisondiscontinuitybetweentheeschatologicalfuture andwhatprecedesit,Moltmannalsohasadeﬁniteinterestincontinuity betweenthetwo.Heafﬁrmsthatthepresentdoesaffectwhatwillhappen inthefuturetoacertainextent.Thecorollaryofthisisthattheecologically motivatedactionsoftodaycontributetocreation’sfuture.Inaddition,he claimsthatthiscontinuityisbroughtaboutbythefuture’seffectonthe present.Thisisaccomplishedbothbythedirectactivityofthe‘ComingGod’, throughChristandtheSpirit’swork,andbytheinspirationtoactinways thatbringthepresentintocontinuitywiththatfuture.

142 ‘CreationandRedemption’,p.124(seen.2foradeﬁnitionof‘open’inthiscontext). MoltmannseesthesameprocessatworkinanindividualwhobecomesaChristian:theyare bynomeanscomplete,theyaresimplyonthe‘path’(GiC,p.8).

143 ‘CreationandRedemption’,p.130.

144 CoG,p.264(cf.‘CreationandRedemption’,p.125; FC,p.120; GiC,p.196).

145 SomeareuneasywithimplicationfromMoltmann’sworkthatcreationinthebeginning wasnotallitcouldorshouldbe(Chester, Mission,pp.162,181;Bonzo, Indwelling,p.82).

146 GiC,pp.7-9.

147 Ibid.,pp.54-55; WJC,p.286.

ForMoltmanncontinuitybetweenpresentcreationandfutureredemption isvitallyimportantifthereistobeanymeaningforactionsdoneinthepresent. Iftherewasnocontinuitythennoactioncouldhaveanylastingsigniﬁcance, whichwouldleadto‘anabstractnegationoftheworldanditshistory’.148 He speaksofthecontinuityfoundintheresurrectionofthedead:‘Raisingisnot anewcreation;itisanewcreatingofthissamemortallifeforthelifethatis eternal’.149 Heevengoessofarastosaythateternallife‘carriesthescarsof mortality[...]Everythingthathasputitsmarkonthisliferemainseternally. Otherwiseweshouldbeunabletorecognizeourselvesineternallife’.150 This raisesquestionsconcerningthelevelofhealingwhichcreationcanexpectinits redemption.Italsoputsanimportanceontheacceptanceofresponsibilityfor presentactions,knowingthattheyhaveeternalconsequence.Thiscontinuity is,forMoltmann,intheendagift.Itcomesfrom‘thefaithfulnessofGod’to rescuewhatislostthroughtime,notbecausehumanity’sactionshavethe powertolastforeternity.151 Importantly,theseafﬁrmationsofcontinuityare foundinbothMoltmann’searlyandlaterwork.

OnesigniﬁcantreasonforcontinuityinMoltmann’sthoughtconnectsto theideaofthecontinualprocessoforiginalcreationthroughtoredemption. Thatis,iftheTrinity’sactionsinthepresentarealignedwiththegoalofthe futureredemption,thenthereiseveryreasonforGod’sacts,oractionsinspired byGod,tohaveanimpactthatlasts.152 Otherwise‘“the[redeeming]Spiritof Christ”hasnolongeranythingtodowithYahweh’s ruach’.153 ForMoltmann theSpirit’spresentactivity,suchas‘worldsustaining’and‘preservation’,ispart ofcreation’sredemptionandperfection.154 ThereforeGod’sactivelovewithin historyisa‘foretaste’,forthosewhorecogniseit,ofthecomingfuture.155

AnotherfactorsupportingcontinuityisthatforMoltmannitisthefuture whichcomestothepresentandbringssalvationwithit.Itdoesnottherefore matchhiswidertheologytosaythatGod’sactionsinthepastandpresent buildupwithmomentumandwillonedayﬂowerintothepromisedfuture.It isperhapsmoreﬁttingtosaythatthegreatpromisedfuturehasshockwaves whichrunbackthroughhistory,whichpointtoit,leadtoit,andanticipateit:

148 RRF,p.197.

149 CoG,p.75.

150 Ibid.,pp.84-85.

151 RRF,p.12.

152 SW,p.53.

153 SpL,pp.8-9.

154 CPS,p.192;‘TheScope’,p.103.

155 ‘The"CruciﬁedGod"’,p.299; CPS,p.257.

Apromisedirectsthepresentwhichiseffected[sic]byittowardsthe novum offulﬁlmentand,insodoing,turnsthepresentintoafrontlinefor thebreakingupoftheoldandthebreakinginofthenew.[...]Through Christ’sresurrectionandthroughhopearoused,thefutureofGodexerts aninﬂuenceinthepresentandmakesthepresenthistorical.156

Oralternatively,itisnottheculminationofGod’sactionsthroughoutthepast andpresentthatcreatethefuture,butthepresenceandeffectofthefuture throughouthistorythathasshapedthepastandpresent.Moltmanncomments thatGod’s‘futuretakescontroloverthepresentinrealanticipationsand prefigurations’.157 Heevenclaimsthat‘thewholeeschatologyofthehistory ofChrist’is‘aresultoftheworkingsandindwellingsoftheSpiritthrough whichthefuturethatishopedforentersintohistory’.158 Hedoesnotmean thatGod’spresentandpastactionsaremerereflectionsofthefuture,or necessarilylesserevents.Theyarecrucialtothefuture,althoughinaway thatisdeterminedbythefuture.159 InthecaseoftheChristevent,Moltmann seesthisasthein-breakingofthefutureintohistorytosetdecisivelythe trajectoryofhistory.InChristwefindthe‘qualitativelynewfuture[and]the endofhistoryinthemidstofhistory’.160 Likewise,theSpirit‘isthepresence ofthefuture’whichmakesthe‘eschatologicalnew[...]thenewthingin history’.161

Thereisthereforecontinuitywiththefuturebecausethefutureisalready foundinthepresent.Historyismadecontinuouswiththefuture,bythefuture, andforthefuture.ThereforeMoltmannprefersnottosaythatcontinuity runs‘fromtheoldtothenew’butrather‘fromthenewtotheold’.162 A person’sactionscanthushavethatcontinuityinthattheyseektoanticipate thatfuture.Humanitycanliveoutademonstrationofwhatistocome.163 In facthefeelsthathumanity should dothis‘withresponsibility’,and‘participate intheeschatological,liberatinghistoryofGod’.164 Thisresponsibilitymakes

156 HP,p.183(1966).

157 RRF,p.209(cf.p.197:thereare‘correspondences,analogies,directions,andtendencies’withthefuturethatshapehistory).

158 CPS,p.34.

159 ‘TheologyasEschatology’,pp.10-11.

160 RRF,p.198.ItseemsMoltmannwouldbewaryofsayingthiseventchangedoraltered thecourseofhistorybecauseitwasalwaysGod’splantoredeemcreationtoliveintoeternity. Alsothisraisesthequestion:areonlysomeactionsofGodasconsequentialasthecross, aresomeactionsmerelyreﬂectionsofthefuture?Orareinsomewayallactionsadecisive in-breakingofthefuture?

161 CPS,p.295(cf.p.34).

162 ‘HopeandReality’,p.83.

163 FC,pp.46-47.

164 HP,p.183(1966); FC,p.47.

creation’ssituationanimportantconsiderationashumanitymovesintothe future.

ThereisHopefor This Creation

OneimportantinstanceofeschatologicalcontinuitywiththepresentinMoltmann’sworkistheclaimthatthereishopespeciﬁcallyfor this world.His consistentmessagethroughoutthischapteristhatthereishopeforallcreation,notsimplyahopefor any eternalcreation,butforthisparticularone.165 TherearethosewithinChristiantraditionwhoclaimthatsalvationisonlyfor humanity.Suchviewsdonotnecessarilymeanthatthereisnotanewheaven andanewearth,butratherthatthisearthwhichsurroundsusisdestined fordestructionandreplacementandisnotincludedintheredemptiveprocess.Moltmannisanardentopponentofviewsofsuchdiscontinuityfortwo reasons.Firstly:

‘Afterusthedeluge’–lifeledandactionsperformedaccordingtothis mottodoindeedleadtodeluges,ﬁnancial,nuclearandecological.Succeedinggenerationswillsinkunderthemountainsofdebt,atomicwaste andtheravagedenvironment.Theeschatologyofthe‘lastBigBang’is catastrophic,andcatastrophesareitsresult.166

Inthisviewinwhichdestructionistheendpoint,Moltmannfearsthat destructivechoicesareeasiertomake.Inhisopinion,peoplewilltreat creationinthesamewayastheyperceiveitsfuturetolie.167 Thiscanbe imaginedasthefollowingquestion:‘Whatdoesitmatterwhathappensto thisforestifitisalldestinedforthefire?’However,withthisquestionit shouldberememberedthatnoteveryoneliveswithsuchanemphasisonthe futureasMoltmanndoes.Manypeoplepaymoreattentiontotheimmediate present.Forthisreasonmanypeoplewhomaynotbelieveinaneternalfuture fornaturewillstillseektomaintainthehealthofcreationsimplyforthe benefitsitbringsinthepresent.Nevertheless,Moltmannissurelyrightthat anythingspecificallygoodinaperson’sattitudetowardstheworldisunlikely toresultfromabeliefthattheworldhasnofuture.Hisstressonafuturefor thiscreationspeaksinsteadofastrongpositiveattitudetowardstheworld. Certainly,withinhisframeworkofthefuture’sdeterminationofthepresent,a vibrantfutureforcreationisessential.

165 Seealso GiC,p.296; WJC,p.262; CoG,p.27.

166 CoG,p.202.

167 WJC,p.274(cf. CJF,p.15).

Secondly,Moltmannidentiﬁesatheologicalproblemfortheexpectation that‘thedeluge’ispartofGod’splan.Hetermssuchunwantedvisionsof abrutalfuture,speciﬁcallywhentheyarelinkedtoGod’sdesiredpathfor creation,as‘apocalypticeschatology’.168 Helistsexplicitlysuchthingsasa nuclearwar,ecologicalcollapseoraneconomicmeltdownwhichleadsto catastropheforthepoorernationsinparticular,butalongsidethisitisobvious thatheincludestheviewthatGodwoulddestroythecreationwhichGod soloves.Sucha‘deluge’isincompatiblewithhistheology.169 Accordingto him,theproblemwiththisviewisthatanyonewhointerpretsthedestructive tendenciesofthecontemporaryworldaspartofGod’spurposes‘isproviding areligiousinterpretationformasshumancrime,andistryingtomakeGod responsibleforwhathumanbeingsaredoing’.170 This,saysMoltmann,is‘the heightofgodlessnessandirresponsibility’.Eschatologyshouldconcernabout salvationinitswholeness,a‘hopeforthebeginningofGod’snew,justworld’. ForMoltmann,thisshouldleadtoresistanceofcynicismandindifference,a rejectionofdestruction,andthedefenceofthecreationwhichisthreatened byhumanactivity.171

SomereadersofMoltmannbelievethathisworkdoesnotdisplaysuch awhole-heartedcommitmenttocreation’sfuture.DouglasSchuurmanand StevenBouma-PredigerclaimthatMoltmannactuallyspeaksofcreation’s destructionattheeschaton.Bothcitethesamepassagein TheFutureof Creation:‘Thenewcreationdoesnotemergeoutoftherestorationoftheold creation;itfollowsfromcreation’send.’172 However,asalreadynoted,thereis goodreasonnottoreadthistooliterally.173 Asifinresponsetothisassertion, Bouma-PredigerexpandshiscritiquetoclaimthatMoltmannexpressesthe samesentimentinlaterwork.Bouma-Predigerreadsthispassage:‘The promiseiscaughtupandabsorbedinitsfulﬁlment:whenwhathasbeen promisedisrealized,thepromiseisdiscarded.’174 Hethenreportsthisas:

whenthekingdomisfullyconsummated,creationwillbe“discarded

168 CoG,p.202.However,herecognisesthatitisamisuseoftheword‘apocalyptic’,that trueapocalypticaltheologyhasnothingtodowithsuchviolentnotions(p.218).Heoften usesthewordapocalypticatothertimeswithnonegativeconnotationsintended.

169 Forexample:‘itisunderstandablethatthewholeofcreationshouldhavebeenbrought intobeingforthesakeofthatredemption’(GiC,pp.277-78);‘[if]Redemptiondestroys creation,thegospeldestroysthelaw,andfaithbecomestheenemyofeveryknownreality’ (RRF,p.14,commentingonMarcion’sviews).

170 CoG,p.203.

171 Ibid.,p.216-18.

172 Schuurman, Creation,p.97;Bouma-Prediger, TheGreening,pp.244-46; FC,p.164.

173 Thiswork,p.155.

174 GiC,p.63.

(abgetan).”Inshort,the novum ofthenewcreationdoesnotrepresent therenewalbutrathertheannihilationorabolitionofcreation.175

Thismisleading,andmisrepresentative,statementisprobablymadeby Bouma-PredigerbecauseinthepassageconcernedMoltmannreferstocreationasthe‘promise’ofthekingdom.176 YetBouma-Predigerneglectsto followMoltmann’sargumentinhisverynextwords:

IftheworldascreationistherealpromiseofthekingdomofGod,it thenitselfbelongstothehistoryofthekingdomandisnotmerelyits ‘stageandbackcloth’;forattheendofthishistoryitisdestinedtobe revealedinitseternaltransﬁguration.

WhileMoltmannmayuseambiguouslanguage,theclearthrustofthepassage isthatcreationpointstoitsownfuture,likeapromise,andwhenthisfuture isreachedtherewillnolongerbeapromise,justtheeternalcreation.Then promiseswillnotbeneeded;theywillhavebeenfulﬁlled.Asitis,whilethe promiseremains,itcallsforalllifetobeupheld.

JudgingtheBalance

Moltmannhasincludedbothdiscontinuityandcontinuityinhiswriting.Yet hehasbeencriticisedfornotactuallyachievingabalancebetweenthetwo. SchuurmanisamajorcriticofMoltmann’sworkondiscontinuity,particularlythenon-restorationofcreation.Hespeaksoftheradicaldiscontinuity betweencreationandredemptioninMoltmann’sworkthatdoesnotallowfor continuity.Unlikemanyotherswhocritiquethisarea,Schuurman’smainconcernisthediscontinuitybetweenoriginalcreationandnewcreation.177 He alsothinksthatMoltmann’seschatonis‘creation-annihilating’andtherefore ‘world-denying’.178 However,Schuurman’sreadingofthisthemeinMoltmann isunreliable.OneexampleofwhereSchuurmanseemstodistorthiswritings ishisquotationofthisphrase:‘Futureas adventus can,however,verywell bringsomethingwhichisprincipallynewandradicallytransforming,which isneitherinitsrealityorinitspotentialityalreadyinexistence.’179 Fromthis

175 Bouma-Prediger, TheGreening,p.246(cf.Walsh,‘TheologyofHope’,p.76).

176 GiC,pp.62-64.

177 Schuurman, Creation,pp.4,9,83,149,161.

178 DouglasJ.Schuurman,‘Creation,Eschaton,andEthics:AnAnalysisofTheologyand EthicsinJürgenMoltmann’, CalvinTheologicalJournal,22:1(1987),42–67(p.50).See alsoSchuurman, Creation,p.82,n.7,whereheseemstoequateMoltmannrejectionof restorationwithanafﬁrmationofthereplacementofcreation.

179 ‘TheologyasEschatology’,p.15.

Schuurmanclaimsthat,forMoltmann,theeschatonis‘exclusivelyfuture’, ‘notcontinuousatallwithhumanexperience’,and‘opposespresentreality’.180 Thisisaverystrongconclusiontotakefromacommentthatthefuturecan bring‘something’new.Thearticleconcerned,however,givesanevengreater reasontodoubtSchuurman’sassertions.Moltmanngoesontosay,inthe nextparagraph:‘Thenewmustnotbecompletelynew[...]inthereception ofitsownadvanceitestablishescontinuity.’181 Moltmannmerelyopposesa viewthatseeks complete continuitywithhistory,similartotherejectionof extrapolationthatwesawabove.

HarviealsoreadsSchuurmanasmisunderstandingMoltmann’sviewof theeschaton.HenotesthatSchuurmanthinksthatMoltmannclaimsthe originalcreationislostandthenewcreationisutterlydiscontinuouswithit, whereasMoltmannactuallyincludesastrongthemeofcontinuityandhope forthiscreation.HarviealsobelievesthatTimChester,whosecriticismjoins thedebatebelow,hasreliedheavilyonSchuurman’sworkandfollowshimin thatmisunderstanding.182 ItispartiallywiththisrelianceonSchuurmanthat ChesterstatesthatMoltmann’sviewofthefuturestandsin‘uttercontradiction tothepresent’andgivesnohopeforactionsinthepresent.183

Beck,whosereadingofMoltmannisbothinterestingandinformative, favoursabalancebetweencontinuityanddiscontinuityinhim.ForBeck, ChristandtheSpirit’sworkshowthatGodisalreadyatworkandthatthe eschatonisalreadypartly,butonlypartly,realised.184 Hefeels,however,that Moltmannover-emphasisesdiscontinuity,especiallyinhisearlierwork,but stilltoacertainextentinhislaterwork.185 Forexample,Beckexaminesthree kindsofeschatology:‘consistent’(whichover-emphasisesdiscontinuity);‘realized’(whichover-emphasisescontinuity);and‘inaugurated’(whichbalances continuityanddiscontinuity).186 Hesaysthathecanidentifyallthreein Moltmann’swork,althoughmostoftentherearereferencesto‘consistent’and ‘inaugurated’eschatology.187 However,theexamplesBeckgivesofMoltmann’s useofthelessfavourable‘consistent’and‘realised’eschatologiesseeminfact tobeexamplesofwhereMoltmannusesan‘inaugurated’approachtobalance continuitywithdiscontinuity.

180 Schuurman, Creation,p.94.

181 ‘TheologyasEschatology’,p.15.

182 Harvie, JürgenMoltmann’sEthics,p.24,n.47.

183 Chester, Mission,p.90(cf.pp.85-90,125,131-32).

184 Beck, TheHolySpirit,p.21(cf.pp.45-48,82).

185 Ibid.,pp.24,127,203-04,227,243(cf.Neal, TheologyAsHope,p.211).

186 Beck, TheHolySpirit,pp.16-20.

187 Ibid.,pp.136-38.

OneparticularinstancewhereBeckgivesalesssympatheticreadingof Moltmanniswhereheiscriticaloftheinclusionoftheimageof‘seedtime andharvest’toshowtherelationofthefuturetothepresent.Unlikethe imagesof‘springandsummer’and‘sunriseandnoon’(theotherimagesMoltmannemploys),Beckfeelsthat‘seedtimeandharvest’conflictswith‘Pauline inauguratedeschatology’becauseinsteadofthelanguageof‘firstfruits’(the nowandnotyetoftheeschaton)theseedtime/harvestimagedescribesa changefromonethingtosomethingquitedifferent.Beckinterpretsthisas anexampleofconsistent(discontinuous)eschatology.188 Itisdifficulttofind suchacriticismreasonable.Firstly,thecontextpointstoMoltmann’sintention tousethreeimagesthatdescribeacontinuousprogression:springbecomes warmerintosummer;thesunclimbshighertonoon;theseedburstsforth intofruitfullife.Hisaimistosaythatthefuturehassomepresencealready: theseedisthethingthatbecomestheharvest.Secondly,theextenttowhich theseedtime/harvestimagecontainsdiscontinuitycanhardlybedescribed asun-Pauline.ForPaulhimselfstates,inthesamechapterasthemention of‘firstfruits’,thatthebodytodayislikenedtotheseedthatbringsforth somethingnewintheeschaton.189

TherearethosewhoreadMoltmanninamorepositivelight.Harvie issuesareminderthatMoltmann’stheoriesofthefuture’scontradictionswith thepresentneedtobeobservedwith‘greatprecision’soitisclearthathe retainstherealityofhumanparticipationinGod’songoingtransformation oftheworld.190 JeremyLawisalsolargelyafﬁrmingofMoltmann’sbalance betweencontinuityanddiscontinuity.LawrecognisesthatMoltmannmight bereadinapresent-denyingwaybutofferssomeofhisownpointstodefend Moltmann’sapproach,twoofwhichitishelpfultocite:

First,itmustnotbeforgottenthatthetransformationtonewcreationis notmerelyfortransformation’ssake.Itisfundamentallyaboutconsummation.Consummationconﬁrms,reinforcesandunderlinesthevalueof thatwhichisalreadygood;itisnotitsenemy.[...]Third,everything goodaboutpresentexistencemaybetakenasaprolepsisofthekingdom. Therubricofconsummationsuggeststomethatthisprolepsisisnot oneofmereformality,butofsacramentalsubstance.Prolepsismaythus becomeawayofafﬁrmingnotdisparagingthepresent.191

188 Ibid.,pp.203-04; TheSource,p.11.

189 1Cor.15.35-39.IfthequestionofPaulineauthorshipweretoberaisedthenBeck afﬁrmshisbeliefin1CorinthiansbearingtheauthorshipofPaul(Beck, TheHolySpirit,p.25, n.1).

190 Harvie, JürgenMoltmann’sEthics,pp.23,28.

191 Law, TheFuture,p.128.

HereLawremindsMoltmann’scriticsthatconsummationhasalwayshadits rootsinGod’sfaithfulnesstocreation,andthereforehisthemesofdiscontinuityandtransformationarestillabletoafﬁrmthepresentcreation,andtosit alongsidecontinuity,asheintends.

Tosummarise,readingsofMoltmannhavebeenexaminedwhichto variousextents(sometotheextreme)overemphasisethepresenceofdiscontinuity,and/orneglecthisstrongthemesofcontinuityandhopefor this creation.Thesedonotdojusticetotheusefulnessofhiseschatologyfor ethicalconsiderations,includingenvironmentalones.ParticularlyforChester andSchuurman,Moltmannseemstopresentaschemeinwhichanyaction inthepresentwillﬁnditselfradicallytransformedintheeschaton,andthus haveameaninglessqualitytoit.192 Forthem,hisviewofthepromiseof afuturewhichbringspossibilityandhopetothepresentisalsoonethat promisestochangecompletelywhateverisdone.193 Yet,ifhisworkasa wholeistakenintoconsideration,thisevidentlyisincorrect.194 Thecriticisms showthepossibilitythatmanyisolatedsentencesinMoltmann’sworkmay beinterpretedinordertoadvocateradicaldiscontinuity,butofteneventhe paragraphsandpagesaroundthemalleviatetheseconcerns,andbeyondthem hiswiderwritingsareabletocontinuetoshowthebalanceofhisviews.195 Thepresentisnotlost,thereiscontinuity,andthefuturebringshope,thereis discontinuity.Moltmannretainsatension,andinthiswaythepresentandits actionsstillhavemeaning.

192 SeealsoVincentJ.Genovesi, ExpectantCreativity:TheActionofHopeinChristianEthics (Washington,DC:UniversityPressofAmerica,1982),pp.107-08;Walsh,‘TheologyofHope’, pp.58-59(pointingtoLangdonGilkey’swork).

193 Chester, Mission,p.86(cf.KevinJ.Vanhoozer, FirstTheology:God,Scripture&Hermeneutics (Leicester:Apollos,2002),pp.239-40,n.62;WolfhartPannenberg, Systematic Theology:Volume3,trans.byGeoffreyW.Bromiley(Edinburgh:T&TClark,1998),pp.17576).

194 Schuurmanstatesthatthisbalanceispresent(Schuurman, Creation,pp.8,84,101 (n.60),114),butseemstodownplayitsexistenceandignoreitinhisconclusions.Thismay bebecausehebelievesnotsomuchthatMoltmannshowsbalancebutmorethatheswings betweentwocontradictorypositionsofcontinuityandutterdiscontinuity(Ibid.,pp.103, 159).ChestershowsasimilarrecognitionofcontinuityinMoltmann’swritingswithout allowingittobalancehisoverallview(Chester, Mission,p.125).

195 Forinstance,Moltmannstatesofhisearlierwork:‘Icalledresurrectiona creatioex nihilo (creationfromnothing)anda novacreatio (newcreation),mypurposebeingtopoint tothecreativeGodandtheeschatologicallynewcharacterofhisactivity.Thisgaveriseto misunderstandings,whichIhopemypresentexpositionhasclearedaway.’(CoG,p.150, n.50.)

ATranscendedContinuity

ThissectionhasshownthatMoltmannwishestoretainbothcontinuityand discontinuitybetweenpresentandfuture.Discontinuityprovideshopethat thingscanbedifferentandgivestheassuranceoftransformation.Painand mistakesneednotendureforever.Continuityencouragesthesigniﬁcanceof thepresentasitisthefuturebeingmademanifest.Thereisaconsequent callforparticipationintheworld’shealingandtransformation.Continuity isalsoimportantforhimbecausehebelievesitisimportanttoremember thatthereisgoodnessalreadypresentincreation.196 Continuityspeaksofthe redemptionofcreationasthetransformationofanincompleteproject,not therecoveryofalostcause.

JeremyLawconsidersthatthebalancebetweenthetwoisessential.197 HasMoltmannsucceededinthistask?RandallBushandTimChesterﬁndan ambiguitybetweentheopennessofpossibilitiesandthecertaintyofhopefor transformation,whichstemfromcontinuityanddiscontinuityrespectively.198 However,itappearsinsteadthatthereremainsahealthyintendedtension, andnotnecessarilyambiguity,regardingtheexactbalanceofcontinuityand discontinuityinMoltmann’sscheme.Forallthismysterythetwoneedtobe heldtogether:

Ameaningfulmediationseemstoresultonlyifthetranscendencewhich isbeyondhistoryislinkedwithman’sactoftranscendingwithinhistory; ifinthemidstofthecriticaldifferenceonebelievesinthepossibilitiesof correspondence,andif,conversely,inthepossibilitiesofcorrespondence thequalitativedifferenceiskeptinmind.199

Continuitycanbelocatedinthepresent, through theanticipationofand participationwiththecomingfuture.ForMoltmann,theuniversemustbe transformed(discontinuity)butthatisnottosaythatthecomingfuture doesnotalreadybringtransformationsintothepresentthatarelikenesses ofthefuture.Ashesaysofaperson:‘Heacquirescontinuityinthemidstof changingconditionsinasfarasheacquiresfuture.’200 Yetfromthisshould notbeunderstoodthatanyperson(oranyotherpartofcreation)couldattain suchastatethat,whentheeschatoncomes,therewouldbenoneedfor transformation.ForMoltmann,suchperfectcontinuityisunattainable.To

196 WJC,p.287.

197 Law, TheFuture,p.250.

198 Bush, RecentIdeas,p.295;Chester, Mission,pp.57-58.

199 RRF,p.198.

200 HP,p.108(1960).

describethecontinuityofpresentdayactionswiththeeschatonisnottoclaim thatanythingmaybecreatedtodaywhichneedsnofurthertransformation. Theinferencetotakefromhisworkisthat,whenthinkingofecological considerations,theimplicationofcontinuityismostappropriatelyexpressed inthebeliefthathumanity’sactionsinthepresentcanbeinstepwithGod’s comingtransformationofcreation,butarenotthecompletesumofthat transformation.Anactionwhichaffectstheworldinsuchawayastohave continuitywithGod’scomingfutureforcreationisanactionwhichcanonly besaidtotreadthesamepathasGod’stransformativework,nottoactually reachtheﬁnaldestination.

Discontinuitywillthusbefoundwiththepresent,throughthetransformationofthatwhichisbroken,andthenewcreationofthatwhichislost.Even thatwhichhascontinuitywillbetranscendedtoreachasyetunknowable qualities,whilestillitretainsitsidentity.Inthissensecreationcanknowthat thepresentstillmatters.Atthesametimethereisstillafutureapproachingto changeit:‘theconferralofanewformtoitsbeing-as-it-is’.201 Thisnottoundo thepresent(radicaldiscontinuity),butisitsrespectfulandlovingbringing-tocompletion.ThiscontinuityMoltmanncalls‘historicalcontinuity’,whichhe differentiatesfrom‘ontologicalcontinuity’.Forhim,theold,andeverything thatmadeitwhatitis,putsonsomethingnewtobecomesomethingnewand completebutretainsitsidentity.202 ‘Weshallallbechanged’.203 Humanity willnotﬁnishitselforthiscreationuntilthemixtureofdiscontinuityand continuitywithinit,andthewholecreation,istranscendedandtransformed bythecomingGodwhowillbring‘thefeastofeternaljoy’.204

Thismeansthereishopeforthepermanenceofhumanity’sactionsasthey arecaughtupin,andcontributeto,God’stransformativeworkinallcreation. Atthesametimethereishopefortheredemptionofhumanity’sfailures asthecomingGodmakesallthingsnew.Continuitybringsresponsibility andconsequencesforhumanity’sactions.Discontinuitybringscomfortthat nothingshallbelost.Thepresentisafﬁrmedandthefutureismadesecure. Doesthepresenceofthiscomfortingdiscontinuitythreatenultimatelyto makethepresentmeaningless?No,forthedestinationisnotallthatmatters. The journey tothefutureisimportanttoo,asisthecontributionthatcreation makestoit.Therearepressingneedswithincreationonthewaytothe future.ThatistheconclusionfromthepreviouschaptersonMoltmann’sview

201 SW,p.52.

202 RRF,pp.12-13.

203 1Cor.15.51b

204 CoG,p.338.

ofthepastandpresentworkofGod.Eachcreatedbeing’scontributionis important,andeachpartacreatedbeingisallowedandenabledtotakeby othersisimportanttoo.AccordingtoMoltmann,creationhasbeeninvited toparticipateinGod’screativework.205 Thefreedomgivenbythisinvitation shouldneitherbeabusednorthoughtmeaningless.Thefuturemaybesecure buttheshapeofthejourneymadebythecontributionofeachpartofcreation remainstobeseen.ForthisreasonMoltmanncanspeakofshapingthe ecologicalfuture‘withresponsibilityandconﬁdence’.206

6.5CONCLUSIONS

Moltmann’sdescriptionoftheeschatologicalfuturefor all creationmeansthat histheologyisuniversalinthefullestsense,andcancontributethebeneﬁts ofthisuniversalismtothenewtheologicalarchitecture.Theconcernsofthis thesishavemovedthischapter’sdiscussionawayfromthedebatesurrounding universalhumansalvationandtowardsthecosmicframeworkofhisthought. Thisbroaderscopeincludesahopeforallcreationwhichhas,forMoltmann, anextensivefoundation:whatisalreadybelievedaboutGod;seeninGod’s work;trustedfromGod’spromises;anddeducedfromthenatureofexistence. ThesetogetherproducethemultifacetedargumentthatisMoltmann’sdefence ofafutureforallcreation.

Forhim,thisfutureisalsoonewhereGod’sopennesstowardscreation comestofruition.TherelationshipbetweenGodandcreationbecomes theconsummated perichoresis whichreﬂects,asfarasispossibleforthe Divine/non-divinerelationship,thetrinitarianrelationshipitself.

Finally,thiscomingfutureisonethatbothtransformscreationtoanew stateofbeing,andpreservesandmakesimperishabletheidentityofcreation anditsuniquecontributionstohistory.InthiswayMoltmannseekscontinuity anddiscontinuity.Hehasadmirablyexpressedtwonecessarypartstoa hopefuleschatology.Therestillremainquestionsastowhatexactlymight remainfromthepresent,andwhatmaybelost,butthemainpointendures thatthereishopeforwhatisnotasitshouldbeandlastingsigniﬁcancefor whatisofvalueorachieved.Thepossibilityfoundinhisworkthatactionsin thepresentwhichdonotcontributetoGod’stransformativework,whichare

205 Thishasbeentouchedoninthelastthreechaptersbutwillbeconsideredmorefully,at leastinrelationtohumanity,inthenextchapter.

206 HP,p.183(1966).

notcontinuouswithGod’scomingfuture,willleavetheirscarsoncreationis anadditionaladmonishmenttowardsresponsibilityforallactions.

AmajorcontributionofMoltmann’scosmiceschatologytothenewtheologicalarchitectureisthatcreationmatters.God’scontinuingcareofcreation intoeternityaddsagaintothedepthstowhichMoltmannunderstandsGodto lovecreationandgiveitvalue.Furthermore,itneedstoberememberedthat thisvaluecomesnotonlyfromitsinterdependencywithhumanity,norits statusasloved today byGod.Creation’sstatusisnotsimplyoneoftemporal utility,orevenatemporal,valuedcompanion.Ratheritmattersfromnowuntileternity.Ithasalwaysmatteredandshallalwaysmatter.Theimplications ofthisforanattitudetowardstheenvironmentareserious.Themeaningof existencenowpointstotheneedtoﬁndtherightrelationshipwiththewhole ofcreation.Itisnotsufﬁcientsimplytotreatnaturewellenoughtosurvive. Theneedtoshareahealthyrelationshipwiththeenvironmentwillnever pass,notevenineternity.Natureandhumanityshareacommonexistence, acommonjourney,andacommonfuture.Thisisoneofthelegaciesfor ecologicalthoughtfromMoltmann’seschatology.

AswellassignificanceforthepictureofcreationinMoltmann’swork, thischapteralsospeaksofthesignificanceofhiseschatologyfortheactions performedwithincreation.Thisraisesthesignificanceofhumanity’sactions inrelationtothenaturalworld.Thefuturewillnoterasetheeffortsoftoday, itwillhealandtransformthem.Theseeffortsarenotinconsequentialor wasted,however,andtoneglectthemhasconsequenceswhich,whilenot fullyunderstood,arenonethelessreal.Thisisimportantforthenextchapter asitexamineselementsofMoltmann’santhropologywhichhaveaparticular bearingonhumanity’sactions.Thischapter,however,hascontributedto thenewarchitecturethelastingimportanceoftheseactions.Inconjunction withthehopefortheirredemption,thislastingimportancehelpfullybrings togethertheconfidenceandresponsibilitywhichMoltmannwishestoseein humanityandtheirconcernforthefutureofallcreation.

Chapter7

TheologicalAnthropology

7.1INTRODUCTION

Thischapter’saimistoassesstheusefulnessofcertainelementsofMoltmann’s theologicalanthropologyfortheconstructionofthisnewtheologicalarchitecture.Whilehehaswrittenmuchonthetopicofhumanity,thepresentstudy selectsfourspeciﬁcthemeswhichhaveincommonachallengetohuman behaviour.Moltmannwroteoftheimportanceof‘transformingthepresent’ asfarbackasalmostﬁftyyearsago.1 Aglanceatmanyofhissubsequent publicationsrevealssimilarsentiments.Forexample:‘Theoryandpractice cannotbeseparated[...]christologyandChristianethicscannotbeseparated.’

2 Thischapterexploresfouravenuesbywhichhistheologymakes thatconnectionmoreexplicit.Firstly,Moltmannarguesforareﬁnementof humanity’sperspectiveonitsrelationtonature,andarecognitionofthe damagethathumanclaimsofsuperiorityhavedonetoavitalrelationship. Secondly,heproposestrinitarianloveandactionasapatternforhumanity’s aspirations.Thirdly,isthepropositionthatthereexistsaninvitationfrom Godtojoininthedivinemissiontobringlifeandtransformationtotheworld. Fourthly,andﬁnally,Moltmannremarksonthedifferencethathopecan,and should,maketoaperson’slifeinthepresent.

Eachofthefourthemesexhibitsitsownsigniﬁcanceforaresponsible theologicalanthropology,andthusallareappropriatetobeincludedinthe newtheologicalarchitecture.Inaddition,thestrengthsofonewillenhance theeffectivenessoftheothers.Inthisway,theinclusionofthesethemes togetherinthenewarchitectureincreasesitsoverallcapabilitytogeneratea positiveresponse.

Thethemeswillbeoutlinedbelowinordertounderstandtheirroots

1 ToH,p.16.

2 WJC,pp.41-42(cf. TKG,p.8).

inMoltmann’sworkandthebeneﬁtsoftheirinterconnectedness.Certain implicationsforcreationissueswillbecomeapparent,althoughthesewill largelybeexploredintheChapter8,wheretheirworthaspromisingavenues betweentheologyandecologicalresponsibilityinparticularwillbedemonstrated.However,neitherthischapternorthenextaimstopresentthese themesastheonlyroutebywhichMoltmann’stheology,orthenewtheologicalarchitecture,mightsuccessfullyleadtoreconsideredaction.Rather,they comprisefourcontributionswhichcanbeextractedfromMoltmann’sworkin ordertoenrichthenewarchitecture’sjourneybeyondtheoryalone.

7.2REDUCING HUMANITY’S PREDOMINANCE

Asthediscussionofterminologyatthebeginningofthisthesisindicated,Moltmannassertsthatwhenthinkingabouthumanity’sobligations,itisimportant toconsiderthelanguageselected.‘[A]nethicsofideasanddefinitions’isrequired.3 Thisconcernincludesspecificallyecologicalideas.Humanattitudes areinfluencedbylabelsfortheworldwhichgivehumanityprecedence(‘our environment’)oraredivisive(‘nature outthere’).Itisnecessary,then,forthe newtheologicalarchitecturetoincludeMoltmann’splacingofhumanityin thesameoverallcategoryasthenon-humanworldsothathumanityis part ofcreation,andnothierarchicallyaboveit.

PhysicalCo-Dependence

Moltmannhasbeeneagertokeepinformedofthescientiﬁcperspectiveson theplaceofhumanitywithinthecosmos.Inbrief,humanityisasmuchan integralpartoftheuniversealongsideeverythingelse.Itisnaturethat‘brings forth’humanity,alongwithallotherinstancesoflifeseenonearth.Humanity mustﬁnditsidentityasa‘product’ofnature.4 Humanityispartofthegreater organismofnature,wherecollectivelivesco-mingleandinterpenetrate.All livingthingsintheworldsharecontinualandinescapablerelationshipswith others.5 ForMoltmann,ifhumanitydoesnotrecognisethisitwillnottrulybe

3 EthH,p.xiii.

4 GiC,p.50.

5 Ibid.,p.3; WJC,p.46; SpL,p.225; CoG,p.21; GSS,p.99; SW,p.15.

abletounderstanditself.6 Thisall-inclusivecommunitymeansthathumanity iswhollydependentonnatureforitslifeand,therefore,forhumanitytotry andextractitselffromthiscommunityislikelytoend,andtoacertainextent alreadyisending,indisaster.7

Moltmannhasconsistentlysoughttobringmanyareasofhistheologyto bearontherelationshipbetweenhumanityandtherestofcreation,including toacertaindegreeinhisearlywork.Heevenrelatesthistopicbacktohis trinitariantheologyandnotesthatthemutualityofexistencereﬂectsthe perichoreticnatureoftheTrinity.8 This,forhim,formspartofthebasisfor the imagoDei whichwillbeconsideredbelow.

ARejectedRelationship

Toconcludethathumanityispartofcreationisnotnecessarilytoclaim thattherelationshipisfullyintegrated.ForMoltmann,therejectionby humansoftherelationshipsharedbynatureandhumanityisoneofthe problemsattherootoftheenvironmentalcrisis.Inordertoescapethiscrisis, thoughtsof‘self-liberationfromnature’anditscontrolmustbelaidaside infavourof‘co-operative’existence.Humanityhasmadeitsrelationship withtherestofcreationhostileanduncaring.Itaimsforthe‘possession ofnature’insteadof‘peacewithnature’.9 Byignoringormisunderstanding theimportanceofthisrelationship,humanityhas,forMoltmann,lowered thequalityoflifeofallthingsandrestrictedpossiblerecoveryandgrowth.10 Theseobservationsarenotuniquetohistheology,orindeedtotheologyitself, andthisproblemhasbecomeasubjectforcontemporaryscience.Christian theology,however,doesbringitsownparticularcontributiontothedebate, withinwhichMoltmannhashisownuniqueapproach.Hewishestotryand repairdamagecausedbytraditionalviewsthatallowedhumanitytobecome moreprivilegedthannature,orcausedhumanitytoneglectthefateofthe non-human,apparentlyinferior,remainderofcreation.Forhim,itisnotthat humanityshouldnotunderstanditselfasdistinctfromtherestofcreation, butthatthisdistinctivenessdoesnotmakehumanitythecentreofallthings. Humanitymustbalanceitsuniquenessbyrememberingitisstilladependent

6 GiC,p.47.

7 Ibid.,pp.186-87.

8 CoG,p.301.

9 CrG,pp.348-49(cf. RRF,p.218; GiC,p.137).

10 CrG,p.350; ExH,p.183;‘CreationandRedemption’,p.133; FC,p.129; GiC,pp.23-24, 127,137; WJC,pp.56-57; GSS,pp.7,76,100; SW,p.33.

partofthewholenaturalcommunity.

Unity,Humanity,andNature

PartofMoltmann’scontributiontothistheologicalarchitectureistheclaim thatnatureandhumanityshould both beincludedasimportantconsiderations inanyethicaldecisionmaking.Theidentity,value,worth,andneedsofhumanityhavelongbeendefendedbyChristiantraditionandhaveguidedmuch oftheChristiancommunity’saction.Inconstructingthisnewarchitecture,the importanceMoltmannplacesontheidentity,value,worth,andneedsofthe wholecreationisasigniﬁcantpetitionforthesealsotobeguidingprinciples forattitudesandaction.Humanity’spredominancemustdiminishinorderto accordtheappropriateattentiontotherestofcreation.

7.3CORRESPONDINGTO GOD

AfurtherpartofMoltmann’santhropologyusefultothistheologicalarchitectureistheideathatGod’sactionsactasapatternforhumanity.The theologysurveyedbythisresearchsofarhasrelatednumerousdivineactions directedtothecareoftheearth.Whiletheprevioussectionwasconcerned withsharedfuturesofnatureandhumanity,thisthemeofcorrespondence startswithMoltmann’sworkonwhatheconsiderstobeaspeciﬁcallyunique featureofhumanity:beingmadeintheimageofGod.However,notallthe conclusionsbroughtoutfromthissectionarethusonlyapplicabletohumanity. Moltmanngivestheimpressionthat,forexample,while‘image’concernsa certaincorrespondencetoGod’srelationality,partsofnaturealsocorrespond totherelatednessoftheTrinity.However,theoverallpictureatthispointis uniquetohumanity.

The ImagoDei

PartofMoltmann’sbasisfortheideaofhumancorrespondencewiththe Divineistheconceptofthe‘imageofGod’.Inordertobeginconstructingthe identityofthisattributeasparticulartohumanity,atleastforMoltmann,itis necessarytoaskbothwhatisuniquetohumanity, and whatitshareswiththe 11 GiC,pp.31,190.

restofcreation.Inhisestimationthelatterisrequiredbecausethe imagoDei doesnotsimplyrefertonaturaldifferencesbetweennatureandhumanity.12

Firstly,humanity’suniquenessisindicativeforthisimage.Moltmann recognisesthathumanityisgivenacertainpowerovernature(thetasksto nametheanimalsandsubduetheearth).13 However,forhim,thisparticular uniquefeatureofhumanityisonlyusefulifcarefullynuanced.Forexample, theimageshouldnotberepresentedbydominatingrule.Ratherbearing God’simagegivesresponsibilitytohumanity,asGod’screation,toruleover itin stewardship. 14 ThisdistinctionisimportantforMoltmannasitmeans humanitydoesnotreﬂectthisimagemoreasitaccumulatespowerinorder torule.Therefore,seekingmorepowerwould pervert theimageofGodin humanbeingsandnotfulﬁlit.15 Thepresentsituationofhumanityisone inwhichithasaccumulatedmuchpowertocontrolcreation.Responsibility isrequiredinexercisingthatpower‘for nature’throughcreativityandnot destruction.16 ToruleovernatureintheimageofGodrequiresrenouncing dominatingpowerandstrivingforcommunity,peaceandsolidaritywithall creation.17 Thatiswhathumanity’suniquenesscontributestoMoltmann’s visionofthe imagoDei

Secondly,Moltmannconsiderswhathumanityshareswithnatureinorder toconstructhisviewoftheimageofGod.Withanimals,forexample,itis ‘theirlivingsouls,theirlivingspace,theirfood,andtheblessingoffertility’.18 Herecountsthewayinwhichinthebeginningofthebiblicalnarrativeitwas thehumanbeingwhoneededahelperandwasthusdemonstratedtobea sociallydependentbeing.This,initself,isaminorpoint,butitdoespointto hisviewoftheinterdependencybetweenallcreationwhichwasoutlinedin

12 Ibid.,p.188.

13 Ibid.,p.224(cf.‘CreationandRedemption’,p.119; FC,p.115).

14 ItthenappearsmorecomplicatedwhenMoltmannclaimsthatasGod’simage,‘human beings[...]ruleoverotherearthlycreaturesasGod’s representatives andinhisname’(GiC, p.220).Alsohewrites:‘AccordingtotheBible,humanbeings’creationintheimageofGod isthegroundfortheirruleovertheworld.’(SW,p.48.)Yettheseafﬁrmationsofrulecan perhapsbeexplainedbyMoltmanninsistingthatthecommandtorule followson fromthe imagoDei andisnotlocated in thatimage.Thisruleisalsomeanttoreﬂecttheloveand respectofGodforcreation.

15 GiC,pp.224-25(cf.‘CreationandRedemption’,p.133; FC,p.129).

16 Man,pp.110-11.

17 CPS,pp.173-74.GrahamBuxtonprovidesaninterestingapproachwithregardsto imago Dei,namelythatallofcreation’svaluewouldbebestservedifallofcreationwererecognised tobe imagoDei,notjusthumanity(Buxton, TheTrinity,pp.276-82).Hisdiscussionis interesting,andhaseffectivelythesamegoalsasMoltmann(tohighlight‘nature’sintegrity andworth’(p.278)).

18 GiC,p.188.

theprevioussection.19

Theinvestigationofthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweennatureand humanityhighlightsbothhumanity’sneedtoavoidpredominancewithin creation,anditssocialdependency.Beyondthis,however,theprecisenature ofthe imagoDei isnotyetclear,norisitsfullpotentialforhumanaction, ecologicalorotherwise.ThusMoltmanncontinuesinamoredirectmanner:

AsGod’simage,humanbeingsareGod’sproxyinhiscreation,and representhim.AsGod’simage,humanbeingsareforGodhimselfa counterpart,inwhomhedesirestoseehimselfasifinamirror.As God’simage,ﬁnally,humanbeingsarecreatedforthesabbath,toreﬂect andpraisethegloryofGodwhichentersintocreation,andtakesupits dwellingthere.20

Thefirsttwoofthesethreepointsindicatethethemeofhumanity’scorrespondencewithGodwithsuchwordsas‘represent’and‘mirror’.Thisthemeis significantinMoltmann’sworkinconnectingtheologyandhumanactivity andisworthyofsomeattention.Ithasbothgeneralapplication,inthatthe divinerelationshipsserveasapatternforhumanlife,andspecificusefulness, inthatthedivineloveforcreationchallengessimilarhumanbehaviour.There arealsotwoassociatedpointstodrawfromMoltmann.Firstly,forhim,the imageofGodincludesthehumanbody.21 Thisisnotnecessarilyasuggestion thatthereisalikenessbetweenthephysicalformofahumanandasupposed formforGod.Ratheritappearstobeanaffirmationthattheimplicationsof the imagoDei arenotconfinedtoso-calledspiritualorintellectualconcerns; theyreachoutalsotophysicalexistence.Secondly,eventhoughhumanityhas notliveduptotherequirementsofbeingGod’simagebecauseofitssinand desireforpower,forMoltmann,the imagoDei isstillretainedinhumanity. ThisresultsfromGod’sfaithfulmaintenanceofthedivinerelationshipwith, andpresencein,humanity.22

19 MoltmanniscriticisedbyDeane-Drummondforhisemphasisonthissocialdependency beinga difference betweennatureandhumanity.Shedisagreeswithhisclaimandpoints outthatitignoresthescientiﬁcobservationsofsocialityinnature(Deane-Drummond, Ecology,p.150).ItisalsopossiblethatMoltmannoverplaysthesigniﬁcanceofthelack ofabiblicalreferencetothecreationofhelpersforanimals.Theywere,afterall,not createdasloneindividualseither.Thebiblicalnarrativemaysimplynothavefocusedonthis. However,Moltmanndoesnotsustainthisdifferenceinhisotheremphasesonallcreation’s interdependence.

20 GiC,p.188.Deane-DrummondnotesthatMoltmannismovingawayfromatraditional Jewishunderstandingof imagoDei byincludingmorethansimplya‘similarityofphysical form’(Deane-Drummond, Ecology,p.259).However,Moltmannremainswithinthebounds oforthodoxChristianitywiththesethoughts.

21 ‘TheFellowship’,p.292.

22 GiC,p.233.

ADivinePatternforHumanity

ForMoltmann,tobemadeinGod’simageandtobeGod’slikenessand correspondtotheDivinearerelatedperspectives.TheimageofGodhaslong impliedtohim‘somethingthatcorrespondstoGodhimselfandismeanttodo so’,inwhichtheCreatorﬁnds‘hisecho’.23 IfthisissothenthedepthofGod’s love,withinboththetrinitarianrelationsandthosewithcreation,willserve asapatternforhumanlife.Thishasthepotentialtoshapehumanactionin variousways,includinginsupportingtheecologicalreformation.

InthefollowingdiscussionitisimportanttorememberthatinMoltmann’s thought‘God’means‘Trinity’.Hedoesnot,however,claimacorrespondence betweenthe persons oftheTrinityandhumanityaspersons;itisratherthe relationshipsoftheTrinitytowhichhumansarecalledtocorrespond,inan analogiarelationis 24 ForMoltmann,thisfocusonrelationshipssuggeststwo possibleformsthatthiscorrespondencemaytake.Firstly,a community may seektocorrespondtoGodasTrinitythroughlovingwebsofrelationship. Secondly,an individual mayseektocorrespondtoGodasTrinity,bybringing thewaysheorherelatestocreationmoreinlinewithGod’srelationallove.25 Thisthesiswillnotexplicitlydiscussthewaysthesetwodynamicswillguide correspondencedifferently,buttheirexistenceoffersclariﬁcationtopractical considerations:forMoltmann,correspondencetotheTrinityismorethanan individualisticenterprise,yetcanalsooccurasanindividualwhenthereisno sympatheticcommunityforthcoming.26

InMoltmann’swork,humanity’scorrespondencewithGodtakesthe Trinityinbothitsinnerandouterrelationshipsasanexample,thatis,in differentaspectsofthesamedivinelove.HeconsidersGod’sdealingswith theworldagoodplaceforhumanitytobegintofindcorrespondenceto God.27 Brieflyoutlined,God’soutertrinitarianrelationshipsinMoltmann’s theologyaredefinedbytheircreativityandcare,theiropennessanddesirefor reciprocalrelationships,andtheirperseverancethoughrejectedbytheother. Theyare,inaword,loving.Thismultifacetedrelationshipisonetowhich hebelieveshumanitycancorrespondinitsrelationshipswiththenatural

23 Man,p.108(cf. GiC,pp.219-21).

24 GiC,p.77(cf.Fiddes, Participating,p.48).

25 GiC,pp.239-43.

26 JoyMcDougallsuggestthat,forMoltmann,thecorrespondencewhichthecommunity seeksrelatesmoretotheinnertrinitarianrelationships,whiletheindividual’squestfor correspondencelooksmoretotheloveofGodforcreation(McDougall, Pilgrimage,p.160).

27 GiC,pp.77,229.

world.28 ThiscorrespondenceisnodoubtfoundbyMoltmann,todiffering extents,inallhumanity,regardlessoffaith.YetaChristianfaithinparticular lookstotheactofloveofthecrossofChrist,andﬁndsthereitsmeasurefor correspondencetoGod’slove.29

InadditionMoltmannwritesofhumanbeingsasthe‘imagotrinitatis’, acorrespondencetotheinnerloveandrelationalityoftheTrinity.30 Ashis wholeconceptoftheTrinityisarelationalonebasedonlove,theassociated correspondencelookstothe‘eternal,innerloveofGod’.31 Hedoesrecognise thattheperfectstateofthemutualrelationshipsharedbytheTrinityisessentiallyunobtainableforhumanity,atleastintermsofcompletecorrespondence, butneverthelesspartialcorrespondenceisbothpossibleandappropriate.32

Theconceptof perichoresis isusefulagainatthispointbecauseMoltmann ﬁndstheimageofmutualinterpenetrationandrelianceagooddescriptor forhumanlife.Againtheterm‘relationship’iscrucialtothisdiscussion, fortohim perichoresis cannotbeexpressedinanyotherway.33 Intermsof thewiderhumancommunitythiscorrespondenceisthenonlyfoundwhen humanityreﬂectsthe perichoresis ofGod,whenit:forsakesindividualism;is infellowshipandunited;rejectsone-sidedrelationshipsofprivilege,power andhierarchy;and,livesin‘mutualneedandmutualinterpenetration’.34

CriticismsofMoltmann’sWorkon Correspondence

OverlySpeculative?

Moltmann’suseoftheTrinityasanexampletowhichhumanitycancorrespondhasprovokedvaryingcriticisms.Theyareusuallyfocusedontheinner relationsoftheTrinity.McIlroy,forexample,believesthatMoltmannprivilegestheinnerrelationsoftheTrinityovertheouterrelationsindiscussions concerningcorrespondence.ForMcIlroy,thismeansMoltmannistoospeculativeandabstract.35 WarnerJeanrondalsoiswaryofassumingtoomuch

28 HP,p.18(1966); SpL,p.122; GSS,p.132.

29 CrG,p.56.

30 GiC,pp.216,259; SpL,p.160.

31 GiC,p.77(cf.‘TheFellowship’,p.293).

32 ‘TheFellowship’,p.289; GiC,p.225.

33 GiC,pp.258-59,307.

34 CPS,p.xvii(writingin1989); TKG,pp.157,192,198-200;‘TheFellowship’,pp.289-94; GiC,pp.16,216,258; CJF,p.56; HTG,pp.63-64; SpL,p.160;‘SomeReﬂections’,pp.110-11; GSS,pp.83,101.

35 McIlroy, ATrinitarian,pp.2,235-36.

concerningtheinnerlifeofGod.HeprefersitwhenMoltmannturnsinstead toGod’srelationshipwithcreation.36 BauckhamassertsthatMoltmann’s mistake‘hasbeentoabstracttheTrinityinitselffromGod’strinitarianhistory withtheworld’andthatitwouldbebettertofocusontheouterrelationsof theTrinity.37

Moltmann’scriticsdoubtthattoogreatafocusontheinnerrelations oftheTrinityisausefulplacetoseekethicaldirectionforhumanity.One problem,alreadyidentified,isthathumanknowledgeoftheinnerrelations oftheTrinityislimited.Forthisreason,thereisadangerthatanyonecould claimtoomuchaboutGod.ThatuneasereflectsMiroslavVolf’sgeneral concern(whichhedoesnotexplicitlylinktoMoltmann’swork)withdrawing toomanypracticalconceptsforhumanityfromthedoctrineoftheTrinity.For himthatcouldbringtheologyandanthropologytooclose,resultingineither areducedviewofGodoranelevatedviewofhumanity.38 YetVolfmaintains thatthistaskisstillnecessary,forthenatureofGodmustinfluence‘theway Christians—andbyextensionallhumanbeings—oughttolive’.39 Otherstoo aresupportiveoftheapproachtakenbyMoltmann.Chester,forexample, claimsthatthereisgreatpotentialintheconceptofcorrespondencewith God’sinnerlife.Forhim,theinnerloveofGodservesasakeymotivation forhumanaction.40 Moltmannisthereforenotaloneasheseeksananalogy betweentherelationshipsoftheTrinityandhumanrelations,asBauckham rightlyacknowledges.41 Whilespeculationmayoccur,describingGodaslove isattheheartofChristiantheology.

Inaddition,thiscriticismisrootedintheviewthatMoltmannhasfocused ontheinnerlifeoftheTrinityanddisregardedtherelationshipwhichGod haswithcreation.However,hiswritingshavedemonstratedthatthesetwo dynamicscan,infact,beheldtogether,asalreadyarguedabove.Forhim, alongwithcorrespondencetotheloveoftheTrinityforcreation,asimilar correspondencealsoexistswiththeinnerloveofthetrinitarianrelationships, andviceversa.Moltmannhimselfwritesthatpeople‘correspondtotheinner

36 Jeanrond,‘TheQuestion’,pp.16-17.

37 Bauckham, TheTheology,pp.163-64.

38 MiroslavVolf, AfterOurLikeness:TheChurchastheImageoftheTrinity (GrandRapids, MI:Eerdmans,1998),p.198.

39 MiroslavVolf,‘BeingasGodIs:TrinityandGenerosity’,in God’sLifeinTrinity,ed. byMiroslavVolfandMichaelWelker(Minneapolis,MN:Fortress,2006),pp.3–12(p.4), referencingMatt.5.48.

40 Chester, Mission,pp.201,222.Chesterwritesprimarilyofhumanactionintheareasof missionandsocialactionasopposedtoenvironmentalconcerns,butthesourceofaction beinginGod’sloveisthesamegeneralprinciple.SeealsoBuxton, TheTrinity,p.272.

41 Bauckham, TheTheology,p.177(cf.Fiddes, Participating,p.46).

relationshipsofGodtohimself–totheeternal,innerloveofGodwhich expressesandmanifestsitselfincreation’.42 Thisbringsthisdiscussionback tohisviewthatthelovewhichtheTrinityhasineternityisthesamelovewith whichtheTrinitylovestheworld.43 Inthisway,throughcorrespondencewith bothGod’sinnerandouterrelations,histheologyprovidesabroadfoundation forthatcorrespondencewhichprovidesalessspeculativebasisforethical directionthanisfearedbythecriticsabove.

TheologicallyInappropriate?

TimothyHarvieexpressesafurtherconcern:‘thetypeofperichoreticlife maintainedbyGod inse andthesociallifeofcreaturesneedstobedifferentiated’.44 ThisconcernaboutMoltmann’stheologyisshared,amongothers,by Bauckham,whothinksthattosuggestthathumansocietycouldbemodelled onGodﬂattensGodandreducesthedivineotherness,for‘GodisGodinthree inconceivablydifferentways’andassuchcannotbesomethingtowhichhumanitycancorrespond.45 Bauckham’scriticismsinthisquotationarefounded onboththeothernessofGod,andMoltmann’semphasisonthedifference betweenthepersonsoftheTrinity.Bauckham,becauseofthelatter,doesnot thinkcorrespondencecanwork,becausethetrinitarianperson’srelationships aresoradicallydifferenttoours:

TheideaofthesocialTrinityasamodelforhumancommunityencouragesustothinkofthedifferencesinthe[variousinner]trinitarian relationships[...]asnomoresigniﬁcantthanthedifferencesinhuman relationshipswithinthekindofcommunityMoltmannenvisages.46

Nevertheless,forMoltmann,correspondencedoesnotimplyequivalence, eitherbetweenhumanityandtheothernessofGod,orbetweenhuman communitiesandthediversityoftheTrinity’sinnerrelationships.An analogia relationis doesnotrequireGodandcreationtohaveexactlythesamerelations. Moltmann’sworkshowsagreementwithBauckhamandHarvieinitsdesire tokeepGodandcreationdistinct,evenintotheeschatologicalfuturewhen humanityreachesitstrueidentity.47 Furthermore,abiblicalmandateforhis

42 GiC,p.77.

43 TKG,p.57.

44 Harvie, JürgenMoltmann’sEthics,p.127(cf.Bauckham, TheTheology,p.177-8).

45 Bauckham, TheTheology,p.179(cf.Farrow,‘InTheEnd’,p.427:‘Isitrighttoseekin humanrelationsan analogiatrinitatis?’Farrowwriteslittlemorethanthisonthesubjectas itisareviewarticle).

46 Bauckham, TheTheology,p.178.

47 GiC,pp.150,184.HealsowritesofagreatcondescensionandhumiliationonGod’s partinbeingrepresentedthroughcreation(p.78).

ideaispossible:‘AstheFatherhaslovedme,sohaveIlovedyou’;‘JustasI havelovedyou,youalsoshouldloveoneanother’;‘Beperfect,therefore,as yourheavenlyFatherisperfect.’48

TheinnerrelationshipsoftheTrinityprovidetheexampleofperfect, eternal,perichoreticrelationshipsoflove.Theserelationshipsareunique toGod’sperfectionyetstillgivehumanityadirectiontoaimforintheir ownrelationships.Thisagaindemonstratesthatboththeinnerandouter relationshipsoftheTrinityareinstructiveforhumanity’scorrespondence toGod.Theouterrelationsdemonstrateanopennessandlovethatalways lookstotheotheranddesiresgreatercommunityinthefaceofrejectionand setbacks.Theinnerrelationsgivetheexampleofperfect,mutual,self-giving love,whichisaninspirationandencouragementtohumanity.

ThreatenstheOntologicalDifferencebetweenHumanityandGod?

MatthewBonzo’scriticismofMoltmann’scalltocorrespondtoGodcentres ﬁrstlyontheassertionthatinhistheologyGodistoodifferentfromhumanity.Secondly,BonzoclaimsthatwhenMoltmannwritesofthecreationof theworldintheforsaken nihil thismeansthathumanidentityisforever knownbyitsothernessto,andforsakennessby,God.Therefore,forBonzo, Moltmannmakeshumanity’sjourneytowardscorrespondence‘theendof beinghuman’.49 Bonzo’sreadingofhimisthusthattobecomemorelikethe imagoDei istobecomelesshuman.Thismaynotfollow,however.Firstly, BonzoassumesthatMoltmannseeshumanity’sveryidentityinotherness andforsakenness.50 ThisclaimderivesfromBonzo’sunderstandingofthe negativepotentialofthe nihil inMoltmann’sdoctrineofcreation.Chapter3, however,alreadygavereasontoquestionthisviewofMoltmann’stheology concerningthe nihil,whichsoftensBonzo’sconclusionhere.51 Inafurther critique,hebelievesthatMoltmann’suseoftheTrinityasanethicalblueprint forlifesetshumanityonapathofbecomingtoosimilartoGod,inawaythat threatensGod’sotherness.52 Ithasbeendemonstratedthatthisisnotthe case.

CorrespondenceConﬂictswith‘Participation’?

BauckhamiscriticalofMoltmann’sattempttofollowboththepathsof correspondence to theDivineandparticipation in theDivine:

48 John15.9;13.24;Matt.5.48.

49 Bonzo, Indwelling,p.110(cf.pp.1-8,43-44,82-92,126-30).

50 Ibid.,pp.103,110,forexample.

51 Seethiswork,p.42.

52 Bonzo, Indwelling,p.8.

Moltmannistryingtoholdtogetherthetworatherdifferentideas:that (a)thelifeoftheTrinityisaninterpersonalfellowshipinwhichwe,by grace,participate,and(b)thelifeoftheTrinityprovidestheprototype onwhichhumanlifeshouldbemodelled.53

ForBauckham,participationisabetterconcepttoimplement.Heconsiders theconceptofthecorrespondenceofhumanitytotheTrinitytobeflawed. Bauckham’sconcernsappeartostemfromanassumptionthatcorrespondence happenswhenahumanstandsoutsidetherelationshipsoftheTrinity.Thus bydefinitionitexcludesparticipation.54 Incontrast,thischapterhasabove defendedMoltmann’suseofcorrespondenceandrejectstheideathathisuse ofthetermmovestotheextremewhichBauckhamfears.Asthischapter willalsoattempttoshow,theintentionofMoltmann’sworkistoarguefor correspondenceandparticipationascomplementaryconceptsofthewider processofhumanity’srelationshipwithGod.Theinterrelatednatureofthese twothemesishighlightedinhisownwork:‘Intheircorrespondence[...] humanbeingsalsoparticipateinGod’srelationtotheworld’.55 Onecould furtherargue,beyondMoltmann,thattherearenohumanactionswhich correspondtoGod’slovethatdonotalsocontributetoGod’smissionto bringlovetoallcreation.Atthesametimeonecouldclaimthatthereisno participationinGod’sworkonearththatdoesnotdrawtheparticipantto echotheCreator’slove.Thecapacityofcorrespondenceandparticipationto strengtheneachotherisclear.ForMoltmann,humanitynotonlyparticipates inGod’srelationshipswithcreationbutalsolookstoGodforthedefining characteroftheserelationships.Thuscorrespondenceshapeshumanity’s participation,andparticipationisthecontextthatenablescorrespondence.

CorrespondenceasGrowth:GrowinginLove

Thisdiscussionhasdemonstratedthatcorrespondenceislinkedtothewhole lovinglifeofGod,ininnerandouterrelations.Correspondenceisnotan assumptionofsimilaritybetweenGodandhumanitybutacalltogrowmore liketheTrinity’slovingnature,withincreation’sidentityandlimitsascreation. God’scompletenessisbeyondhumanity’sreach,yetsomeappropriatemeasure ofcorrespondenceisnotimpossible.ForMoltmann,thecorrespondence

53 Bauckham, TheTheology,p.177(cf. TKG,pp.157-58,198-200).

54 Bauckham, TheTheology,p.177-79.

55 GiC,p.151(cf.p.77; Man,pp.108-09;McDougall, Pilgrimage,pp.7,15;Beck, The HolySpirit,p.202).Othershavealsotakenthisview(seeWillisJr, Theism,Atheism,p.216; Fiddes, Participating,p.50;McIlroy, ATrinitarian,p.14,n.57).

alreadyexiststoacertainextent.Inthemake-upofcreationas‘reciprocalinexistence’thereisalreadyareﬂectionofdivineindwelling.56 Humanbeings, speciﬁcallycreatedtobeGod’simageonearth,are‘intended’toshowGod’s loveandaremadeforthispurpose.57 Therefore,eveniftheyhavenotreached fullcorrespondence,thetaskremainstoattempt.Thisseemsareasonable useof‘analogy’in analogiarelationis.

7.4PARTICIPATINGIN GOD

Nextinthissurveyoftheology-to-actionwithinMoltmann’santhropologyis anotherdynamicinhisworkthathasalreadybrieﬂybeenmentioned;namely thathumanityiscreatedtoparticipateinthelifeoftheTrinityinitsopenness toarelationshipwithallcreation.‘Participation’meanssimplytotakepartin something.Wehavealreadyseenthat,forMoltmann,humanityisanintegral partofcreation,andassuchtakespartintheongoinghistoryofcreation. Theword‘participation’mightadequatelydescribewhathumanitydoesin creation.Inthiscontext,however,thediscussionisrestrictedtothethemeof humanparticipationinGod’shistorywithcreation.Consideringthelovefor creationwhichcharacterisesGod’srelationshipwiththeworldinMoltmann’s work,thereisclearpotentialforthisthemetoofferaconstructiveelementto thenewtheologicalarchitectureforecologicalreformation.Theexploration ofthatpotentialwilloccurmainlyinthenextchapter;thepresentsectionwill investigateMoltmann’sunderstandingofthisconceptinmoregeneralterms.

IdealParticipation

ItisimportanttonotethatwhileMoltmannoftendescribesahighaimfor humanity’sparticipationinGod’srelationshipsthisisanidealratherthana presentreality.Aswithsomanyaspectsofhistheology,thereisadifference betweenthepresentandwhatishopedfor.Albeitforhim,thegoalforthe humantakesmuchofitsmeaningfromtheconceptofparticipation:

MissionisparticipationinJesus’ownmessianicmission–nomore,and noless.Jesus’missionisthereasonforours,anddeﬁnesourmandate

56 CoG,p.301.

57 GiC,p.77.

andourpotentialities.Sowehavecontinuallytotestouraimsand methodsagainstJesus’ownmission.58

Theabovequotationalsoreinforcesthemutuallycomplementarynatureof correspondenceandparticipation.Here,initsparticipation,humanityuses Jesus’workasabenchmark.Yetparticipationbuildsoncorrespondenceto statethathumanitycan,and(forMoltmann)isintendedto, joinin thework ofGod.Humanityiscalledtodomorethanitsownindependentwork,even ifthatworkwas like God’swork.

Inaddition,whileaboveMoltmannmentionsJesusalone,hiswider discussionsarelessexclusive.59 Hisintentionisclearlytoinvolvehumanityin alloftheTrinity’svariousworks,whethertheFather’slove,theSpirit’scare, theSon’ssuffering,oranyotherofthediversedivineactivities.ThroughGod’s openness,thisworkexistsforhumanitytoparticipatein,waitingforpeople toperceiveitthroughtheirfaithinGod.60 Thisallowshumanitytosuffer withGodandshareGod’sjoys.61 Italsobringsfreedomtohumanity,since truefreedomisparticipationinGod’sliberatingfreedom.62 Therelationship oftheTrinitytocreationreﬂects,inoneway,thekindofrelationshipthat humanitywillitselfhavewithcreation:onewherethe‘other’doesnotalways actlovinglyorrespondinkindtolove.ThissharedexperienceoftheDivine andhumanitycanbehelpfultopeoplewhoseektoactoutloveinabroken world.ThereiscomfortintheknowledgethatGodsharesinhumanstriving, andthathumanitysharesinGod’sstriving.

ParticipationbringshumanityintoanintimaterelationshipwithGod. AsGodisopentoincludecreationinaperichoreticrelationship,Moltmann writesofthehumancommunity’sparticipationinthe‘innerlife’or‘eternal Being’ofGod,anddescribesthetrinitarianfellowship’sopennesstogive‘a shareofitself’.63 Healsocallsthisaparticipationinthedivineenergy.64 Earlierinhiscareerhedescribeditthus:‘communionwithChristisfulllife inthetrinitariansituationofGod’.65 Thishighlightsthattheparticipation towhichGodinvitedhumanityisnotonlyparticipationinthedivineworks butinthetrinitarianrelationshipsoflovetowardsallcreation.Theinclusion ofrelationshipsaswellasworksuggeststhatthisparticipationinGodisnot

58 PP,p.72.

59 Forexample, GiC,p.151.

60 RRF,pp.36-37; CPS,pp.225,287-88; SpL,pp.121-22.

61 CrG,pp.264,352; TheSource,p.133.

62 RRF,p.67; TKG,p.220.

63 ‘TheFellowship’,pp.289,292,294(cf. GiC,pp.97-98,162; HTG,p.63).

64 SpL,p.115.

65 CrG,p.286.

merelyutilitarian,asimpletaskofcompletingagivenwork.Rather,itisa sharedgivingofloveinthepresenceofeachother.

EmpoweredParticipation

InMoltmann’swork,participationintherelationshipofGodwithcreation cannottakeplacewithouttheCreator’spermission,norindeedwithoutthe Creator’shelp:

Wecannot‘make’amessianicwayoflife.[...]Thiswayoflifeiscreated bytheSpiritwherepeople,personallyandcollectively,discovertheirlife andthehistoryoftheirlivesinthecomprehensivehistoryofChrist,and participateinthehistoryofGod’sdealingswiththeworld.66

Aswesawearlierinthisproject,itistheSpiritwhobringslifetocreationand enablesittoliveandfindcommunity.LikewiseitistheSpiritwhoenablesand empowerscreationtoparticipateinGod’slife-bringingwork.67 Sometimes, asabove,MoltmannwritesthattheSpiritbringsunitybetweenhumanity withChrist.AtothertimesparticipationthroughtheSpiritalsoreferstoa unitybetweenhumanityandthegeneralcreativityofGod.68 PaulFiddeshas suggestedthatinMoltmann’sthoughtcreationissoreliantontheSpirit’s transformingworkthatthereisariskthattheworld’scontributiontoGod’s goalofglorificationismerelyGod’sownwork.69 RandallBushfollowsthis withmorecertainty:‘MoltmannmakesGodthe sole actorincreativity.’70 Yet theseaccusationssupposethatinMoltmann’stheologytheresponseofthe humantoGod’sSpiritdoesnotchangetheoutcome.Chapters5and6already exploredthisprobleminrelationtoeschatologyandGod’sopenness.For Moltmann,humanity’sownactivityandresponsetoGodisindeedsignificant forthecontinuallifeofcreation.

ThisrelianceontheSpiritisintendedasanencouragementtotheChurch; itisempoweredbyGod:‘Thepowersofthenewcreationaremeanttoenter intotheChristiancommunity’,and:‘Theonewhoisbornagain[...]livesin thepresenceoftheSpirit[andisset]inthecommonmovementoftheSpirit’.71 YetanemphasisontheSpirit’shelpisnotintendedbyMoltmanntosuggest

66 CPS,pp.287-88(cf.pp.197,294).

67 ToH,p.212; HP,p.108(1960); CPS,pp.65,279,306,309; GiC,p.163.

68 GiC,pp.97-98.

69 Fiddes, TheCreative,p.85.

70 Bush, RecentIdeas,p.295.BushalsostatesthatMoltmanngiveslittlereasonforthinking thathumanity’scontributiontothedivinelifeispositive(p.296).

71 ‘CreationandRedemption’,p.128; CPS,p.279.

thatonlyactivitywithintheChristiancommunityqualiﬁesasparticipationin God’srelationshipwithcreation.Inhistheology,thepresenceandworkof theSpirithasauniversalembrace.Hisworkthusquestionswhetherthehelp oftheSpirittoenablehumanparticipationshouldberestrictedtobelievers.

TheRoleofFaithinParticipation

Chapter4consideredthecriticismthatMoltmannneedsmorediscernment whenheclaimstheSpiritispresentandactive.72 Thisisaconnectedconcern: ‘WhatMoltmannfailstodoisdistinguishbetweenthetypeofworktheHoly SpiritaccomplishesintheChurchandthatwhichisachievedinsocietyand nature.’73 Harvie’sownviewseemstobethattheSpiritisatworkthroughout creation,regardlessoffaith.74 Yethedoesnotwishtobesouniversalistic asMoltmann.HebelievesthatMoltmannshouldpaymoreattentiontothe differentnatureoftheSpirit’sworkinapersonwithnoChristianfaith.

Harviesummariseshow,forMoltmann,withregardstotheChurchitis theSpiritthatenablesandempowersworkforGod’skingdom.75 Harviealso notesthatMoltmannarguesfortheSpirit’sworkoutsidetheChurch.76 Harvie iscontentforthesetwostatementstocoexist.Yetthefollowingcontribution fromMoltmannintroducesaproblem:

ThereareapparentlytwowaysofaccesstothecommunityofChrist.On theonehandthroughfaithinChrist,mediatedthroughWord,sacrament andfellowship;ontheotherhandthroughsharedworkforthekingdom ofGod.77

HarvieinterpretsMoltmanntobearguingthatthereisaccesstothecommunityofChristthatiscompletelyseparatetofaithinChrist‘throughwork fortheKingdominpoliticalactionandpraxiscommensuratewiththeKingdom’(‘workforthekingdom’inthiscontextequatestoparticipationinGod’s kingdomwork).Furthermore,giventhatitistheSpiritwhoempowers kingdomwork,thisimpliestoHarviethattheSpiritenablesandempowers kingdomworkoutsideofthebelievingcommunity.Harvierespondswiththe question:‘TowhatextentmaytheSpirit’sworkbeexperiencedoutsideof

72 Seethiswork,p.88.

73 Harvie, JürgenMoltmann’sEthics,p.84(cf.AlasdairI.C.Heron, TheHolySpirit:The HolySpiritintheBible,intheHistoryofChristianThoughtandinRecentTheology (London: Marshall,Morgan&Scott,1983),p.155).

74 Harvie, JürgenMoltmann’sEthics,p.83.

75 Ibid.,pp.74-76.

76 Ibid.,p.81.

77 SpL,p.242.

confessionofChrist?’78 Harvie’sownanswertothisquestionisthatwhatever theexperienceoftheSpiritoutsideoffaithinChristis,itshouldnotinclude kingdom-bringingwork.ForHarvie,toconcludethatthisparticularelement oftheSpirit’sworkcanbepresentregardlessoffaithimpliesthatconfession ofChristisnotnecessaryfortheChurchtoparticipateinkingdomwork.He outlineshisunderstandingofMoltmann’sargument:

WiththeChurch,thequalitative(thatis,ethicalandliberating)mission comesfromtheaccomplishedworkofChristinthehistoryofpromise amongthepeoplewhoconfesshislordship.Insociety,however,such confessionisnotneededfortheefﬁcaciousworkoftheSpiritinhistoricallymediatingtheethicallifeoftheKingdom.YetMoltmannfailsto relatethetwo.WhyisconfessionofChristneededfortheChurchand notforsocietyinorderfortheexperienceoftheSpiritwhichenablesa lifecommensuratewiththeKingdom?79

Harvieadmitsthatitseemsrighttoseeacertainamountofunitybetween theworksofdifferentpeoplethatsharesameethicalaims;whensociety mirrorstheChurchinitsconsiderationsandactionsthereexistsanelement ofcommonpurpose.CriticallyforHarvie,however,‘differentiationmaybe perceivedinthe telos ofsuchethicalaction’.HarviebelievesMoltmannhas madetheultimategoala‘universalsociety’thatreﬂectsGod’sstandardsfor lovinginterrelationships,andassuchhasledhimselftoclaimthatsecular society’sactionstowardsthisgoalshareanaimwiththeChurch.Incontrast, HarviewantstoemphasisethatthegoaloftheSpirit’sworkistobring about‘aliving,submissiverecognitionofJesusChrist’andthattheideaof a‘universalsociety’mustbeinseparablefromthis.Forthisreasonthework ofthekingdomhastoincludefaithinChrist,otherwiseitisultimatelynot connectedwiththekingdomofGod.Forhim,outsideoffaith,theSpirit ‘callssocietytorepentanceandlivingrelationshipwithChrist’inorderthat kingdomwork maythen ‘bemademanifest’.Harviecontendsthatthereexists thefollowingordertotheSpirit’sworkintheworld:theSpiritbringsaperson torelationshipwithChrist,‘therebyenabling’theSpirittoempowerwork thatﬂowsoutofthisrelationship:thatis,kingdom-buildingwork.80 Inother words,thekingdomofGodisnotfundamentallyaboutpatternsofbehaviour butaboutarelationshipwithChrist.Therefore,forHarvie,itisinappropriate toclaim‘accesstothecommunityofChrist’,or‘sharedworkforthekingdom’, solelyonthebasisofbehaviourandnotalsotherelationshipwithChrist

78 Harvie, JürgenMoltmann’sEthics,p.73.

79 Ibid.,p.83.

80 Ibid.,p.85(cf.pp.43,73-74,82).

throughfaith.

HarvieclaimsfaithisessentialfortheSpirit’skingdom-buildingwork. IncontradictiontothisisMoltmann’sunderstandingthat all theSpirit’s workbuildsupthekingdom.Asthisstudyofhisoverallprojectshows,for Moltmann,thereisthesamekingdom-focusedeschatologicalorientationto allofGod’sworkandpresenceincreation.81 Forhim,itappearsthatwhilea personwithoutChristianfaithmaynotconsciouslyactwiththe‘telos’ofGod’s kingdominmind,thatdoesnotprecludeacontributiontoGod’slife-giving workastheyseektoliveouttheirownlife-orientatedlives.Thisorientation towardslifecomesfromtheSpirit’suniversalwork.

IncompleteParticipation

IthasbeendemonstratedthatMoltmanndescribestheidealthathumanity fullyparticipatesinGod’strinitarianrelationshipwithcreation.Inreality thereisawholespectrumofpossibilitiesforbuildingadetailedpictureof thatparticipationinthepresentday.Importantly,however,hisworkargues thatdeeperandmoreconsciousparticipationshouldalwaysbesought.

InclusiveNon-ConsciousParticipation

ThereisathemethatemergesfromMoltmann’swork,alongside theChurch participatinginGod’smission,andhumanityparticipating throughrecognising Christ’shistory intheworld.Thatis: universalinvolvement. 82 Asinprevious chapters,hisuniversalapproachmeansthattheSpiritandChristareatwork in all things,thattheTrinityisopentothesufferingandjoyof all things, andthatthefuturedraws all thingstoGod.83 Moltmannexplicitlyrefersto both‘allthings’‘inGod’and‘inthemovementofGod’, and Godinallthings; theDivine-creation‘perichoreticrelationship’.InthisrelationshiptheDivine ‘allowshiscreaturestoexertaninﬂuenceonhim’.84

81 BeckhasattemptedtoarguethatMoltmann’stheologyleanstowardsthepresenceof theSpirit outside ofthebelievernotbeinganeschatologicalpresence,thisqualityofpresence beingrestrictedtothebelieveralone.Hisargumentisnotcompellingforreasonssimilar toabove:whatworkoftheSpiritwouldnothavelastingvalueandthusnotbeconsidered eschatological(Beck, TheHolySpirit,pp.159-63,179,207,210,248-52,258)?

82 ThisﬁtswellwithSamuelPowell’spleaforatheologyofparticipationthatrecognises bothitsuniversalnatureandtheuniquesigniﬁcanceofthe‘newmode[...]availablein Christ’(SamuelM.Powell, ParticipatinginGod:CreationandTrinity (Minneapolis,MN: Fortress,2003),p.46).

83 CriticismsofthesepositionsarefoundthroughoutChapters4,5and6respectively.

84 GiC,pp.163-64,258(cf. SpL,p.221).

ThisuniversalconnectednessbetweenGodandallcreationmeansthat itwouldbeimpossibletoﬁndsomethingthathadnoeffect in creation,and therefore on creation,andassuchthatdidnotplayanypartinGod’shistory withcreation:‘Anyonewhoinfringeslife,infringesGod.Anyonewhodoesnot lovelife,doesnotloveGod.GodisaGodofthewholeoflife,ofeverylifeand ofthesharedlifeofusall.’85 Ifparticipationisunderstoodasplayingapartin God’srelationshipwithcreation,asitisforMoltmann,thentheimplication fromtherestofMoltmann’sworkisthatalllivingthingsareinvolvedinthis participation,whetherforgoodorill,knowinglyorunknowingly,consciously orotherwise.Concerninghumanbeingsinparticular,whilehearguesthat thereisaninvitationfromGodtoparticipateconsciouslyandmoredeeply inGod’srelationshipwithcreation,forhimallofhumanitymustalready unconsciouslyparticipateinthistoacertainextent.Itwouldthusseemthat, likehistheologyoftheimageofGod,participationisagifttohumanity thatcannotbeentirelylost.Itshould,however,benotedthatnon-conscious participationmaybealongwayfrom constructive participation.86

LimitedConsciousParticipation

Ifparticipationislikecorrespondenceinthatitisagiftthatalwaysremains toacertainextent,thenitisalsosimilarinthatitcanfallshortofitsultimate goal.ForMoltmann,humanity’sparticipationislimitedbothbythelevelof eachperson’sengagementwithtaskscommensuratewithGod’smission,and alsobytheincompletepresenceofGod.

Withregardstopeople’sactions,Moltmannreturnsmanytimestothe ideathathumanity’sthirstforpowerpullsitawayfromitsworktowards God’sgoalsofpeaceandreconciliation,particularlyinitsrelationshipwith nature.87 Forhim,inChristianisedsocietiesthisproblemcomesfroma misunderstandingoftheimageofGodwhichhespeciﬁcallylocatesinrule anddominance.88 ThisshowsagaintheimportancetoMoltmannofthe ideaofcorrespondencetoGod’slovingrelationality.Thereareotherreasons whypeoplemaynotfullyandintentionallyparticipateinthedivineworkin creation,oneofthemoreobviousbeingtheabsenceofbeliefinGodorGod’s activity.EventhosewhoclaimtofollowChrist,however,willreadilyadmit thattheydonotalwaysperfectlysucceedatthattask.Sowhileeachperson, whetherawareofitornot,participatesinGod’sgreatprojectofcreation,

85 GSS,p.20.

86 Forexample,whenapersonactsinawaythatiscounterproductivetoGod’spurposes.

87 RRF,p.26; TJ,pp.81-82; GiC,p.22; WJC,pp.68,157.

88 GiC,p.21.

notall(andnoneconsistently)willconsciouslyparticipateforgoodinthe trinitarianrelationswithcreation.

ForMoltmann,theabovelimitationtocreation’sparticipationwillcome toanend.Hehasregularlywrittenofhisbeliefthathumanityandthewhole ofcreationwillonlyarriveatcompleteparticipationinGod’srelationships whenGodisfullypresentincreation.89 Thisdoesnotnecessarilyresult inMoltmannclaimingrocksandgrasswillconsciouslyparticipateinGod’s relationships.Rather,hecanbeunderstoodtomeanthatallconsciousness that can bealignedtoGod’sway will be.Fornow,participationispartialand provisional.90 Thisdoesnotmean,however,thatthereisnoscopeforits growthinthepresent.

DeeperParticipation

Giventhedifferencesbetweentheidealofparticipationandtherealitythat itoftentakes,ausefuldistinctioncanbemade,beyondMoltmann’sown, betweenparticipationin God’shistorywithcreation ontheonehand,and participationin God’sloveforcreation ontheother.Theﬁrstisinescapable whilethesecondrequiresanalignmentwithGod’spurposes,althoughthe dividinglinemaynotbeassimpleasChristianfaith.Moltmann’swork encountersanenquiryastowhetheranalignmentwithGod’spurposescould includethosewhoactinalovethatisinaccordancewithGod’sworkwithout consciousknowledgeofit.

Thereisgreatimportanceintherecognitionthateverylivingthing, includingeachhumanbeing,playsitspartinGod’srelationshipwithcreation whetherconsciouslyornot,whetherconsciousnessisevenpossible.The inclusionofpeopleinthisisavitalissuerelevanttotheexplorationhereand isattheheartofhumanresponsibility.However,Moltmann’sdiscussionof participationisnotsimplyaimedatenablinghumanitytorecognisethatit hasarelationshipwithGod.Thereisadeepermeaningsought:humanityis askedtoplayaroleinGod’seschatologicallyorientatedworktosustainand redeemlife.Heclearlywantstoencourageamoreconsciousparticipationin God’shistorywithcreation.HewritesofnotbeingsatisﬁedwiththeChurch’s claimsthatitfulﬁlsitsresponsibilitieswhenitmerelyproclaimsthegospel andrightlyadministersthesacraments.Forhim,trueparticipationoccursas

89 RRF,p.36; CrG,p.349;‘CreationandRedemption’,p.130; FC,p.125; GiC,pp.5, 183-84,213;‘TheScope’,p.102;‘Shekinah’,pp.182-83.

90 GiC,p.5.

theChurchjoinsinwithGod’sliberationanduniﬁcationofallthings,and whenitsharesGod’sjoysandsufferingsthroughallofcreation.91 Itisthe presenceoftheHolySpiritwhichbothempowerspeopletothisendandleads themtoopennesstothewholeworld.92

WhilethisdiscussionisspeciﬁcallyconcernedwiththeChurch,again Moltmann’suniversalpneumatologyexpandsthisconceptsothattheSpirit drawsallpeople,regardlessoffaith,toadeeperconcernforGod’sdesires andtoagreaterparticipationinGod’smission.ForMoltmann,peacewith naturewillcomeasapersonallowstheSpirittowork,butthisworkofthe SpiritisstillongoinginthosewhoarenotawareofwhotheSpiritisinthe samewaythatafollowerofChristmightclaimtobe.93

Moltmannbelievesthathumanityisaskedtoparticipatemorethanit currentlydoes,injoiningtheactiveloveofGodforcreation,bothinways thatarepossiblenowandwaysthatcannotberealiseduntilthefuturefull indwellingofGodoccurs.Hehashopeforthispossibility,forhebelievesthat anexperienceofGodchangesaperson.Thisbringsencouragementthata smallamountofparticipationhelpsapersontoparticipateatthenextlevel.94 God’sactivityincreation,asMoltmannhasdescribedit,clearlypointstoan eagernessonGod’sparttoworkinpeople’slives.Therefore,forhim,God wishestheparticipationofcreationinGod’sownlovetobeaneverdeepening reality.

7.5LIVINGIN HOPE

Thelastofthischapter’sfourthemesforinclusioninthenewtheological architectureconcernstheplaceofhopeinMoltmann’sconnectionsbetween theologyandethicalaction.Hopeisanimportantelementofhistheology, alongwithhiskeennessforeschatologicalthemes.Hopeisalso,forhim, intrinsicallylinkedtolove.Followingadiscussionofthatlinkisasurvey ofthreedifferentwaysinwhichheseeshope’sinteractionwithhumanity’s effortsintheworld.Thesewillallcontributetotheshapingofthisnew architecture’soverallthrusttowardsecologicalreformation.

91 CPS,p.65.

92 Ibid.,p.198.

93 GiC,p.xiii.

94 SpL,p.6.

Love,Hope,Love

God’slovehasbeenattherootofeverychapterinthisproject.ItisMoltmann’s consistentdescriptionofGod’sbeingandactions.Itwouldhavecomeas nosurprisewhenabookdedicatedtobothJürgenMoltmannandElisabeth Moltmann-WendelwasgiventhethemeofGod’sloveasthereasonforhope. Theeditorsremindthereaderthat,forMoltmann,theloveofGodseenin thecrossofChrististhefoundationofallChristianhope.95 Theprevious chaptersshowedthatGod’sloveisseeninthevariousdivineactions,andthat thisloveisatthecentreofGod’scharacter.Moltmann’semphasisonGod’s relationshipwithcreationthuspointstowardsahopeofeternallifewithGod forallcreation.

Thishope,whichGod’sloveproduces,isinreturnanagentforthegrowth ofloveinthehumanbeingtowardsallthatishopedfor.ForMoltmann,hope leadstopassionatedesireforchangeasloveseeksoutthatpromisedfuture.96 Itishopethatgivesloveitsstrengthtoact.Forhim,love‘allow[s]forthe unawakenedpossibilities’oftheother,whichstemfromhope.97 Humanity’s loveisthemanifestationofitshope.Ananalogywouldbethathopegivesthe mapofthejourneyandlovewalksalongit.

LovingHopeProducesAction

Thishope,whichoriginatesinloveandblossomsintolove,isastrongadvocate foraction.FromthebeginningofMoltmann’scareerthefollowingquotation hassuccinctlyencapsulatedhopeasthemotivationalforcewhichdriveshis work:

Fromﬁrsttolast,andnotmerelyintheepilogue,Christianityiseschatology,ishope,forwardlookingandforwardmoving,andthereforealso revolutionizingandtransformingthepresent.98

ThreekeypointsinMoltmann’sworkoutlinethewayinwhichhopeaffects action:hoperevealsthepresenttofallshortofitspotential;hopeencourages apersontomakethepresentmoreasitshouldbe;andhopegivesasureness

95 FredericB.Burnham,CharlesS.McCoyandM.DouglasMeeks(eds), Love:TheFoundationofHope:TheTheologyofJürgenMoltmannandElisabethMoltmann-Wendel (SanFrancisco, CA&London:Harper&Row,1988),p.x.

96 ToH,p.337.

97 Man,p.117(cf. RRF,p.176).

98 ToH,p.16(cf. EoG,p.11).

thatthepresentwillonedaybecomewhatitshouldbe.Thesecanbe summarisedasaim,motivation,andencouragement.

RevealstheDistancebetweenFutureandPresent

Chapter6investigatedMoltmann’spictureofthefuturewhichthehopedfor consummationofallcreationbrings.However,thereisanadditionaldynamic totheconsequencesofhope:hopeidentiﬁesthatthepresentisnotwhatit shouldbe.Inhiswords,thepersonwholookstotheredemptionofcreation ‘seesthatthisworldinwhichhelivesisalienatedfromitstruenature’.99 Hope, byitsverynature,looksfortheincompletepresenttochange.Thepresent cannotthereforefullysatisfy.Thehopefulwill‘remaininconsolableuntil redemptioncomes’.100 Inthisway,hopeallowshumanitytoseesomething ofwhatisbeyondthepresent,orthe‘fulﬁllmentofhistory’,andsoorientate itselftoGod’swork.101

Ifapersonisawareofboththepresentandahopedforfuture,theyare providedwiththepointoforiginfortheirjourneyandtheirdestination.In thiswayhopesuppliesspeciﬁcsfortheaimofhumanactivityasitisshaped byourhopedfordestination.

ChesterhighlightsacriticismofMoltmanninthisrespect,usingthework ofStephenWilliams.102 Chesterarguesthatformanypeoplehopedoesnot include‘everytreeandﬂower’.Thereforehopewillnotencouragearesponsibilityforeverypartofcreation.103 ForChesterandWilliams,Moltmann’sall inclusiveeschatologicalfuturepaintsanincorrectviewofwhatiscertain.For them,Moltmannonlydiscussesanoptimistichumanhopewhichmaywell meetwithdisappointment.104 InChester’sopinion,therearemanypeople andotherlivingthingsforwhichthereisnothope,oratleastnotacertain hope,whichneverthelessneedcare.ChesterandWilliamsdonotdenythe importanceofhopebut,insummary,theybelievethatbiblicallyspeaking noteverythingoreveryone hasacertainfuture.Thereforehopedoesnotact asthemostsuitablegoverningfactorfor all humanactivity.Chesterclaims thattheneedsofwhat is functionasamoreappropriatefocusforactivity thanaviewofwhat willbe.Forhim,aswellasWilliams,thescopeofwhata Christianiscalledtoloveismuchmoreinclusivethanwhatcanbehopedfor

99 CPS,p.212.

100 CoG,p.93.

101 ExH,p.19.

102 Chester, Mission,pp.119-32.

103 Ibid.,p.120.

104 Ibid.,p.222.

withcertainty.105

Nevertheless,Moltmanniscorrectinhisaffirmationthatifaperson hashopeforsomefuturethenthisinformstheaimoftheiractivity.The problempresentedbyChester,thatthestrengthofMoltmann’sargument issignificantlyweakenedifoneadoptsanon-universalisticposition,would beasignificantproblemif‘hope’wasthesolebasisforthescopeofhuman activity.However,thisisnotsoinMoltmann’swork,asthischapterseeksto demonstrate.

SeekstoBridgetheGap

InMoltmann’stheologyhopenotonlygivesthecourseofthejourneybut alsoprovidesthereasontomakethejourney.Thepresentisincomplete,thus thefuturegoalisdesirable.Thisleadshumanitytosetoutforthispromised land.Forhim,hopeforadifferentfutureshouldneverleadtoawallowingin thepresent.Insteadthehopefulperson‘strives’forthefuture‘unrestrainedly andunreservedly’toreachitandhelpitcome.106 Thehopefulpersonisonly satisﬁedbyaction:‘Withouthopeinactionfaith’shopebecomesineffective andirresponsible.’107

Hopethereforelookstochangethepresent,toworkagainstcurrent weaknesseswhichthefuturehasrevealedandtoconformthemtothefuture.108 Hopelookstowhatofthefutureispossiblenowand‘grasps’itto makeitareality.109 Hopemovesthepersontocorrespondtotheirfuture.110

ThefactthatMoltmann’stheologyisoneofhopefor all creationmeansthat thisargumentinevitablyleadstoactionthattakes all ofcreationintoits consideration:

Thankstoitshope[thechurch]cannotsurrenderanyindividualperson oranypartofcreation.‘Catholic’isthereforenotanadjectivedescribing thechurch’sstate;itisanattributedescribingitsmovement,itsmission anditshope.111

ForMoltmann,thismissionwouldnotexistwithouthope:‘Anyonewho believesthattheworldisgoingtoendincatastrophewillnotmakeanew

105 Ibid.,p.108.ThecontextofthisquotationisacriticismofMiroslavVolf’swork,yetthe principleisthesame.

106 ToH,p.337(cf.p.18); RRF,p.218.

107 FC,p.113(cf. ExH,pp.172-73).

108 ToH,p.335; RRF,pp.32,198,202,219-20; ExH,pp.172-73.

109 HP,p.183(1966).

110 RRF,p.218.

111 CPS,p.349(cf. RRF,pp.92-93;‘Hope’,p.272; WJC,pp.45-46).

beginning,becauseitispointless.’112 Allothertopicsdiscussedinthischapter (thereductionofhumanity’spredominance,correspondencetoGod,participationinGod)wouldsimilarlybemeaninglessforMoltmannwithouthopefor thefuture.Thepreviouschapter’sworkontheinclusionofcontinuityinhis eschatologicalthinkingshowsthat,forhim,thebeliefthatapersonreallycan contributetothispromisedfutureincreaseshope’smotivationalforce.This hopegivespeoplethe‘creativeexpectation’thatallowsthemto‘bringforth projectsforthefuture’whichissovitaltoMoltmann.113

ChesteragainraisesaconcernaboutthiselementofMoltmann’sthought. Hiscritiquetakesatwofoldapproach.Firstly,forChester,hopeisessentially anambiguousincentive,ormotivation,forethicalactivity.Whileitmight movepeopletoaction,itcanequallypersuadethemtodonothingandwait forGodtosorttheworldout.114 Secondly,therefore,Chesterarguesthat ‘eschatologyalonecannotshapemissionorsocialethics.Byitselfitishighly ambiguous’.115 ThisassertionshapesChester’scritiqueofMoltmannand suggeststhatChesterisundertheimpressionthathopeisthesolebasisfor ethicalactivityinMoltmann’swork(oratleastitsprimarybasistotheextent thatotherconcernshavenosigniﬁcantpower).Insummary,Chester’sconcern istwofold:hopeisanambiguousmotivator,andinMoltmann’stheologyhope iseffectivelyaloneasthismotivator.

Intheﬁrstconcern,Chesteriscorrect.However,thisisnotincontradictiontoMoltmann,whostatesasmuchexplicitly:Hope‘canﬁllthepresent withnewpower,butitcanalsodrawpowerawayfromthepresent’.116 Chesterisawareofthisstatementyethesomewhatmisleadinglyintroducesit: ‘UltimatelyevenMoltmannhimselfacknowledgesthis’.117 Thisimpliesthat Moltmannhasreachedtheendofthreedecadesofexpoundinghope’svirtue forethicalactiononlytorealisethatitisashakyfoundation.However,in Moltmann’searliestworksheindicatesthatheisawareofthisdanger,alongsidehisbeliefthatwithdrawalfromthepresentshouldnotbetheChristian responsetohope.118

112 EoG,p.28(cf. ToH,p.35; RRF,p.220; CPS,p.166).

113 SpL,p.122.

114 Chester, Mission,pp.122,194,199-201,223(cf.Sokolowski, ATheologicalResponse, p.63,whosuggeststhattheethicalimportofavisionofthefutureisa‘matterofinterpretation ratherthanlogic’).

115 Chester, Mission,p.199.

116 CoG,p.153.

117 Chester, Mission,p.199.

118 ToH,pp.33-35,100(p.263alsocontainsaninterestingdiscussionontheinteractionof hopewithothertopics,suchasthewayinwhichthishopeistocomeabout); RRF,p.119; HP,p.220(1966).Seealso WJC,p.26.ThanksareduetoRoyKearsleyforpointingoutthat

Itisthereforeagreedthathopehasthepotentialtobeambiguousfor ethicalactivity.However,Chesteroverstatestheimplicationsofthisfor Moltmann’sproject.Chester’ssecondclaimisthathopeistheleadsthe chargeinMoltmann’sworkonethicalactionandthereforehope’sambiguity threatensthisworkwithineffectiveness.Chester’ssolutionwouldnotbe toremovehopefromconsideration,butinsteadtomakelovetheguiding principle.119 However,asthischapterdemonstrates,Moltmanndoesnotleave hopeasthesolemotivatorordirectorofethicalactivity.Thisambiguityis notlefttoblowwhereveritwill.Hisapproachtoethicalactivityisvaried, asthischapterdemonstrates.Aswellasthis,heincludestheideaoflove atmanystages,whichgiveshimaconﬁdencethathopeandlovetogether meetthechallengeofhope’sambiguity.120 ThissuggeststhatChesterhas exaggeratedMoltmann’spositionandthuscriticisedaviewthatMoltmann doesnothold.121

GivesaSureness

Inadditiontoanaimandmotivation,forMoltmann,hopealsogivesa certaintyaboutthefuturewhichactsasanencouragementinthepresent. Inhisthought,whileactionshaveadependencyonhope,hopeitselfisnot entirelydependentonhumanity’sactions.122 Forhim,humanity’shopeis notbasedonitsownabilitytorealisethefuture,norontheircontinual successinallowingtheSpirittoworkthroughthem:‘Thefutureinwhich wehopeisneveridenticalwiththesuccessesofouractivity’.123 Humanity’s actionscannotrealisethisfutureandsocannotbethefoundationforhope.124 Thisresonateswiththediscussionaboutdiscontinuitybetweenthepresent andGod’scomingfuture,andthehopewhichthisbrings.Forthisreason humanity’shopedoesnotcomeprimarilyfromthepotentialinitsownlife. Ratheritishopeitselfthatcreatesthepotential.Hopeisthestartingpoint. Thisallowshumanity’shopetoperseverethroughthedisruptivepresent.125

InMoltmann’seyes,theabsenceofhopecreatesadespairwhichmust thereareotherambiguousmotivators,suchasgraceandforgiveness,whichwhiletheycan producedivergentresponsesarestillimportant(cf.Rom.6.1-2).

119 Chester, Mission,pp.121,200-01,221-23.

120 Forexample, CoG,p.153.

121 ChesterdoespointtoplaceswhereMoltmannincludesthemesoutsideofhope,but seemstotreatthemasanomaliesinhisworkwhichshouldhavebeendevelopedbutwere not(Chester, Mission,pp.200-01).

122 ToH,p.120.

123 RRF,p.220.

124 HP,p.107(1960).

125 ToH,p.31; CoG,p.57.

beovercome.Thisispertinenttotheecologicalreformation.Ifthereis despairconcerningnature’sfuturethenhebelievesthattherewillnotbe peacebetweennatureandhumanity,whereashopewillgivemeaningtoall ofcreation.126 Theresultisthatwhilehumanhopescanbefrustrated,they ‘cannotbedestroyed’.127 Infact,forMoltmann,disappointmentmakeshope wiseandgivesit‘openeyes’,foritisnot‘blindoptimism’.128 Yethopeisstilla certaintythatthedestinationwillbereached.

Hopestrengthenshumanitytoendurethepresent,butMoltmanndoes notclaimthatitmakesdisastermorebearable.Onthecontrary,duetothe contrasthopedrawsbetweenthefutureandthepresent,thelatteris‘often rathermoreunbearable’,andhopealso‘makesusdeeplyvulnerabletothe painofdisappointment’.129

Hope:ThePoweroftheFutureinthePresent

Thepreviouschaptershowedthewayinwhich,forMoltmann,hopeplays itspartinhelpinghumanitytorealiseitsharesacommonjourneywithall ofcreation.Inaddition,hopeisthepowerforpeopletolive‘wholly’witha lifeofloveandjoy.130 Itdoesthisbecauseitgiveshumanityadirectionfor itsactions,motivatespeopletoworkforthefuture,andencouragesthem alongtheway.Throughallthesethingsthe‘promise’ofthefuture‘exerts inﬂuenceonpresentthroughhope’.131 Hopegivesapowerinthepresentin ordertohelprealisethefuture.Similarlyithelpsgivethispowertothenew theologicalarchitecture

126 CrG,p.350(cf. ExH,p.16).

127 ExH,p.36.

128 EoG,p.14.

129 Man,p.116; PP,p.113.

130 CoG,p.66.

131 ToH,p.18.

7.6CONCLUSIONS

InterconnectednessofThemes:AFourfold Approach

OneofthestrengthsofMoltmann’santhropologywhichcanbetransferred tothenewtheologicalarchitectureistheimaginativeinterplayofdiverse topics.Thebeneﬁtsofthisapproachareplainlyseeninhisdevelopment ofseveraldiverseargumentsfortheimplicationsoftheologyforhuman action.Ifanyofthefourthemesinthischapterwereexpectedtoguide humanactivityadequatelybyitself,assomecriticsfeared,thentheresult wouldbeaweakfoundationforthatactivity.However,hismethodologyhas notbeentoclaimthatjustoneofthesefouristhedeﬁnitivelinkbetween theologyandaction.ThekeytounderstandingthewayinwhichMoltmann viewstheology’sinteractionwithhumanactivityistorecognisethatthese fourthemesarecooperativeandstrengtheneachother.Oneoranothermay cometotheforeondifferentoccasions,yetoverallisstillbalancedbythe others.Thenextchapterwillexplorethevalueoftheseapproachesforthe ecologicalreformation.Fornow,however,thewaythesefourthemesinteract isobserved.

Thereductionofhumanity’spredominance,forMoltmann,placesnature andhumanityalongsideeachother,bothofwhicharecreationslovedby GodandequallyincludedinGod’sfuture.Thisbalancestheotherthemesby meansofareminderthatthescopeofGod’sloveandmissionencompassesall creation,andthereforehopeneedstobeequallybroad.Thisinclusiveview encouragesaroundedapproachtohumanactivityandavoidsitsrestriction tohumanorunworldlyconcerns.132

Thethemeofcorrespondenceconsidershumanitytoconstitutetheimage ofGod.Thisentailsacorrespondencetoboththeinnerandouterloving relationshipsofGod.Thatstandardofloveshouldberememberedwhen consideringMoltmann’sotherthemes.Whateverrelationshipsandactions arepromptedthroughtheotherthemes,correspondenceencouragesthemto remaininterwovenwithGod’slove.

ThethemeofparticipationdemonstratesthathumanbeingsareparticipantsinGod’shistorywithcreation,whetherconsciouslyornot.Thisadds certainstrengthtotheapproacheselicitedthroughtheotherthemes:particip-

132 Deane-Drummond, Ecology,p.62,alsorecognisesthisbalance.

ationremindsthepersonthattheyarenotinvolvedinasolitaryproject.That lifeisparticipationalsoclaimsthataperson’sactionsarenotinconsequential butarepartofthemeaningfulandpurposefulhistoryofcreationwithGod. Thisalsoaddsacertainresponsibilityforpeopletoact.

Ahopefortheconsummatedfuturecanleadandmotivatehumanity intoaction.Whenhopeisaddedtotheotherthemesitprovidesagoal thattranscendspresentrealityandanencouragementthatthisgoalwillbe reached.Hopemeansthatactionspromptedbytheotherthemesarefreed fromhopelessnessanddespair.Thisgivesthempowertomoveforward.

IdealismversusRealism

AnotherconstructiveadditiontothisnewarchitectureisMoltmann’sdescriptionofaspirationalconceptswithwhichhumanitywillengageinawhole rangeofways.Noonepersonembracesthemperfectly.While,forexample, someclaimedthatthoseoffaithparticipateinGod’srelationshipsandthose withoutfaithdonot,Moltmanndoesnotworkwithsuchdelineations.Each themedescribesadynamicthatisineverybody’slifetovaryingdegrees, thoughalwayswithpotentialfordevelopment.

ForMoltmann,theacknowledgementthathumanityisstill,likenature, apartofcreationismorethansimplyanacknowledgementofphysical interaction.Heseeksadeeperjourneyintoarelationshipofsolidaritybetween theindividualandallcreationaroundthem.Thisrequiresaqualityof relationshipwithcreationwhichhumanityhasnotyetattainedinfull,and whichdoesnotsimplyappearwithfaithbutmustgrowanddevelop.The theologicalnotionof one creationservestoinspirethehumantoadeeper relationshipwithallthings.

Concerningthethemeofcorrespondence,Moltmannbelievestheimage ofGodisnotfullylostinanyhumanbeing.CorrespondenceswithGod’s lovecanbeseentovariousextentsintheactionsofallpeople,forGod’s Spiritisatworkinall.When,throughfaith,thebeingandactivityofthe triuneGodisdiscerned,thenfocusiscreatedandthereﬂectionofthedivine lovecanbeconsciouslysought,althoughthe imagoDei isnotfullyrestored. Correspondenceremainslimited,forMoltmannhasneverclaimedequivalencebetweentherelationshipsoftheTrinityandanyrelationshipwithinin creation,andcertainlynoequivalencebetweenthepersonsoftheTrinityand humanity.Nevertheless,theTrinityremains‘asourceofinspirationforhuman

communitylife’.133

Thethemeofparticipationholdsthemostinterestingcombinationof realityandaspiration.Thereisadifferencebetweennon-consciousand consciousparticipationinGod’shistoryandmissionincreation.Allare engagedintheformer,forgoodorforill,becauseitisinescapable,while thosewhodiscerntheworkofGodcanseektoalignthemselvesmorefullyand intimatelywiththatworkandsoparticipateactively.Aswithotherthemes, however,humanityissaidtoparticipateonlypartiallyintheTrinity’sopen relationships.Humanity’sparticipationislimited,asidefromitsacceptanceor notoftheinvitation,bothbecausehumanitydoesnotfulﬁlitspotentialand becauseitdoesnothavethesamecapabilitytobringandsecurethefuture.

Inasimilarsensethethemeofhopeispresentyetpartialanditdoes notseparatepeopleintohopelessandhopeful.Thereisaparticularhope whichMoltmann’sChristiantheologyholdsforthefutureofallthingswith Godthatshouldencouragebelieverstorealisethisfuture.Itwouldbea mistake,however,toclaimthatthosewhodonothopeinChristdonothope atall.Hopeispresentinallpeoplesinvariousforms.Evenifthishopeisnot centredonChristitcanstillsharesuchcharacteristicsashopeforlife,love andgoodness,thatwillleadpeopleinsimilardirections.Again,Moltmann hasnotclaimedthatChristianhopeinstantlytransformsthepersoninto theirfuturegoal.Hopeencouragesandleadspeopletotakestepsintothe unknown.

Theexplorationofthefourthemesaddressedinthischapterhastherefore describedtwothings:adynamicpresentinallhumans,andafurthergoal towardswhicheverypersonthatrecognisesitcanstillstrive.Thesein themselvescanfunctionasinspirationandmotivationforhumanitytoact. Yet,asvariouspartsofthisstudyhavehighlighted,Moltmann’stheologyalso offerstothistheologicalarchitectureanencouragementtohumanitythatthe journeytowardsthesegoalscanbedevelopedthroughthecomplementary mixofaperson’sfaith,theSpirit’senablingpower,andChrist’swork.134

PotentialfortheEcologicalReformation

ThisareaofMoltmann’sworkhascontributedtothetheologicalarchitecture inavarietyofways.Firstly,eachofthefourtopicsdiscussedinthischapter

133 Deane-Drummond, Ecology,p.298(cf.McDougall,‘ReturnofTrinitarianPraxis’,p.196).

134 SeeespeciallyChapter4ofthiswork(pp.85,95),andabove(p.187),althoughthe workofChristandtheSpirittotransformtheworld,andhumanitywithit,isdiscussed throughoutthisresearch.

carriesitsownencouragementsandmechanismsbywhichhumanity’sgeneral attitudesandactionsmaybeinformedandshapedbytheologicalbeliefs: humanityshouldnotassumeapositionovernature;itcanuseGod’sactionsas apattern;itcanjoininGod’sworks;itcanrespondtoGod’sfuture.Secondly, thecombinationofthesefourtopicstogetherlendstothisarchitecturethe resiliencewhichcomesfromasupportivewebofideas.Weaknessesinone approacharecompensatedforbystrengthsofothers.Thirdly,byhighlighting thedifferencebetweenwhatshouldexistandwhatdoesexist,intermsof humanity’sembraceandutilisationofthedynamicsofthetopicsdiscussed, Moltmann’sworkgivesareminderoftheneedforprogress.Fourthly,and signiﬁcantlyfortheconcernsofthisthesis,eachofthefourapproacheshas potentialforapplicationinspeciﬁcallyecologicalways.

Thehumbleapproachtohumanity’splacewithincreationwhichMoltmannadvocateshasgreatpotentialtochallengehumanattitudestowards nature.Hisworkhasmaintainedthatallofcreationshouldberemembered whenconsideringhumanity’sactions.Thisinitselfissuesaremindertohumanity,buthegoesfurthertoarguethatpeopleshouldbringtheirregardfor naturenearertothevaluetheyplaceonhumanbeings.

WhenhumanityiscalledtocorrespondtoGoditistheGodwholoves allcreation.AsMoltmann’swidertheologyhasgatheredtogethervarious aspectsofthatloveforthewholeworldithasformedasubstantialresource fromwhichthesecorrespondencesmightbedrawn.God’sloveforcreation isextensiveandvariedinitseffect.Tocorrespondtothiswideloveisto considermanyfacetstohumanity’sattitudetowardsitssurroundings.

Furthermore,humanityiscalledtoparticipateinGod’shistorywith creation.ThisisthehistoryofGod’sloveforallcreationandthedivine activitytogiveitlife,preserveandtransformit.Moltmann’stheologyhas proposedanall-encompassingvisionoftheTrinity’sinvolvementincreation. Forhumanitytoseekdeeperparticipationinsucharelationshipistoimmerse itselfinasimilarlycomprehensiveregardforalllife,itspreservationand potential.

Finally,lifeshapedbyhopeislifeshapedbyahopeforallcreation. Moltmann’seschatologyistenaciouslycosmic.Thereforethelove,aims, motivationsandencouragementsproducedbyhopearealldirectedatnature’s lifeaswellasthatofhumanity.Forhim,hopeisapowerfulinﬂuenceon today’sworld.Hiswidertheology’shopeofafutureforallcreationmakes thisaninﬂuenceforecologicalaction.

Asstatedabove,thisresearchdoesnotclaimthesefourthemestobethe

onlymethodsbywhichtheologymightelicitresponsibleaction.Theyare simplyfourtopicsthatshowgreatpotentialfortheaimsofthisthesis.In ordertoexploremorefullythebeneﬁtsofthesethemestoanewtheological architectureforecologicalreformation,thenextchapterwillillustratethe wayinwhicheachthemeprovidesaproﬁtableopportunitytodrawoutthe environmentalimplicationsstemmingfromthewidertheologyofthisnew architecture.

Chapter8

The‘EcologicalReformation’

8.1INTRODUCTION

Thischapter’smaintaskistoexplicatethepotentialofMoltmann’scontributionstothenewtheologicalarchitectureastheyappealforatransformation oftheattitudeofapersontowardstheworld.Thisattitudeisasigniﬁcant basisfortheirinteractionwithit.

Thediscussionwillinvestigatetheimplicationsofthefourmainthemesof thepreviouschapterfortheecologicalreformationwhentheyareconnected tothewidertheologicaltopicsofthisthesis.Throughthisitwillilluminatethe wayinwhichthenewtheologicalarchitecturedrawnfromMoltmann’swork notonlyincludestheorybutalsoprovidesmanyavenuesbywhichtomove towardsthisreformation.Thisisamostvaluablepartofthenewarchitecture thatisabletocontributetowardsanecologicalreformationofChristianity andsociety.

Thischaptercontributestothisthesisbystrengtheningthebridgebetween so-calledsystematictheologyandtheactiveresponseofaperson.Thischapter doesnotattempttoaddresstheconcretenatureofthepossibleecological reformation,exceptincertain,limitedsuggestionsthatservetoillustratethe directionsinwhichMoltmann’sworkpoints.Comprehensiveanswerstosuch questionsshouldbeprovidedbyeconomicandecologicalexperts.

8.2RESTORING ALL CREATION’S IMPORTANCE

Thevariousaspectsofthenewtheologicalarchitecturediscussedthroughout thisresearchleadtoecologicalreformationthroughgivingparticularattention

tocreationitself.Asthepreviouschapterdemonstrated,Moltmannargues thathumanityneedstolearntoseeitselfas part ofcreation,ratherthan above itorsuperiortoit.Thisreductionofhumanity’sprecedenceleadsto areafﬁrmationof all creation’simportance.FromMoltmann’sworkonthis, therearefourpartsofcreation’sidentitywhichareparticularlynoteworthyin theirappealtotherenewalofhumanity’sattitudetowardstheearth.

OneCommunity

ForMoltmann,giventhatthe whole universeisthecreationofGod,thereis alreadyaonenesspresentbetweenhumanityandtherestofthecosmos.1 Furthermore,hisconsiderationoftheactivityofGodinallcreationdemonstrates God’slovingcarefornatureandhumanity.Thisspeaksoftheirunitythrough theircommonjourney.SoforMoltmann,natureandhumanitydonothave independentlivesbutGoddesiresthatalllivetogether.2 Beyondthisisalso thehopewhichMoltmannbelievesincludesafutureforallcreation.This hopemoveshimtolookbeyondautilitarianacknowledgementofmutual needandmovetowardscompassionfortheotherthatalsotravelstowardsa sharedgoal.

Moltmanndescribesnatureandhumanity’scommonjourney,past,present andfuture,asoneinwhichhumanityhasaninterdependencewithnature thatwillnotendbutwillstretchintothefuture.Forhim,itisimportantto recognisethatnatureandhumanityexchangeenergiesandmaterials,and thatphysicalprocessesbindthem.Evenso,hisbasisforthisclaimisdeeper thanmerelythephysicalrelationship.3 Apurelyphysicalco-dependencycould unevenlyresultinindifferencetowardsnaturebyhumanityunlessaproblem affectedtheirowninterests.Assuch,helookstofurtherdimensionsofthis relationship.

ThisjointjourneyisanotherpartofMoltmann’sstimulustoretrieve thenotionofcommunitywithnature.Hesuggestsanannualdayonwhich peoplestoptorecognisethehurtstheyhaveinﬂictedontheworldandseek reconciliation.4 Thispartofhisworkisareminderofthegreatimportance ofthecommunityofcreation.Itisnotatemporarythingfortheeventual

1 CPS,pp.212-13.

2 See,forexample,Chapter4ofthiswork,p.82.

3 RolandSokolowskisharesthisviewandexpresseshimselfhelpfully:‘Wemightaddthat theconnectionthathumanbeingsfeeltocreationismorethanaphysicalrelationshipbut alsodeeplyspiritual–anineffableexchangeofwonderandawe.’(Sokolowski, ATheological Response,p.19.)

4 ‘JesusChrist,theHolySpirit’,p.252.

gainofoneortheother.Rather,thiscommunitycarriesnatureandhumanity togetherintothefuture.FromthisheclaimsthatloveforChristmustleadto lovefortheearth,alovethatseekstruereformation.5

Therefore,forMoltmann,itisvitaltotakethegoalofawhole-earth communityintoconsiderationandrespondinactivemovementtowardsit.6 Thisisinorderforhumanitytofinditsrightplace,torediscoveritsown identityaspartofcreationasawhole,andthusallowlife-givingrelationships toflourish.7 Hebelievesonestepinthedirectionofwholenesswithnatureis aperson’sacceptanceofthewholenessoftheirownsoulandbody,because therecognitionofthiswholenessservestoincreasetheappreciationofunity withthephysicalworldingeneral.8 Throughthis,hebelievesthathumanity cancontributetothereparationofthedamagedrelationshipbecause,forhim, agreatersenseofcommunitycanreducealienationand‘liberatenaturefrom humanoppression’.9 Itcanpromotelifeandleadtorespectfortherhythms ofthewiderworld.10 Forhumanitytoliveinawarenessofcommunitywould betoliveinbalancewithnature,notatitsexpenseorinoppositiontoit.In thiswayhumanitywouldhavemoremotivationtoslowdownproductionand expansioninordertopayattentiontotherequiredharmonyandequilibrium withincreation.11 Creation’sidentityasacommunitypromptsaradical measureofsociety’sprogress:successshouldbemeasuredbythebenefitto thewholeworld,notonlyonecommunity,noreventhewholehumanspecies.

God’sCreation

Moltmann’sworkhighlightsthatallcreationbelongsfirstandforemosttoGod. TherelationshipwhichheoutlinesbetweenGodandcreation,particularly thelovingcare,opennessandvulnerability,signifiestheseriousnessofthis ownership.Forhim,thefruitofthisviewissignificantlydifferenttothatof theviewofnatureasthepropertyofhumanity,orofno-oneinparticular, whichhebelievesisparticularlydestructive.12 Toviewcreationasbelonging toGodistoreassesstherightswhichhumanityhasassumedovernature.13

5 CoG,p.279.

6 FC,p.112; GiC,pp.3-4; SpL,p.248.

7 GiC,p.189; CoG,p.260;‘Shekinah’,p.172; SW,pp.168-69.

8 GiC,p.49.

9 Ibid.,p.48; GSS,p.63.

10 GiC,p.3;‘TheScope’,p.104.

11 GiC,pp.137-38; GSS,p.77.

12 ExH,p.184; EoG,p.27; SW,p.33.

13 GSS,p.112.

ItistorespecttheworldashumanityrespectsGodandtorecognisethe importanceofthedivinerightsovercreation.14 Divineownershiprequires thathumanitytreatsnaturewithdignityandprotectsitfromharm.15 Respect, dignity,andprotectionarevaluablecomponentsofanecologicalreformation.

Moltmann’sresponsetoGod’srightsovercreationalsocontainstheidea thatpeoplesanctifycreation.16 Buthedoesnotmeanbythisthatsomehow wecouldchangethestatusofcreation’sholiness.Rather,tosanctifyinthis instanceisto‘[learn]toseelifeandloveitasGodseesandlovesit:as good,justandlovely’.17 Practicallyspeakingthisentailstheprotectionof lifefromdestructionandviolence.18 ThispromptsMoltmanntosuggest sospeciﬁcanactionasaloweruseofenergyandtechnologyindailylife. AtthesametimeheoffersanextensiontothetraditionalChristian‘great commandment’toloveGod:‘YoushallloveGodandthisearthandallyour fellowcreatureswithallyourheart,andwithallyoursoul,andwithallyour might!’19 ‘Sanctiﬁcation’isanotherthemeinMoltmann’sworkthatarguesfor reverenceandlovefornature.20

Theconceptof‘sabbath’,thedayofrest,oneoftheTenCommandments oftheOldTestament,isafurtherpracticalresponsethatMoltmannseesas relevanttoGod’sownershipoftheearth.21 Hewritesthatthiscommandment isespeciallyimportant,andhasgreatsigniﬁcanceforallcreationbecausethe sabbathisaneventfornatureaswellashumanity.22 Theconcreteapplication ofthis,asheunderstandsit,istogiverestandpeacetoanimalsandtheland, atimewhenpeopledonotdemandproductivity.23 Sabbathisaspecialday thataffordscreationtheprivilegeofsimply‘being’,whenitisreleasedfrom thedemandsofsociety.Thesabbathalsoservesasaspecialefforttoreclaim theharmoniousrelationshipthatshouldalreadyexistbetweennatureand humanity,foritisacelebrationofthevalueofallcreationwhichalsoleadsto arecognitionoftheneedfornature’sliberationfromitstroublesandinjustice, aswellastheinjusticeofthepoorwhotrytosurviveonravagedland.24 So ‘sabbath’,inMoltmann’sthought,addsrest,peace,andjusticefortheearthto

14 GiC,p.21; GSS,p.132.

15 CJF,p.15; SpL,p.97; TheSource,p.49; GSS,p.111.

16 SpL,pp.171-79(cf. CPS,p.354).

17 SpL,p.177.

18 CPS,p.339; SpL,pp.171-72.

19 SpL,p.172.

20 EoG,p.27.

21 GiC,pp.276-77;Ex.20.8-11;Deut.5.12-15.

22 Ibid.,pp.31,284-85,289; CJF,pp.63,81; TheSource,p.85.

23 CPS,pp.269-70; GiC,pp.6,286; WJC,p.121; SpL,p.97; GSS,pp.113-14.

24 GiC,pp.285-89; CJF,p.61; WJC,p.121; EthH,pp.113-14.

theenvironmentalimplicationsoftheology.

IntrinsicValue

Thethirdpartofcreation’sidentitywhichMoltmannhighlights,andwhich contributestothenewarchitecture’sappealforanecologicalreformation, is theintrinsicvalueofcreation.Forhim,thisresultsfrommorethansimply God’sownership.Thereformationismorethanenvironmentcarefor God’s sake.InMoltmann’swork,thefactthatGodlovinglycreatedtheworldgives thelatterits own inherentvalueandrights,asdoesthetrinitarianpresence andcaringactivitythroughoutcreation.25 Forexample,thecovenantmade byGodwithNoahaftertheFloodisacovenantwith‘everylivingcreature’.26 ForMoltmann,thiswasadeclarationofnatureasapartnerinGod’scovenant relationship,andgavenatureitsownrights.27 Thefactthatinhiswork opennessshapestheTrinity’srelationshipwithcreationonlyservestoincrease creation’svalue.Forhim,thatGodwouldsufferforallcreationraisesthe valueofthenaturalworldto‘inﬁnitevalue’and‘uninfringeabledignity’.28 Accordingtohiseschatology,itis this creationthathasafuture, this creation whosevaluecarriesitintoeternity.

Thereareimplicationsherefortheecologicalreformation.ForMoltmann, therightsofnaturehavetobeafﬁrmedand‘respectedandbalancedout’ withhumanrights,ratherthandemotedtoalowerpriority.29 Suchabalance requiresnature’sneedstobeconsideredatalllevelsofdecisionmaking,from localtonationalandinternational.Moltmannhopesforareductionofhuman hostilitytowards,anddominationover,natureashumanitylearnstovalue theearthbecauseofGod.30 Hecallsforreverenceandadorationforthe divinepresenceinnaturethatleadstoreverenceandrespectforthenatural worlditselfaswell.31 Forhim,torespondtothisintrinsicvalueinnature willliberatebothnatureandhumanity,drawthemtogether,andreformthe relationship.32

Inaddition,toseethevaluewhichcreationhaswithinitselfincreasesits valueforhumanity:humanitycanlearnfromtherestofcreation.Moltmann

25 CJF,p.68; WJC,p.307; TheSource,p.49; GSS,pp.110-11.

26 Gen.9.12.

27 GSS,p.110; EthH,pp.112-13,125.

28 WJC,p.256(cf. CJF,p.68).

29 GiC,p.3(cf. ExH,p.184); CJF,p.68.

30 SW,pp.168-69.

31 CJF,pp.14-15; SpL,p.10; GSS,pp.22,101-04.

32 GiC,p.98.

writesthatnaturehasmuchwisdomtoteachhumanityconcerninghowto live.Ashumanityacceptsthatitispartofcreationitinturnrealisesthat natureisnotaninferiorpartner.Infacthumanity,asarelative‘latecomer’to theearth,‘haseveryreasontoenquireaboutthewisdomofthe[restofthe] livingandtheirecosystems’.33 Hererespectandlearningcangrowtogether. Theecologicalreformationisnotonlybeneﬁcialfornature.Furthermore, learningfromthewholeofcreationistounderstandnatureitselfmorefully andtheeffectsofhumanityonit.Similarly,alackoflearningfromand aboutcreationgiveshumanitylittlebasistounderstanditsownactions.In thisway,ecologicalreformationdeepensknowledgewhichitselfenablesthat reformationtobemoreeffective.

Moltmannhimselfadvocatesa‘communicativeknowledge’ofcreation.34 Thesearchforknowledgecan,heclaims,comefromadesiretosegment, analyse,understand,andthendominate.Thisdoesnotleadtoagreaterrelationshiporthejoyofuniﬁcationtogether.Toseek‘communicativeknowledge’ istobepartofthatwhichisknown,inordertoﬁndmutualityandunion. Forhim,thiskindofcommunitybringsjoy,andthistypeofknowledgeisthe truestkind.35 Thesearchfor‘communicativeknowledge’isthusastepinthe directionofecologicalreformation.

Vulnerability

Theﬁnalstrandofcreation’sidentitydeservingbriefmentionhereisthevulnerabilityofcreationwhichistheresultofthebalancebetweenthefreedom Godgivesitandthepromiseoffutureconsummation.Moltmannwritesof thewayinwhichtheneedsoftheworldprovidetheconcreteformofpeople’s actions.36 Thatinitselfisnotanovelidea.However,withintheChristian worldview,thereisthedangerthatanafﬁrmationofGod’soverallcontrol ofhistorydownplaysattentiontotheworld’sissues.Moltmann’sviewof God’sinteractionwithcreation,especiallyasseeninevolution,isapartof histheologicalcaseforthepresenceofriskincreation.37 Theriskisthatnot everythingwillhappenexactlyasGodwishesbecausecreationisallowedto growanddevelopfreefromfullcontrol.Thevulnerabilitythatstemsfrom theriskelementinGod’slovingcaresuggeststhenecessityofanacceptance

33 SW,p.28.

34 GiC,pp.2-3,32,69-70.

35 Ibid.,p.70.

36 SpL,p.235.

37 SeeChapter4ofthiswork,p.77(alsoChapter3,p.48).

ofresponsibilitybyhumanityforthewayitsactionsaffectnature.People existinarelationshipwithsomethingvulnerable,thereforeitisimportantto besensitivetotheneedsthatarise.Thisrequireshumanitytogivegreater thoughttotheeffectitsactionshaveontheworld,andindeedtogivethought totheeffectontheworldofnature’sownactions.

Thisstrand,alongwiththethreeabove,presentsacasethatthetheologicalcontributiontocreation’sidentityhasseriousimplicationsforthe potentialecologicalreformation.Itbringsaradicalchallengetotheattitude withwhichhumanityapproachesthenaturalworld.

8.3CORRESPONDINGTO GOD’S LOVEFOR

CREATION

Thediscussionnowmovestoaconsiderationofhumanity’sresponsetowho Godis,ratherthanitsresponsetocreation.God’srelationships,bothwithin theTrinityandwithcreation,providethetheologicalarchitecturewithan examplethatofferstoshapehumanity’sownrelationshipwiththeworld.

God’sTrinitarianLove

Moltmann’sworkonGod’sinnerrelationshipshasconstructiveimplications forhumanity’scorrespondencetotheDivineintheareaofenvironmentcare. Thiseternalintratrinitarianloveservesasoneofthestandardsbywhichto encouragethedeepeningofhumanity’srelationshipwithnature.

ThethemeinMoltmannofhumancorrespondencetoGod’sloveappears intendedtoleadhumanitytotaketheeternal,perichoretic,innerloveofthe Trinityasarealexampleforitsownrelationships.Theneedforthisloveto shapealltheinteractionswithincreationiscleartoMoltmannbecauseall lifeisalreadyintertwined:‘Thereisnosuchthingasasolitarylife.’38 God’s perichoresis suggeststhatthisconnectivityshouldhaveloveatitscentre.So forMoltmann,thedivinelovecanbe‘broughttobearontherelationofmen andwomento[...]thewholeofcreation’.39 Thereisachallengehereto renewthecommunitybetweenpeopleandnaturetoreﬂect‘God’swisdom

38 GiC,p.17.

39 TKG,p.19.

andGod’sbeauty’.40

Thereisafurtherlessonusefultoanecologicalreformationwhichthe divineunity-in-relationshipsbrings.Itcanbedifﬁcultforhumanitytoacknowledgeastrongunitywithnaturebecausethetwoaresodifferent.Yet God’sunity,inMoltmann’stheology,isonewhererelationshipsofloveare morekeythansimilaritybetweenpersons.ThismeantthatGodisopento whatisnotdivine.Asimilarapproachtonatureandhumanityopensupthe lattertoseeuniﬁcationwiththeworldasarealpossibility.

Intheseways,thisexplorationoutlinesatheologicalarchitecturewhich hastheabilitytoredeﬁnethekindofrelationshipthatisavailableand desirablebetweenpeopleandplanet.Moltmann’sworkontheTrinityisone foundationofthisarchitecture,andcorrespondenceputslovinginteractivity attheheartofthegoalofecologicalreformation.Deane-Drummondnotes thattrinitarianisminitselfdoesnotautomaticallyleadto‘harmonious’life betweennatureandhumanity.41 Thatistrue,butthisisonlyoneofmany linksinMoltmann’sworkbetweentheologyandenvironmentcare.Evenin itsbasicform,hisworkontherelationshipsoftheTrinitycontributestoa theologicalarchitecturethatvaluesthequalityofallrelationships.

God’sLoveforCreation

God’sloveforcreationisatthecoreofthisthesis.Manyaspectsofthisactive loveareaparticularstimulustohumanityforecologicalreform.

Theoriginalactofcreationisnotsomethingahumanpersoncould replicate,yetthe outwardlookinglove ofGodis.ForMoltmann,theactof creationfromnothing, exnihilo,canhavenohumananalogy.42 However, hisdiscussionofthistopicstillallowsopportunitytoapplyameasureof correspondence.Forexample,God’slovelookedoutsidetheselftofindanew avenuethroughwhichtoflowdown,inagreatactofselflessness.Moltmann himselfdoesnotmakethislinkbuthisworkneverthelesschallengeshumanity tolookbeyondthenaturalboundariesoftheirlove(friendsandfamily)and tocultivatealoveandcarethatcontinually looksoutwards toothersand, importantlyforthisdiscussion,totheearth.

AfurtherwayinwhichhumanitymightcorrespondtotheGod’screative activityconcerns divinefreedom.Moltmanndescribesthewayinwhichthis

40 CJF,p.56; GSS,p.102.

41 Deane-Drummond, Ecology,p.199.

42 GiC,p.73.

freedomintheactofcreationwasnot tochoose tolove,ratheritisthefreedom tolove.Thismeansthathehasoftenwrittenthathumanfreedomdoesnot equatetoanexcusefordomination.43 Inhistheology,anactofdominationis neitherfreenorloving.IfhumanityistocorrespondtoGod’sfreedomthen, withinhisdoctrineofcreation,humanity’sfreedomisnotbestunderstood asthechoicetodowhateveritwants.Itisratherthefreedomtofollowits truedestiny:simplytolove,andinthiscontext,simplytolovecreationasa whole.44 Moltmann’stheologysuggeststhatGodcreatedhumanityforthis, notsimplytohavearbitrarychoices.Thebenefitofthatassertionforhuman attitudestowardsenvironmentcareisclear.Tolookforafulfilledlife,a majorforcethatdrivespeople,neednotbethesearchformorepowerand unboundedpossibility.Thisoftenresultsintheoppressionoftheweak,in thiscasethenaturalworld.Instead,fromMoltmann’swork,afulfilledlifeis reallyonethatgraspsitstruepurpose:tolovetheearthandeverythinginit.

Athirdstimulusforconsideration,speciﬁcallyfromtheoriginalactof creationinMoltmann’stheology,istheideathatGodisthe‘livingspace’for creation.Inhisdoctrineofcreationthereappeardivergentideasofwhatkind ofspaceGodcreatedforcreationtoenterinto.Hislaterview,whichismore helpfultothisproject,wasthatGodallowscreationtoexist‘withinhim’.45 Accordingtothisview,Godbringsforththeconditionsforlifetoexist.Thisis divinehospitalitytowardscreation,toallowitroomalongsideGod’sownself. Theseareactstowhichhumanity’seffortscancorrespondasitmakesaspace inwhichcreationcanthrive.Suchvaluesheightenawarenessoftheway inwhichsocietyoftenrestrictsnature,andidentifywhichhumanareasand developmentsarehostiletonature.Initialillustrationsofsuchareformation inmoreconcretetermscouldbe:agreaterinclusionofplantsandanimals inhumanenvironments,especiallyexcessivelyurbanareas;concessionsin landusemadebyhumanitytocreateamorehospitablespacefornature; householdassessmentoftheextenttowhichthenaturalworldisallowedto thrivein,andon,theirownproperty.ThisapplicationofMoltmann’swork claimsnature’s‘livingspace’shouldbeapriorityforpeople.

Moltmann’sstudyofthedivinelovingcareaftertheoriginalactof creationshowsthattheTrinityis continuallyandpassionatelyinvolvedwith

43 RRF,p.69; TJ,p.44; CrG,pp.331-32;‘TheCrossandCivilReligion’,in Religionand PoliticalSociety,ed.byJürgenMoltmannandtheInstituteofChristianThought(London: Harper&Row,1974),pp.14–47(p.45); TKG,pp.213-16; SpL,p.117.

44 Infact,Moltmannalsomentionsthattoomuchpowercanreduceaperson’sfreedomto dotherightthing(TKG,p.214).

45 CoG,p.299.

andforcreation.Itismorethanmerelyanattitudeorfeeling.DeaneDrummondhighlightsthewayinwhichthisparticularaspectofhumanity’s correspondencetoGodisaconsistentelementinMoltmann’swork:‘Ourrôle asstewardsofcreationonlymakessenseinthiscontextofloveandcarefor creation,whichreﬂectsthelovingattitudeofourcreator.’46 Forhim,our rejectionofthisturnsusintoGod’scaricatureinsteadofthedivineimage.47 Divineinvolvementincreationthereforeisanexampletohumanitytobe similarlypracticallyinvolvedincreationasawhole.

ForMoltmann,God’sloveisorientatedtowards service,especiallyasseen intheincarnationofChrist.Jesus’lifeonearthwasforothers.Withafocus onservice,Moltmannaddsweighttohisrejectionofthepowerofdomination. Anexampleofthisdominatingpowerwouldbe,forhim,the‘seizureofpower overnature’whichhebelievesChristianityhasoftengenerated.48 Thushe claimsthattheOldTestamentcommand,‘ﬁlltheearthandsubdueit’,needs tobereinterpretedas:‘freetheearththroughfellowshipwithit’.49 God’s servingoftheearthcontinuestopersuadeMoltmannthatthereisasimilar servicewhichhumanitycanprovideforthenaturalworld.

AccompanyingserviceisGod’s opennesstowardscreationandtheresultant suffering.ForMoltmann,GodallowsthatcreationhasaneffectontheDivine. Thisdemonstrateswhatloveis,andtheextenttowhichlovewillgo.To correspondtotheDivineherewouldbetoallowtheplightofnatureaffect humanitytoo.Thisopennesscarriesafurthermessagethat,forexample, thegiftof‘livingspace’,orGod’scare,doesnot.TocorrespondtoGod’s openness,humanitywouldneedtoopenitselftoreceivethechallengesand problemsofnatureasitsveryown.50 Thenewlyformed,authentic,mutual relationshipwouldaskhumanitytosufferforcreation,andtakenature’spain ontoitself.51 HereMoltmann’sworkremindsreadersofthehighstandard involvedinauthenticrelationships.

Inthisproject’sassessmentofMoltmann’scontributionstothenewtheologicalarchitecture,loveisidentiﬁedascharacteristicofGod’srelationship withhumanity and nature.Thislove,inturn,looksoutwards.Itisgenerous, passionate,selﬂess,andwillingtosuffer.Ashistheologyseeksthosequalities inhumanity’srelationships,itissuesacallfortheradicalreformationof

46 Deane-Drummond, Ecology,p.298.

47 GSS,p.132(cf.Deane-Drummond, Ecology,p.151).

48 GSS,p.97(cf. SW,pp.47-48).

49 Gen.1.28; FC,p.129(cf.‘CreationandRedemption’,p.133; SW,p.50).

50 SpL,p.248.

51 HP,p.148(1961); ExH,p.76.

attitudestowardsthenaturalworld.

8.4PARTICIPATINGIN GOD’S LOVEFOR

CREATION

ForMoltmann,thecalltohumanitytoparticipateinGod’srelationshipwith thenaturalworldcontributessigniﬁcantdirectiontotheinclusivenessand goalsofhumanity’sactivityintheworld.Forhim,Godgivestheability, especiallytohumanity,toseek,discern,buildandrejectrelationshipswithin creation.52 Moltmannseesthisabilityasmostconstructivelyusedinjoiningin consciouslywiththelife-givingworkofGod.Furthermore,humanityisinvited towork alongside God,notinisolation.ThismeansthattheTrinitydraws humanityintothelovingandcaringrelationshipthatishadwithcreation,not simplythesame kind ofrelationship,butthat actual relationshipbywhich Godgivesloveandlife,createsfellowship,andsuffersalongsidecreation.

UniversalandIntimateLove

ToparticipateintheTrinity’srelationshipwithcreation,accordingtoMoltmann,istoparticipateinarelationshipthatisuniversalinitsscope.This meansthatGod’slovelookstoeverypartofcreation.Furthermore,thisloveis notdistant.Itisintimate.Assuchittoucheseverything,sinceGodispresent inalltheworld.ForMoltmann,humanity’sparticipationinthislovebrings itsownlimitedconcern,alertness,andempathytobearonanimals,treesand ﬂowersaswellasonpeople.53 Inhisthought,nothingisexcluded. God’ssufferingresultsfromanactivelovewhichaccompaniesandredeemscreation.Thisrequiresofhumanityitsparticipationinthelife-giving relationshipofGodwiththeworld,includingthosesufferings.Itisnotaneasilydiscardedtheme:forMoltmann,Christwaitsforhispeopleinthesuffering oftheworld.54 Inthetheologicalarchitectureconstructedthusfar,humanity isthereforenotonlyrequiredtoactforcreationbecauseitrecognisesthat Godsuffersforit,normerelybecauseitshouldseekto reﬂect God’ssuffering love.Rather participationin thatsufferingleadshumanityintosolidaritywith

52 SeeChapter4ofthiswork,p.85.

53 SpL,pp.9-10(cf.DavidS.Cunningham, TheseThreeAreOne:ThePracticeofTrinitarian Theology (Oxford:Blackwell,1998),p.263).

54 ‘TheCrossandCivil’,p.46.

creation.Nature’stroublethereforebecomeshumanity’strouble.Thisisa furtheraspectofthewaybywhichGod’ssufferingforcreationappealsfor humanitytorecastitsrelationshipwiththenaturalworld.

Forhumanitytorecogniseandconsciouslydevelopthisbreadthanddepth ofparticipationwouldbetoinvolveitselfyetmoredeeplyinthecommunity thatcomprisescreation.55 IfGod’srelationshipwithnaturetoucheseverypart ofitthenideallythatiswherehumanity’sparticipationinthatrelationship willlead.Thisdoesnotdescribethedetailsofthatparticipationsomuchas emphasisethescopeofit.InMoltmann’stheology,theSpiritisatworkinall theworldinsituationsbothgoodandbad.Histheology’sincorporationof participationinvitespeopletoassumeasimilarinvolvementincreation.

GivingandPreservingLifeandFellowship

Thegiftandpreservationoflife,whichforMoltmannisanimportantaspect ofGod’slovetowardscreation,isalsoopentohumanity’sparticipation.56 Moreover,thepreviouschapternotedthat,forhim,humanityis already part ofGod’srelationshipwithcreation.Humanity’sinteractionwithnatureaffects thetrinitarianworktobringlife;theyeitheraiditorfrustrateit.57 For Moltmann,anactiveparticipationinthatworkisapriorityforhumanity’s energies.Hisstancethatthereisaninvitationtodothisarguesforahuman responsibilitytodefendnaturewhereitslifeisthreatenedandtoaddressits needs.

However,theaccountofMoltmann’sviewsontheSpirit’sworktobring lifealsoencounteredtheproblemthatdeathisanintrinsicpartofthisplanet’s life.58 Ifthedrivetopreservelifewerecarriedoutsoenthusiasticallythatno livingthingceasedtobeliving,thenmostlivingthings,paradoxically,would starve.Whilenocomprehensiveanswercanbegiventotheparadoxoflife anddeath,itcanatleastbeacknowledged:thelifeofalllivingthingsisa priority,butthelifeofanyparticulargiventhingisnottheonlypriorityto consider.

Whatcanbetakenfromthisproblemtoaidthepracticaloutcomesof participatinginGod’sgivingandpreservingoflife?Again,whileMoltmann’s workgivesnocomprehensiveanswer,hisprimacyofloveenablessome guidingconsiderationstoemerge,namely:atheologyofliferesultsindeath

55 SpL,p.259.

56 Ibid.,p.9.

57 ‘We“quench”theHolySpiritwhenwequenchlife.’(TheSource,p.54.)

58 SeeChapter4ofthiswork,p.80.

beingavoidedwherepossible,andwhendeathisnecessarytopreservelifeit shouldhappenwithsensitivitytoanyeffects(suchastheexperienceofan animalinanabattoir,ortheeffectoftheextractionofexcessivematerials fromtheearth).Thepossibilitiesandnecessitiesarebeyondthescopeofthis project,yetananapproachthatseekstoparticipateinthelife-givingworkof Godwillbeaninvaluableaidtoecologicalreformation.

Asinthediscussionaboutcorrespondence,lifecannotbeasolitaryentity inMoltmann’stheology.Everythinglivesinthe‘cosmicinterrelations’which Godbringsabout.59 Lifeonlyoccursinthecontextofrelationshipsofalllevels. Iftheseinteractionsweretoceasethenlifewoulddie.ThisvitalworkofGod isanotherpartofthecareinwhichhumanitycandeepenitsparticipation,in Moltmann’sview.Althoughhedoesnotpreciselycommentthis,thisaspectof participationrequiresecologicalreformationtounderstandandrespectthe variousinterrelatingecosystemsoftheworldmorefully,soastominimisethe impactofhumanactivityonthem.Asanillustrativeexample,onasmaller scale,thosewithspace,suchasgardens,couldseekeducationastowhatis neededintheirareaintermsofﬂoraandfauna.Thosewithnoresponsibility for‘greenspace’couldshopforresponsiblysourcedresourcesorfoodand therebymaintainthehealthofecosystemsoutsideoftheirlocale.Humanity wouldnotonlyencouragetheharmonyofnaturethroughthesethings,but wouldalsodevelopitsownrelationshipwithnature.ForMoltmann,thisis partofGod’sworkinthisworldandthusitcanbeincludedaspartofthe theologicalarchitecture’sguidanceforhumanity.60

TheComingFuture

InthetheologicalarchitecturewhichisbeingconstructedfromMoltmann’s contributions,God’sworktobringabouttheeschatologicalfutureforcreation isalsoataskinwhichhumanitycanparticipate.Humanitycannotparticipate inthatfutureitselfuntilitarrives,but,forMoltmann,itcanparticipatein thepresence,andcoming,ofthenewcreationinthepresentday.61 Forhim, thisisanamazingfeat,tobringGod’sglorythroughparticipationinthe consummationofcreation.Thisdescribesadynamicinwhichhumanity’s actionsare directedtowards God’sperfectfutureandactually contributeto this future.

59 GiC,p.11.

60 CPS,p.65.

61 Ibid.,p.xxiii(writingin1989); FC,p.102.

OneaidheretotheecologicalreformationstemsfromMoltmann’sidea thatGodworksforallcreationtohaveperfectedrelationshipsthatfacilitatea mutuallyconnectedfutureofallcreationandGod.62 Thisistheeschatological orientationoftheparticipationalreadydescribedabove.Thefullnessoflife isnotyetattainedsincetheworldisnotcomplete.Humanitymuststriveto continueinitsactions.63 God’sworkistoliberatenature,aswellashumanity, sotheinvitationissuedtohumanityistoworktowardsthisgoal.64

8.5LIVINGIN HOPEFOR CREATION

Whathappenswhenthehopewhichthisnewtheologicalarchitecturehas forallcreationdrives,guides,andinspiresthereformationtowardsearth care?Orinotherwords,inwhatwaydoeshopeforcreationencouragea reformationoftheattitudesofapersontowardstheworld?Followingthe patternoftherelatedsectioninthepreviouschapter,Moltmann’stheology presentsimplicationsforthelove,aim,andmotivationwhichhumanitycan haveinregardstotherestofcreation.Tosucceedinsuchareasstrengthens furthertheoveralleffectivenessofthisnewarchitecture.

EngendersLoveforCreation

LiketheotheraspectsofMoltmann’sconnectionsbetweentheologyand humanattitudes,forhima hope forcreationbreedslove.Itdoesnotlead towardsadisdainforthepresent,butrathertowardsanafﬁrmationoflife,of lovefor all life,natureandhumanity.65 Thishopeandthislovesubsequently leadtosufferingthroughthestateofcreation.Forhim,hopeawakens humanitytothepainofthepresentbecauseitrevealsexactlythecontrast betweenthejoyfulfutureandtheimperfectpresent.Itidentiﬁesthepresent timewithpainfulclarity.66 Lovethenalsodrawshumanityclosertotherest ofcreation,andagainsetsacontrastbetweenthestateofcreationandthe desiredpeace.AccordingtoMoltmann,thismakesallofcreation’ssuffering

62 CPS,p.59.

63 ‘CreationandRedemption’,p.123; FC,p.119; SW,p.37-38.

64 CrG,p.18.

65 ToH,pp.34-35,225,337; RRF,pp.58,61-62,176; Man,p.117; EoG,p.30;‘Hope’, p.272; SpL,p.153; CoG,p.66.

66 ToH,p.223; RRF,pp.61,198; CPS,p.112; PP,p.113.

humanity’ssufferingstoo.67

Inthisway,ahopeforallcreationleadshumanitytoviewnature’s concernsasitsown,andtojoininsolidaritywithnatureinitssuffering. Moltmannhasoftenclaimedthathopeforanewfuturebringssolidaritywith oppressedpeople.68 Yethealsoindicatedthatthissolidarityofhumanity withhumanityextendstoincludethewholeofnon-humancreation.69 Thus, forhim,auniversalhopeenablesecologicalreformationasitenrichesthe attitudesofpeopleandproducesloveforcreation.

SuppliesanAimforCreation

WithinthetheologicalarchitecturethathasbeenconstructedfromMoltmann’s work,thehopeforallcreationalsoservestoprovideanaimforhumanity’s activities.Forhim,itisthatthe future providesasought-forgoal.The alternativeisunattractivetohim:‘Whoeverclaimstoorienthimself in history byorientatinghimself to historyislikeashipwreckedsailorwhoclingsto awave.Heisgoingtosink.’70 Asitis,Moltmannbelievesthatthe‘desired future’ofcreationmusttakeprecedenceoversimplywhatisobservabletoday andthe‘calculable’future.71 Inthegreatstressheplacesontheneedfor creation’sfuturetodirecttheactionsofthepresent,heexposesapotential weaknessinhissystem:whatifthisfuture’svaguenessmakeshiscallsfor actionimpotent?

Thisdoesnotseemtobethecase.Whilethespeciﬁcoutcomeofcreation’s futureisstillrelativelymysterious,Moltmannhasprovidedcertainkeyideas whichdeﬁnethathope:creationwillhaveunitywithinitselfandwithGod;it willhaveagoodexistenceoffreedomandcreativity;deathwillbenomore; thereshallbepeace.72 Thisfuturethusgivesguidance:unity,freedom,life, rest.Thesearequalitiesoflifewhichcanshapetheaimsofhumanactivity inthisworld.Thatperfect,eternallifeisthegoalofcreationanditisthat towhichMoltmann’stheologyrequirespeopletoorientatethemselvesin theirattitudesandactionsofthepresentday.Throughthiscontribution,the newarchitecturereformsecologicalattitudessothathumanity’sgoalcannot simplybethesurvivalofhumanity.

67 RRF,p.61; CrG,pp.19,59; CPS,pp.167,284; GiC,p.268; CoG,p.93.

68 E.g. RRF,pp.17-18,198-99.

69 Ibid.,pp.127-28; HP,pp.16-17,213(1966); ExH,pp.188-89; CPS,pp.212-13; FC, pp.102-03;‘Hope’,p.272; WJC,p.270.

70 RRF,p.27.

71 FC,p.56.

72 Seethiswork,p.152.

MotivatestoActforCreation

Hopestirspeopletoaction.ThatisMoltmann’sbelief.73 Throughahopefor allcreation,histheologyseekstoinspirethishopefulactivitytoincludethe realisationofthenaturalworld’sfuture,totransformitinto‘therecognizable worldofGod’.74 ForMoltmann,thisrequiresattemptthetaskwithreal vigour,ina‘strugglefortheliberationofGod’screationfromgodlessand inhumanpowers’.75 Infact,hisprojectcontainsstrongerlanguagethansimply arequest:

Itisnecessarytoariseandgototheplacetowhichthepromisepoints,if onewouldhavepartinitsfulﬁlment.Promiseandcommand,thepointingofthegoalandthepointingoftheway,thereforebelongimmediately together.76

Encouragementandobediencearethusbroughttogethertoworkintandem inthistheologicalarchitecture’scallforanewrelationshipbetweenhumanity andtheearth;inshort,anecologicalreformation.Sinceinhisthoughtthere iscontinuityinhumanity’sactionswiththeeschatologicalfuture,thereisa ‘practicalresponsibility’fortheearth’sfuture.77 Furthermore,Moltmann’s workcontainsthreadsofdiscontinuitybetweencreation’spresentstateand itseternalfuture.Thisbringsadditionalencouragement:humanity’scontributionstothisworld’sdevelopmentwillbetransformedbutstillretaintheir identity,contributingmoretothegoodoftheearththanpeoplecancurrently imagine.Therefore,throughtheinclusionofahopeandresponsibilityfor allcreation,thisemergingtheologicalarchitectureseekstomakeactionfor creation’ssakeahighpriorityinhumanity.

8.6CONCLUSIONS

Thischapterhasattemptedtodemonstrate,inanillustrativeratherthan exhaustiveway,thepotentialofthenewtheologicalarchitecturetowork towardsecologicalreformation.Thepossibleoutcomeisnothinglessthan atransformationoftheattitudeofapersontowardstheworld,whichisa

73 Seethepreviouschapter’ssectiononhope,p.193.

74 RRF,pp.59-60(cf.pp.127-28; HP,p.220(1966); ExH,p.176; CPS,pp.176,196,291; FC,p.47).

75 HP,p.47(1968)(cf.pp.198,220(1966); RRF,p.40).

76 ToH,p.120.

77 ExH,p.41.

signiﬁcantbasisfortheirinteractionwithit.Throughconversationbetween variouselementsofhistheologyandtheinterplayofthemesexploredin thepreviouschapter,thisdiscussionmadeseveralconclusions.Firstly,it hasilluminatedsomethingofthemultitudeofconnectionsencouragedby Moltmann’sworkonGod,creation,andthehumanresponse.Thefruitofthe interrelatednessofhisworkiscleartosee,andtheunityofhisargumenttestiﬁestothecoherenceofthisaspectofhiswork.Furthertothis,thediscussion hasexploredconnectionsbeyondtoMoltmann’sown,suchastheexample forhumanityofdivineunitythroughrelationships,andcorrespondenceto God’sprovisionof‘livingspace’forcreation.Throughtheseithasbecome possibletodevelopMoltmann’sownexplicitappeals,albeitmodestly.Also, thisinvestigationhashighlightedthepervasivenessofideassuchcreation’s valueandthereasonsforloveofthisearthinhisthought.Thishasunderlined thepersistenceoftheseideasthroughouthiswork.

Thisanalysishasoutlinedtheprovisionofavarietyofroutesbywhich Moltmann’swider,systematicconclusionsyieldpersuasiveargumentsforthe reshapingofapersonsattitudetowardstheirrelationshipwithnature.This signiﬁcantlyenhancesthepotentialoftheemergingtheologicalarchitecture forthedesiredgoal,theso-calledecologicalreformation.

Chapter9 Conclusion

9.1THESIS AIMS

Thepurposeofthisthesishasbeentoexploreandanalysetheextentto whichMoltmann’sworkhascontributedtoa‘newtheologicalarchitecture’ thatseekstohelpfacilitatean‘ecologicalreformation’ofChristianthought andaction,andsociety.Theexplorationhasnotaimedtosetoutthemany concreteformssuchareformationmaytake.Thefocushasratherbeenon Moltmann’seffortstogiveatheologicalrationaleforsuchareformation.As histheologywasinvestigateditbecamequicklyapparentthatthetheological architecturewasnotsomethinggiveninoneextendedconsideration.Rather itcanbeconstructedfromvariouselementsthroughoutMoltmann’sworks. Thisresearchnotedthatthepotentialforthisnewarchitecturedeveloped withtheincreaseinthewidertrendofdebateaboutecologicalconcerns. However,itwasalsoplainthatMoltmannbegantotakeuptheseconcerns earlyandadvocatedenvironmentalcarebeforeitwasaswidelypromotedin variousdisciplinesasitistoday.

ExplorationbeganwiththefactthatthecontentofthetheologicalarchitecturewasnotexplicitlydeﬁnedbyMoltmann,exceptthatitneedsto reintegrateGod’spresenceintonatureand‘humancultureoncemoreinto [...]theearth’.1 Thesurveyofhiswidertheologysuggestedabroader,yet stillsimple,description:itwasonethatreassessedGod’srelationshipwith creationandhumanity’spositionwithinthisrelationship,andcreatedthe thinking-spaceinwhichhumanitycanre-imagineitsrelationshipwith,and responsibilitiesfor,thenaturalworld.

Thestartingpointfortheresearchwasalsoderivedfromthefactthat Moltmanndescribedtheecologicalreformationasachangetoanewwayof

1 GSS,p.225.

livingwhereearthandecology,noteconomyandprogress,aretheprimary guidesofsocieties.ThestudysuggestedthatMoltmannseeksthisreformation inanumberofways.Therewasacalltoindividualsorgroupstotakeonan attitudetowardstheearththatwillcausethemtolivedifferentlyinrelationto theircareofit.Moltmann’sargumentswhichtheresearchoutlinedhadtheir foundationsinGodandChristianthought.ThisnaturallygiveshimmorecommongroundwithChristianreadersforwhomtheﬂowofhisthoughtwillmost likelybecompellingorattractive.YetdiscussionrevealedthatforMoltmann therestillmaybeinterestforothers,forinstance,inhispassionateargument fortheactiveprotectionof all lifeortheneedforharmoniousrelationships throughout all creation.Beyondtheseproposalsfordirectchangesitbecame clearthatMoltmannalsothinksthatChristiantheologymust‘getinvolved inthepublicaffairsofsociety’.2 InthiswayheencouragestheChristian communitieswhoseetheneedfortheecologicalreformationtoinﬂuence widersocietythroughtheirexampleandparticipationinpublicdiscourse. Thisemergedasanadditionalwayinwhichthetheologicalarchitecturecan seektomovenon-theologicalsocietiestowardsthisreformation.

ThisstudyhasapproachedMoltmann’sworkinalargelysystematicway, notbecauseitincorporatesallofhisworkbutinthatitmovesthroughmost ofhismajorareasofinteresttogatherthemesfortreatmentbythisthesis. Thethemeswereselectedonthebasisoftheirpotentialtoconstructatheologicalarchitecturethathelpsfacilitateanecologicalreformation.Theywere addressedalwayswiththispurposeinmind,ratherthantosolvecontentious issueswithintheologyorotherrelatedproblemswithinparticulardoctrines. Thestructureofthethesisfollowedatheologicalviewofhistory,moving fromoriginaltonewcreation,beforeproceedingtostudytheimplications oftheologyforaconsiderationofpotentialimpliedresponsibilitiesandresponses.Thislatterpartofthestudyhighlightedthepotencyofthevarietyof distinct,yetinterrelated,waysbywhichMoltmannunderstoodtheconnection betweentheologyandeverydayactions.

Moltmann’slengthyandproliﬁcwritingcareerhasrequiredtheproject tofocusontheoverallcontentofeachtheme,althoughithasalsoidentiﬁed thewayinwhichcertainthemeshaveemergedandmaturedovertime.Each discussionofferedanin-depthtreatmentoftheprimarytextsfollowedbya thoroughanalysisofitsstrengthsandweaknesses.Thethesismadedetailed useofsecondaryliterature,especiallythosecommentatorsconcernedwith Moltmann’senthusiasmforenvironmentalissues.Italsolocatedelementsof

2 Ibid.,p.1.

hisworkwhichwereanaidtoecologicalreformationbutwhichhehimself hadnotexplicitlydiscussedinrelationtothissubject.

ReviewofAims

Theaboveapproachwasconstructiveforseveralreasons.Asnoted,the chosendeﬁnitionforthetheologicalarchitecturewasahelpfulbenchmark,in thatitfocusedtheattentionoftheprojectonthemesofGod-and-creationand humanity’sresponsesandresponsibilities.ThesystematicattentiontoMoltmann’sworkrevealedtheconsistencyofcertainideasthroughouthiscorpus. Thisaddedtotheweightofhisarguments,displayedthedeepfoundations availabletothenewarchitecture,andensuredthatthebreadthofMoltmann’s writingswereaddressed.Thechapterorderbasedonatheologicaltimeline, fromcosmicbeginningtonewbeginning,presentedanintuitivejourney throughthehistoryofGod’srelationshipwithcreation.Thiscreatedaclear andorderlypathwithwhichtonavigateselectedsubjects.Thisstructure didmakeitimpossibletodiscusscertaindoctrinesinadiscreteway(such aspneumatologyandchristology).Variousaspectsofthesedoctrineswere splitovermorethanonechapter,whichdisrupteddiscussionofoverarching doctrines.However,theapproachtakenwaspreferableandeffectiveforthe selectedtask.

Theexplorationofthediverseapproachestotheologicalfoundations forhumanactivitywasparticularlyproductive.Itcomplementedthewider systematicapproachinordertomakethisprojectpracticallyorientated. Trackingthedevelopmentofcertainideasovertimeenabledthisresearchto answercertainpossiblecriticismsofagivenposition.Forexample,themove fromGod’screationofa‘godforsakenspace’tothatofa‘livingspace’forthe world,enabledaresponsetoquestionsabouttheproblemsofagodforsaken nihil.RegularanalysiswascrucialbecausecertainofMoltmann’sideasremain problematicalandtheireffectivenessrequiredexamination.Thecontribution ofsecondaryauthorsenrichedthisanalysisandprovidedmanyofthepoints ofconjecturethatwereprobed.

ResearchenabledatheologicalarchitecturetoemergefromMoltmann’s workbecauseitshowedthatheincorporated all creationintothetheological discourse.Forhim,God’slovingrelationshipiswith all creation,andthis wasvariouslydemonstrated.Anotherfacetofthisarchitecturewasthatit encourageshumanactivitytoberelatedtoGod’sownactivityinavariety ofways.Thispresentedachallengetohumanityto‘lovealltheirfellow

creatureswiththeCreator’slove’.3 Thearchitecturewasalsoshownto emergefromsomepartsofMoltmann’sworkinwhichhehimselfhadnot speciﬁcallydiscusseditsecologicalimportance.CertainsectionsofChapter8 areevidenceofthis(suchascorrespondencetoGodthroughcreativelove,or theprovisionof‘livingspace’forcreation).

Therefollowsamoredetailedreviewoftheproject.

9.2CONTRIBUTIONSTOTHE

‘THEOLOGICAL ARCHITECTURE’

Followinganintroductoryﬁrstchapter,Chapter2commencedthestudywith abriefaccountofMoltmann’sdoctrineoftheTrinity.Thischapterexplored theinnertrinitarianissuesinisolation,asfaraswaspossible,fromthetheme ofGod’sinteractionwithcreation.Moltmann’strinitarianismofferedthe emergingtheologicalarchitecturetwofoundationalprinciples.Firstly,love isatthecentreofMoltmann’stheology.Godislove,whichgivesrisetothe creativequestion:whataretheimplicationsofthisforMoltmann’sdesired newarchitecture?Secondly,loveworksitselfoutthroughrelationships.For Moltmann,thesetrinitarianrelationshipsareperichoretic.Itisthistypeof relationshipwhichhesetsasthegoalforallGod’srelationships.Thesetwo themesareusefulforanarchitecturethatreassessestheTrinity’srelationship with all creation.

TheresearchthenmovedtothebeginningsofGod’sdealingswithcreation,thebeginningsofcreationitself.Moltmannoutlinesapurposefuland freecreativityonGod’spart.Allcreationisintended,valued,anddesiredfrom thebeginning.Thishighlightscreation’sstatusintheemergingarchitecture. InadditiontwoaspectsoftheTrinity’srelationtocreationstandout.Firstly, Godmakesspaceforcreation,notliterallybutinthesensethatGodallows somethingelsetoexistalongsidethedivineself.ThislendsthetheologicalarchitectureanelementofGod’ssacriﬁcialwillingnesstoshare,whichiskeyto ourrelationtoourenvironment,theearth.Secondly,Godisthe‘livingspace’ ofcreation,ortheenvironmentinwhichitgrows,emphasisingthevalue bestowedontheearthandimpliedresponsibilitytowardsit.Thiscontinues toinformthedynamicsofgenerosity,hospitality,andopennessinMoltmann’s

3 Ibid.,p.132.

viewoftheGod-creationrelationship.Theimplicationsofthesethoughtsfor humanity’sinteractionswithallcreationalreadybegintoemerge.

Followingthetheologicaltimelineofcreationattentionthenturnedin Chapter4toMoltmann’sworkonGod’scontinualloveforcreation,particularlyinlovingactivitywithincreation.TheidentificationoftheSpirit’s presencethroughoutcreationwasasignificantcontributiontotheproject’s aims.Itoffersauniversalaffirmationofthevalueofcreationandbeginsto emphasisetheintimacyofthetrinitarianrelationshipwithcreation.Moltmann’sinsistenceontheSpirit’sworkoutsidetheChristiancommunityputs inplaceanimportantfoundationfortheappreciationof all ofhumanity’s abilitytocontributetoGod’sgoalsfortheearth.Afterthediscussionof ‘presence’followedexplorationof‘activity’;God’slife-givingactivityinall ofcreation.AttentiontoprimaryworksdiscernedMoltmann’senthusiastic presentationofthisbeingthroughtheworkoftheSpirit,butalsotosome extentthroughtheSon.LifeisadivinegifttotheearthandreliesonGod’s constantwork.Thethemeof‘life’isthusincludedasamajorfactorofthis newarchitectureofGod’srelationshipwithcreation.Thislife-givingactivity servesasanindicatorofcreation’svalue,anexampletofollow,aninvitation toparticipate,andasignofthehopethatembracesall.Inaddition,the mannerofGod’sactivityissuchthatitdemonstratesthegiftoffreedomto creation.Thismayseemaminorpoint,yetitpresentsanargumenttouse thatfreedomwithresponsibility,whichisanecessarypartofanarchitecture abletoproducepracticalreformation.

Chapter5investigatedafurtheraspectofGod’sloveforcreationin Moltmann’swork,namelythedivineopennesstoincludecreationinthe trinitarian perichoresis.Itfoundthatheusedthetopicsofpneumatologyand christologytoexplorethisopennessmoreevenlythanthethemeofGod’scare. TheperichoreticaimsofGod’srelationshipwithcreationconveyedthedepths towhichthatrelationshipextends.Thetrinitarianopennesstobringing creationintoasharedlifelendsamarkofauthenticitytothisrelationship. TheTrinity’sinteractionwithcreationisnotsimplyamatterofobservation andinterference.Thereisratherajourney together inwhichthejoysand crisesareexperienced together.Moltmann’ssubsequentconclusionfrom thisopennesswastherealityofGod’ssufferingfor,by,andwithcreation. Thisisastrikingcontributiontothetheologicalarchitecture:thedepthof lovewhichGodhasforcreationmeansthateventheDivinesufferswiththe predicamentoftheworldandeverythinginit,eventothepointofsharingin itsdeath.ThedescriptionoftherelationshipbetweenGodandcreationwhich

emergesbecomesoneinwhichthelifeofbothCreatorandcreatedisdeeply interconnected.This,buildingonearlierchapters,continuestoexpandthe basisforallofcreation’svalue.

Inthesixthchapterthestudyshiftedforwardtoexaminecreation’sfuture. Theinclusionofthiseschatologicalconsiderationensuresthattheembraceof thewholeuniversebythenewtheologicalarchitectureiscomprehensivein relationtotimeaswellasspace.Inotherwords,God’slovefor all creation remainsafocusintoeternity.Thefutureincludesallofcreation.Nopartofit isomitted.Therefore,creation’svalueiseternal,nottemporary.Furthermore, theemergingarchitecturecontributessomespeciﬁcgoalsofcreation.The world’sdestinyisoneofperichoreticlifewithGod.Therewillbepeace,no moredeathorsuffering,andnothreatofannihilation.Thisgoalinitself beginstopresentanaimofhumanactivereformationtowhichtoaspire. Finally,theinclusionofMoltmann’sworkontheimportanceofthepresenceof bothcontinuityanddiscontinuitybetweenthepresentandtheeschatological futureenhancestheoveralleffectivenessofthisnewarchitecture.Continuity suggestsaresponsibilityonthepartofhumanity:theactionsoftodayhelp shapethefuture.Discontinuitybringsconﬁdenceandhope:Godwillredeem themistakesandtragediesoftoday.Moltmannholdsthesetwointension andpresentsanargumentthatecologicalchallengesneedtobeaddressedby humanity,yetcanalsobefacedwithacertaintythatGodwillcompletethe divineworkinawaybeyondhumanity’simagination.

HavingcompletedtheoverviewofthehistoryofGod’srelationshipwith creation,thediscussioncouldmoveinChapter7toconsidercertainthemes thatemergedfromMoltmann’santhropology.Eachselectedthemedescribed anaspectoftheology’simplicationsforhumanreformation.Inturnthey eachprovidedmotivationtowardstheologicallydirectedhumanactivitywhile togethertheypresentedastronger,combinedargumentforthispracticaledge tothetheologicalarchitecture.Firstly,theneedtoshifthumanityfroma placeofdominanceovernaturebringsthenaturalworld’sconcernsalongside humanconcerns.Secondly,toseekcorrespondencewithGodmakesthe trinitarianpatternsofrelationshiphumanity’sownpatterns.Thirdly,the themeofparticipationprovidesaninvitationtomakeGod’sworkpartof humanity’swork.Fourthly,toliveinhopeinspirestoday’sactivitytoreachfor thegoodfutureofcreation.Thismutuallystrengthening,fourfoldapproach givesaparticularlystrongbasefromwhichtoconsiderhumanity’sactivityin ecologicalreformation.Moreover,thesethemescontributedtoatheological architecturetowardsecologicalreformationinthatMoltmannhighlightedthe

possibilityfor,andbeneﬁtsof,adeeperreﬁnementofhumanactivitythrough theseapproaches.

Chapter8furtherdefinedthesubstanceofthetheologicalarchitecture inthatitbroughtthetheologicalhistoryofGodandcreation,accordingto Moltmann,intodialoguewiththefindingsofthepreviouschapter.Thisexplorationthusfocusedattentiononmanycompellingargumentsforecological reformwhichunfoldedfromeachofthefourapproachesthatmotivatedand shapedaction.Firstly,overthecourseofMoltmann’swork,itdemonstrated thathepresentsastatusforcreationthatrepeatedlyaffirmsitsintrinsicvalue andrights,itsownershipbyGod,andtheneedtorecognisethatcreation needstobeoneharmoniouscommunity.Theseconclusionswereshownto argueinavarietyofwaysthathumanityshouldrespondpositivelytonature.

Secondly,initscorrespondencetoGod,humanityisofferedtheexampleofa deliberatelychosenloveforcreationthatincorporatesserviceandsuffering, hospitalityandintimacy.Thirdly,Moltmann’sadvocacyofparticipationin God’srelationshipwithcreationinviteshumanitytojoinintheuniversal,loving,andsufferingactivitytobringlife,fellowshipandafuturetoallcreation. Fourthly,thehopeforthenewcreationofallthings,forMoltmann,inspires aloveforallthingsandthedesiretocontributetocreation’sgoodfuture. Analysisconcludedthatthevariousargumentstogetherdemonstratethat thehighstatusgiventothewholeofcreationthroughoutallofhistheology enabledthenewtheologicalarchitecturetoargueforaparallelseriousness bywhichallcreationiscaredfor.

SummaryofContributions

Fromtheabove,threegeneralthemesemergethatsummarisethecontributionsofMoltmann’sworktoatheologyarchitectureforecologicalreformation.

TheGod-CreationRelationship

Moltmannhasdevelopedasysteminwhichhumanity,natureandGodall haveadeeplyintegratedrelationality.Inthisloveandrelationshipsareatthe core.Thus,thereismutualinteractionbetweenGodandcreationwhichisof alovingcharacterandstretchesfromtheverybeginningsoftheuniverseinto eternity.Thisloveisdemonstratedinmanywaysandentailsmanydifferent actionsandresponsesbyGod,fromgivinglifetoexperiencingdeath,from thepreservationofcreationtoitstransformation.Thisisthebeginningfrom whichMoltmannurgesahumanresponsethattreatstherestofcreation

similarly.

AllCreation’sStatus

ThroughtheGod-creationrelationship,nature’splaceinthewholehistory ofGodandcreationisafﬁrmed.Moltmann’sworkemphasisesthatcreation isGod’spossession.Theworldisnothumanity’stodowithasitwishes. Creation’sidealwayofinteractionisdescribedasonecommunityofmutual cooperationandrespect.ThroughGod’sloveforit,allthatexistsisgiven greatvalue.

HumanActivity

Inaddition,Moltmannhasprovidedadetailedandthoughtfulaccountof themotivationforactionwhichtheologysupplies.Hismultifaceted,fourfold approachhasgreatpotentialtoenhance,reinforceorsupportanyoneofhis speciﬁcarguments(forexample,participationinGodqualiﬁesanddeepens theimplicationsofcorrespondencetoGod).Thisfurnishesthetheological architecturewithanimpressivecaseforecologicalreformation.ThearchitecturethatcanbedrawnfromMoltmann’sworkthusincludesanappealthat severalforcesbepermittedtoshapeattitudestowardscreation:atheological understandingofthenatureofcreation;thepatternoflifethatGoddemonstrates;theoffertosharetheTrinity’srelationshipwithcreation;andafull graspofthehopewhichallcreationhasforarichfuture.

Theaccumulationoftheseideascreatesawellroundedapproachtowards creationthatencourageshumanitytotakeanecologicallysensitiveapproach tolife.

ProblematicIssues

AstheresearchintoMoltmann’scontributionstothisnewtheologicalarchitecturewasimplementedproblemswereencountered.Nonecreatedan insurmountableobstacle,yettheyrequiredfurtherclariﬁcationordevelopment.Theseshallappearhereinorderoftheiroccurrencewithinthethesis.

DuringtheanalysisofMoltmann’sdoctrineofcreation,itwasobserved thatheessentiallyarguedthat,becauseGoddesiredan‘Other’tolove,God had tocreate.Thisassertionpointstothesurprisingassumptionthatthe Trinityisnotself-sufﬁcient.Thepointiscertainlyspeculative,butMoltmann appearedtosuggestthattheinnerloveoftheTrinitydoesnotallowthe membersoftheTrinitytobeeternallyselﬂesslylovingwithoutneedinga

creationasanobjectofdivinelove.Thispointhaslittleimpactonthe understandingofGod’srelationshipwithcreationinthepresentbecause theoriginalactofcreationhasalreadyoccurred,neverthelessitseemsto contradictMoltmann’sdoctrineoftheTrinity’sinnerselﬂesslove.

Alsoconcerningthethemeoforiginalcreation,Moltmann’suseofthe conceptof zimsum,orself-restriction,raisedapotentialproblemforthis project.HesuggestedthatGod’sself-restrictionisnecessarytogivecreation spaceandfreedom.Yetwheneschatologicalconcernswereexamined,itwas observedthatitisGod’sderestriction,thefullindwellingofcreation,that givescreationthefullnessoflifeandbringsitits‘livingspace’andfreedom. Thisraisedthequestionofwhatitisthattrulygivescreationitsspaceand freedom;God’spresenceorGod’swithdrawal.

DuringtheexaminationofMoltmann’sthoughtontheself-withdrawal ofGod,hisproblematicviewonthecreationofthe nihil alsoemerged.The nihil appearedtobeanoverlythreateningconceptinMoltmann’swork.It presentedproblemsoftheoriginsofgodforsakennessandsin.ThispredicamentwasalleviatedbythediscoveryofthelaterthemeofGodas‘livingspace’ forcreation,yetMoltmannhasnotrenouncedearlierstatements.Doeshe wishtoholdtheideasof nihil and‘livingspace’intension?Furtherworkthat couldclarifydiscussiononGod’sself-restrictionandprovisionofahospitable spaceforcreation,wouldbeausefullineofinquiry.

AfurtherissueappearedinconnectiontoGod’slovingcareofcreation, althoughitisnotexactlyofMoltmann’smaking.Thequestionwasraisedof theroleofdeathinhisscheme.Thisstudyexploredatheologyoflife,yet death’splaceintheﬂowoflifeisnotfullyaccountedfor.Attimesitisthe enemy,atothertimesitisparadoxicallythelife-giver.HowdoesMoltmann’s workontheSpiritoflifealignwiththedynamicofdeathincreation’songoingexistence?Adetailedexplorationofthewayinwhichdeathmightbe integratedintohiswiderprojectwouldbeparticularlyuseful,especiallywith relationtothepreservationoflifeandtheprocessesofevolution.

AlsoMoltmann’spneumatologyandhischristologywerenotfoundto havemadethesameimpactonhisworkonGod’slife-givinglove.Bothare signiﬁcant,andthereweremanysimilaritiesconcerningtheSonandthe Spirit,yethisworkonpneumatologyseemedtolinktoecologicaldiscussions inmoreinvolvedandcreativeways.Itwouldbebeneﬁcialtothetheological architectureasawholeifinMoltmanntheaccountoftheSon’sworkwasas inspiringandthought-provokingasthatoftheSpirit.Forthisreasonfurther workontheimplicationsofhischristologyforenvironmentcarewouldbe

useful.

InthediscussionofGod’sopennesstotheworld,thisresearchfound Moltmanntoregardsufferingalmostasaninevitableconsequenceoflove. Hereceivedtheaccusationthathislanguagesometimesfailedtoallowlove andsufferingtobeseparateentities,althoughheneverclaimedthismuch directly.ItseemspreferabletoconsiderthelovesharedwithintheTrinity, whencreationdidnotexist,tobeabsolutelyfreeofsuffering.Withthisit couldbestatedclearlythatsufferingdoesnotﬂowasalogicalnecessityfrom love.Rather,sufferingresultsasloveisgiventothatwhichisimperfect.

TwofurtherissuesaroseinconnectiontoMoltmann’seschatological work.Thefirstisthatthisprojectfoundthegoalofcreationtoremainvague. Hisdescriptionssuppliedamplespecificityforaninspiringvisionofcreation’s future,yetthepotentialformoreremains.Hisconclusionsraisedquestions forthisstudyconcerningthesignificanceofthefutureofindividualtrees, plants,andanimals,forexample.Heclaimedthattheirindividualfutures areimportant,yetthepracticalimplicationsofthismustbeworkedoutif theecologicalreformationistoadvance.Willtheredemptiontoeternallife ofeverytreethateverexistedbetheonlywaytosatisfyGod’sloveoftrees? Also,itisnotclearhowthespecificredemptionof all plantsandanimals benefitstheecologicalreformation.Furtherworkcouldbepursuedonthe benefitsofageneralhopeforcreation.

Thesecondissueconnectedtoeschatologywhichthisstudyraisedisthe questionofthenatureofeternalexistencewhenitincludesthecontinued physicalinterdependencyofcreation.Thethesisreportedthatthiswasone ofMoltmannreasonsforthehopeofallcreation:creationexistswiththe interdependenciesithasandalwaysshall.Theideaofcontinuedcommunity isanattractiveone.However,itsmoreidyllicaspectsmustbesquared withmoremundaneones:whatoftheneedtoeat?Whatistheretoeat ifeverythingisimperishable?ThistheologicalproblemisnotMoltmann’s alone.Yethisinsistenceonoutliningthespeciﬁcsofthephysicalrealityofthe resurrectionwouldbematchedwellbyaparallelinsistencetograpplewith theimplicationsofthesedetails.

9.3FINAL CONCLUSION

Theresultsofthisstudyareasfollows.Moltmanndoesnotsingle-handedly presentthecompletetheologicalarchitecture,buthedoesmakeamajor contributiontowardsbuildingonethatconstantlyinforms,exemplifies,invites andinspiresadeeperrelationshipwith,andappreciationof,therestof creationbyhumanity:thatis,an ecologicalreformation.Thus,whilecertain modificationsanddevelopmentswouldbehelpful,hiscontributionishighly significantandpowerful,andisfertileforfurtherexpansionbyothers.The emergingarchitecturebringstogethermanyinnovativeideasandconnects themsothat,throughtheirinterconnectivity,theyformsomethingnewwhich iscoherentandforceful.InMoltmann’stheologyitisdifficulttoignore environmentalconcernsthroughbeingabsorbedinadoctrine,sincehis keennesstoconsidertheimplicationsforbothhumanityandtheearthdonot allowit.

FurtherResearch

Apartfromthequestionsthatarisefromtheproblematicissuesabove,the conclusionsofthisthesiswouldbeneﬁtfromatleastthefollowingfurther research:

Thereispotentialforexpertsintheﬁeldofbiblicalstudiestoconduct moredetailedstudiesofMoltmann’suseofbiblicaltexts.Hehasaparticularly adventurousapproachandinvestigationofthestrengthsandweaknessesof hisworkherewouldbeanadditionalhelptoanevaluationoftheeffectiveness ofhiswork.

ThisthesisoutlinesthethemesinMoltmann’sworkthatcontributetothe newtheologicalarchitecture.Arethereothercomponentsthatwouldcomplementit?Thearchitecture,asitstands,ishelpfulbutcannotbeexpected,asa collectionofMoltmann’spioneeringachievements,tobecomplete.Itneeds togrowtobemorecomprehensiveoftheologicalideas,incorporatingmore implicationsforattitudestowardstheenvironment.

Lastly,anobviousavenueforfurtherreﬂectionisthecontinualdevelopmentoftheconcreteactionsthatstemfromthisecologicalreformation.As waspreviouslynoted,whilethisprojecthasbeenabletogivesomeindication ofthepracticalapplicationofMoltmann’sworkthereisagreateramount whichremainstobediscussed.This,andthetasksabove,wouldcomplement existingconclusions:Moltmann’scontributionshavegivenaweightyand

thought-provokingexhortationtoseeGod,nature,andhumanityinanew, relationallightinorderthatan ecologicalreformation mightﬂourish.

Bibliography

PrimaryWorks

PinchasLapideandJürgenMoltmann(eds), JewishMonotheismandChristian TrinitarianDoctrine:ADialogue,trans.byLeonardSwindler(Philadelphia,PA: Fortress,1981)

JürgenMoltmann,‘APentecostalTheologyofLife’, JournalofPentecostalTheology, 4:9(1996),3–15

—, ABroadPlace:AnAutobiography,trans.byMargaretKohl(London:SCM,2007)

—, TheChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit,trans.byMargaretKohl,2ndedn(London: SCM,1992) Note:Textandpagenumbersofmainbodyareunchangedfrom1977 Englisheditionbutadditionalpostscriptisincludedafteroriginalprefaceandtherefore frontmatterismodiﬁed.

—, TheComingofGod:ChristianEschatology,trans.byMargaretKohl(London:SCM, 1996)

—, CreatingaJustFuture:ThePoliticsofPeaceandtheEthicsofCreationina ThreatenedWorld,trans.byJohnBowden(London:SCM,1989)

—,‘CreationandRedemption’,in Creation,Christ&Culture:StudiesinHonourof T.F.Torrance,ed.byRichardW.A.McKinney(Edinburgh:T&TClark,1976), pp.119–34

—,‘TheCrossandCivilReligion’,in ReligionandPoliticalSociety,ed.byJürgen MoltmannandtheInstituteofChristianThought(London:Harper&Row,1974), pp.14–47

—,‘TheCruciﬁedGod’, TheologyToday,31:1(1974),6–18

—,‘The"CruciﬁedGod":ATrinitarianTheologyoftheCross’, Interpretation,26:3 (1972),278–99

—, TheCruciﬁedGod:TheCrossofChristastheFoundationandCriticismofChristian Theology,trans.byR.A.WilsonandJohnBowden,2001edn(London:SCM, 2001) Note:Textunchangedfrom1974Englisheditionbutpagelayoutischanged andthereforepagenumbersaredifferent,alsoadditionalprefacebyRichardBauckham meansthatfrontmatterismodiﬁed.

—, EthicsofHope,trans.byMargaretKohl(London:SCMPress,2012)

—, ExperiencesinTheology:WaysandFormsofChristianTheology,trans.byMargaret Kohl(London:SCM,2000)

—, ExperiencesofGod,trans.byMargaretKohl(London:SCM,1980)

—, TheExperimentHope,trans.byM.DouglasMeeks(London:SCM,1975)

—,‘TheFellowshipoftheHolySpirit–TrinitarianPneumatology’, ScottishJournalof Theology,37:3(1984),287–300

—,‘ForewordtoMcDougall,J.A.,PilgrimageofLove’,in PilgrimageofLove: MoltmannontheTrinityandChristianLife (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 2005),pp.xi–xiv

—, TheFutureofCreation:CollectedEssays,trans.byMargaretKohl(London:SCM, 1979)

—, GodforaSecularSociety:ThePublicRelevanceofTheology,trans.byMargaret Kohl(London:SCM,1999)

—, GodinCreation:AnEcologicalDoctrineofCreation,trans.byMargaretKohl (London:SCM,1985)

—, HistoryandtheTriuneGod:ContributionstoTrinitarianTheology,trans.byJohn Bowden(London:SCM,1991)

—,‘TheHolySpiritandtheTheologyofLife:SevenTheses’,in ReligioninaSecular City:EssaysinHonorofHarveyCox,ed.byArvindSharma(Harrisburg,PA: TrinityPressInternational,2001),pp.116–20

—,‘Hope’,in ANewDictionaryofChristianTheology,ed.byAlanRichardsonand JohnBowden(London:SCM,1983),pp.270–72

—,‘HopeandHistory’, TheologyToday,25:3(1968),369–86

—, HopeandPlanning,trans.byMargaretClarkson(London:SCM,1971)

—,‘HopeandReality:ContradictionandCorrespondence:ResponsetoTrevorHart’, in GodWillBeAllInAll:TheEschatologyofJürgenMoltmann,ed.byRichard Bauckham(Edinburgh:T&TClark,1999),pp.77–85

—, IntheEnd–theBeginning:TheLifeofHope,trans.byMargaretKohl(London: SCM,2004)

—, JesusChristforToday’sWorld,trans.byMargaretKohl(London:SCM,1994)

—,‘JesusChrist,theHolySpiritandtheFutureWorld’, Anvil:AnAnglicanEvangelical JournalforTheologyandMission,16:4(1999),247–53

—,‘TheLiberationoftheFutureanditsAnticipationsinHistory’,in GodWillBeAllIn All:TheEschatologyofJürgenMoltmann,ed.byRichardBauckham(Edinburgh: T&TClark,1999),pp.265–89

—, Man:ChristianAnthropologyintheConﬂictsofthePresent,trans.byJohnSturdy (London:SPCK,1974)

—, OnHumanDignity:PoliticalTheologyandEthics,trans.byM.DouglasMeeks (London:SCM,1984)

—, TheOpenChurch:InvitationtoaMessianicLife-Style,trans.byM.DouglasMeeks (London:SCM,1978)

—,‘PentecostandtheTheologyofLife’, Concilium,3(1996),123–34

—,‘PoliticalTheology’, TheologyToday,28:1(1971),6–23

—, ThePowerofthePowerless:TheWordofLiberationforToday,trans.byMargaret Kohl(London:SCM,1983)

—,‘ThePresenceofGod’sFuture:TheRisenChrist’, AnglicanTheologicalReview, 89:4(2007),577–88

—, Religion,Revolution,andtheFuture,trans.byM.DouglasMeeks(NewYork: CharlesScribner’sSons,1969)

—,‘TheResurrectionofChristandtheNewEarth’, Communioviatorum,49:2(2007), 141–49

—, ScienceandWisdom,trans.byMargaretKohl(London:SCM,2003)

—,‘TheScopeofRenewalintheSpirit’, TheEcumenicalReview,42:2(1990),98–106

—,‘Shekinah:TheHomeoftheHomelessGod’, BostonUniversityStudiesinPhilosophy andReligion,17(1996),170–84

—,‘SomeReﬂectionsontheSocialDoctrineoftheTrinity’,in TheChristianUnderstandingofGodToday:TheologicalColloquiumontheOccasionofthe400th AnniversaryoftheFoundationofTrinityCollege,Dublin,ed.byJamesM.Byrne (Dublin:TheColumbiaPress,1993),pp.104–11

—, TheSourceofLife:TheHolySpiritandtheTheologyofLife,trans.byMargaret Kohl(London:SCM,1997)

—, TheSpiritofLife:AUniversalAfﬁrmation,trans.byMargaretKohl(London:SCM, 1992)

—, SunofRighteousness,Arise!:God’sFutureforHumanityandtheEarth,trans.by MargaretKohl(London:SCM,2010)

—, TheologyandJoy,trans.byReinhardUlrich(London:SCM,1973)

—,‘TheologyasEschatology’,in TheFutureofHope:TheologyasEschatology,ed.by FrederickHerzog(NewYork:HerderandHerder,1970),pp.1–50

—, TheologyofHope:OntheGroundandtheImplicationsofaChristianEschatology, trans.byJamesW.Leitch(London:SCM,1967)

—,‘TheologyofMysticalExperience’, ScottishJournalofTheology,32:6(1979), 501–20

—,‘TowardstheNextStepintheDialogue’,in TheFutureofHope:Theologyas Eschatology,ed.byFrederickHerzog(NewYork:HerderandHerder,1970), pp.154–64

—, TheTrinityandtheKingdomofGod:TheDoctrineofGod,trans.byMargaretKohl (London:SCM,1981)

—, TheWayofJesusChrist:ChristologyinMessianicDimensions,trans.byMargaret Kohl(London:SCM,1990)

—,‘TheWorldinGodorGodintheWorld?:ResponsetoRichardBauckham’,in God WillBeAllInAll:TheEschatologyofJürgenMoltmann,ed.byRichardBauckham (Edinburgh:T&TClark,1999),pp.35–41

JürgenMoltmannandElisabethMoltmann-Wendel, PassionforGod:Theologyin TwoVoices,trans.byMargaretKohlandMarianneM.Martin(Louisville,KY: WestminsterJohnKnoxPress,2003)

ElisabethMoltmann-WendelandJürgenMoltmann, God-HisandHers,trans.by JohnBowden(London:SCM,1991)

MiroslavVolf,‘CommunitiesofFaithandRadicalDiscipleship:AnInterviewwith JürgenMoltmann’, TheChristianCentury,100:8(1983),246–49

Secondaryworks

WilliamP.Alston,‘SubstanceandtheTrinity’,in TheTrinity:AnInterdisciplinary SymposiumontheTrinity,ed.byStephenT.Davis,DanielKendallSJandGerald O’CollinsSJ(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1999),pp.179–201

PeterAlthouse,‘Review:Beck,T.D.,TheHolySpiritandtheRenewalofAllThings’, PNEUMA:TheJournaloftheSocietyforPentecostalStudies,30:2(2008),318–19

GaryD.Badcock, LightofTruth&FireofLove:ATheologyoftheHolySpirit (Cambridge:Eerdmans,1997)

RichardBauckham,‘Eschatologyin TheComingofGod’,in GodWillBeAllInAll:The EschatologyofJürgenMoltmann,ed.byRichardBauckham(Edinburgh:T&T Clark,1999),pp.1–34

—,‘JürgenMoltmann’,in TheModernTheologians:AnIntroductiontoChristian Theologysince1918,ed.byDavidF.Ford,3rdedn(Oxford:Blackwell,2005), pp.147–62

—, Moltmann:MessianicTheologyintheMaking (Basingstoke:Marshall,Morgan& Scott,1987)

—,‘Moltmann’sMessianicChristology’, ScottishJournalofTheology,44:4(1991), 519–31

—, TheTheologyofJürgenMoltmann (Edinburgh:T&TClark,1995)

T.DavidBeck, TheHolySpiritandtheRenewalofAllThings:PneumatologyinPaul andJürgenMoltmann (Eugene,OR:PickwickPublications,2007)

SjoerdL.Bonting,‘SpiritandCreation’, Zygon,41:3(2006),713–26

J.MatthewBonzo, IndwellingtheForsakenOther:TheTrinitarianEthicsofJürgen Moltmann (Eugene,OR:PickwickPublications,2009)

StevenBouma-Prediger,‘CreationAstheHomeofGod’, CalvinTheologicalJournal, 32:1(1997),72–90

—, TheGreeningofTheology:TheEcologicalModelsofRosemaryRadfordRuether, JosephSittlerandJürgenMoltmann (Atlanta,GA:ScholarsPress,1995)

FredericB.Burnham,CharlesS.McCoyandM.DouglasMeeks(eds), Love:The FoundationofHope:TheTheologyofJürgenMoltmannandElisabethMoltmannWendel (SanFrancisco,CA&London:Harper&Row,1988)

RandallB.Bush,‘RecentIdeasofDivineConflict:TheInfluencesofPsychologicaland SociologicalTheoriesofConflictupontheTrinitarianTheologyofPaulTillich andJürgenMoltmann’(unpublisheddoctoralthesis,UniversityofOxford,1990)

GrahamBuxton, TheTrinity,CreationandPastoralMinistry:ImagingthePerichoretic God (MiltonKeynes:Paternoster,2005)

TimChester, MissionandtheComingofGod:Eschatology,theTrinityandMission intheTheologyofJürgenMoltmannandContemporaryEvangelicalism (Milton Keynes:Paternoster,2006)

RobertB.Chisholm,‘Ba´sar’,in NewInternationalDictionaryofOldTestamentTheology andExegesis:Volume1,ed.byWillemA.VanGemeren(Carlisle:Paternoster Press,1996),pp.777–79

A.J.Conyers, God,HopeandHistory:JürgenMoltmannandtheChristianConceptof History (Macon,GA:MercerUniversityPress,1988)

DavidCrump,‘Re-examiningtheJohannineTrinity:perichoresisordeiﬁcation?’, ScottishJournalofTheology,59:4(2006),395–412

DavidS.Cunningham, TheseThreeAreOne:ThePracticeofTrinitarianTheology (Oxford:Blackwell,1998)

D.LyleDabney,‘PneumatologiaCrucis:ReclaimingTheologiaCrucisforaTheology oftheSpiritToday’, ScottishJournalofTheology,53:4(2000),511–24

CeliaDeane-Drummond,‘ACritiqueofJürgenMoltmann’sGreenTheology’, New Blackfriars,73:865(1992),554–65

—, EcologyinJürgenMoltmann’sTheology (Lampeter:EdwinMellenPress,1997)

WilliamR.Domeris,‘Finish,Complete’,in NewInternationalDictionaryofOld TestamentTheologyandExegesis:Volume2,ed.byWillemA.VanGemeren (Carlisle:PaternosterPress,1996),pp.657–58

DenisEdwards, BreathofLife:ATheologyoftheCreatorSpirit (Maryknoll,NY:Orbis Books,2004)

DouglasB.Farrow,‘IntheEndistheBeginning:AReviewofJürgenMoltmann’s SystematicContributions’, ModernTheology,14:3(1998),425–47

PaulS.Fiddes, TheCreativeSufferingofGod (Oxford:ClarendonPress,1988)

—, ParticipatinginGod:APastoralDoctrineoftheTrinity (London:Darton,Longman andTodd,2000)

—, ThePromisedEnd:EschatologyinTheologyandLiterature (Oxford:Blackwell Publishers,2000)

VincentJ.Genovesi, ExpectantCreativity:TheActionofHopeinChristianEthics (Washington,DC:UniversityPressofAmerica,1982)

StanleyJ.GrenzandJohnR.Franke, BeyondFoundationalism:ShapingTheologyina PostmodernContext (Louisville,KY:WestminsterJohnKnoxPress,2001)

ColinE.Gunton,‘TheSpiritMovedOvertheFaceoftheWaters:TheHolySpirit andtheCreatedOrder’, InternationalJournalofSystematicTheology,4:2(2002), 190–204

—, TheologythroughtheTheologians:SelectedEssays1972-1995 (Edinburgh:T&T Clark,1996)

TimothyHarvie, JürgenMoltmann’sEthicsofHope:EschatologicalPossibilitiesfor MoralAction (Farnham:Ashgate,2009)

JeffreyHensley,‘TrinityandFreedom:AResponsetoMolnar’, ScottishJournalof Theology,61:1(2008),83–95

AlasdairI.C.Heron, TheHolySpirit:TheHolySpiritintheBible,intheHistoryof ChristianThoughtandinRecentTheology (London:Marshall,Morgan&Scott, 1983)

GregoryC.Higgins, TheTapestryofChristianTheology:ModernMindsintheBiblical Narrative (NewYork:PaulistPress,2003)

GeorgeHunsinger,‘Review:TheTrinityandtheKingdomofGod:TheDoctrineof God’, TheThomist,47:1(1983),129–39

ChoHyun-ChulSJ, AnEcologicalVisionoftheWorld:TowardaChristianEcological TheologyforOurAge (Rome:GregorianUniversityPress,2004)

WernerG.Jeanrond,‘TheQuestionofGodToday’,in TheChristianUnderstandingof GodToday:TheologicalColloquiumontheOccasionofthe400thAnniversaryof theFoundationofTrinityCollege,Dublin,ed.byJamesM.Byrne(Dublin:The ColumbiaPress,1993),pp.9–23

KarenKilby,‘PerichoresisandProjection:ProblemswithSocialDoctrinesofthe Trinity’, NewBlackfriars,81:957(2000),432–45

KirsteenKim, TheHolySpiritintheWorld:aglobalconversation (London:SPCK, 2007)

VanNamKim,‘AChurchofHope:intheLightoftheEschatologicalEcclesiology ofJürgenMoltmann’(unpublisheddoctoralthesis,Universitécatholiquede Louvain,2004)

CatherineMowryLaCugna,‘PhilosophersandTheologiansontheTrinity’, Modern Theology,2:3(1986),169–81

JeremyThomsonLaw,‘TheFutureofJesusChrist:AConstructiveAnalysisofthe DevelopmentoftheEschatologicalStructureofJürgenMoltmann’sTheology: 1964-1996’(unpublisheddoctoralthesis,UniversityofOxford,1998)

JamesP.Mackey,‘SocialModelsoftheTrinity’,in ReadingsinModernTheology: BritainandAmerica,ed.byRobinGill(London:SPCK,1995),pp.123–30

DonaldMacleod,‘TheChristologyofJürgenMoltmann’, Themelios,24:2(1999), 35–47

ThomasH.McCall, WhichTrinity?WhoseMonotheism?:PhilosophicalandSystematic TheologiansontheMetaphysicsofTrinitarianTheology (GrandRapids,MI/ Cambridge:WmB.EerdmansPublishing,2010)

JoyAnnMcDougall, PilgrimageofLove:MoltmannontheTrinityandChristianLife (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2005)

—,‘TheReturnofTrinitarianPraxis?MoltmannontheTrinityandtheChristianLife’, TheJournalofReligion,83:2(2003),177–203

AlisterE.McGrath, ChristianTheology:AnIntroduction,3rdedn(Oxford:Blackwell, 2001)

DavidH.McIlroy, ATrinitarianTheologyofLaw:InConversationwithJürgenMoltmann,OliverO’DonovanandThomasAquinas (MiltonKeynes:Paternoster,2009)

JohnMcIntyre, TheShapeofPneumatology:StudiesintheDoctrineoftheHolySpirit (Edinburgh:T&TClark,1997)

Ed.L.MillerandStanleyJ.Grenz, FortressIntroductiontoContemporaryTheologies (Minneapolis,MN:Fortress,1998)

PaulD.Molnar, DivineFreedomandtheDoctrineoftheImmanentTrinity:InDialogue withKarlBarthandContemporaryTheology (Edinburgh:T&TClark,2002)

—,‘TheFunctionoftheTrinityinMoltmann’sEcologicalDoctrineofCreation’, TheologicalStudies,51:4(1990),673–97

RyanA.Neal, TheologyAsHope:OntheGroundandtheImplicationsofJürgen Moltmann’sDoctrineofHope (Eugene,OR:PickwickPublications,2008)

RogerOlson,‘TrinityandEschatology:TheHistoricalBeingofGodinJürgen MoltmannandWolfhartPannenberg’, ScottishJournalofTheology,36:2(1983), 213–27

RandallE.Otto,‘MoltmannandtheAnti-MonotheismMovement’, International JournalofSystematicTheology,3:3(2001),293–308

—,‘TheUseandAbuseofPerichoresisinRecentTheology’, ScottishJournalof Theology,54:3(2001),366–84

WolfhartPannenberg, SystematicTheology:Volume2,trans.byGeoffreyW.Bromiley (Edinburgh:T&TClark,1994)

—, SystematicTheology:Volume3,trans.byGeoffreyW.Bromiley(Edinburgh:T&T Clark,1998)

ArthurPeacocke,‘BiologyandTheologyofEvolution’, Zygon,34:4(1999),695–712

ClarkH.Pinnock,‘TheHolySpiritasaDistinctPersonintheGodhead’,in Spirit andRenewal:EssaysinHonourofJ.RodmanWilliams,ed.byMarkW.Wilson (Shefﬁeld:ShefﬁeldAcademicPress,1994),pp.34–41

JohnPolkinghorne,‘JürgenMoltmann’sEngagementwiththeNaturalSciences’,in God’sLifeinTrinity,ed.byMiroslavVolfandMichaelWelker(Minneapolis,MN: Fortress,2006),pp.61–70

SamuelM.Powell, ParticipatinginGod:CreationandTrinity (Minneapolis,MN: Fortress,2003)

BenQuash,‘HansUrsvonBalthasar’,in TheModernTheologians:AnIntroductionto ChristianTheologysince1918,ed.byDavidF.Ford,3rdedn(Oxford:Blackwell, 2005),pp.106–32

DuncanReid,‘EnﬂeshingtheHuman:AnEarth-Revealing,Earth-HealingChristology’, in EarthRevealing,EarthHealing:EcologyandChristianTheology,ed.byDenis Edwards(Collegeville,MN:TheLiturgicalPress,2001),pp.70–83

AlexanderSand,‘Sarx’,in ExegeticalDictionaryoftheNewTestament:Volume3,ed. byHorstBalzandGerhardSchneider(GrandRapids,MI:WilliamB.Eerdmans Publishing,1993),pp.230–33

H.PaulSantmire,‘SoThatHeMightFillAllThings:ComprehendingtheCosmic LoveofChrist’, Dialog:AJournalofTheology,42:3(2003),257–78

DouglasJ.Schuurman,‘Creation,Eschaton,andEthics:AnAnalysisofTheologyand EthicsinJürgenMoltmann’, CalvinTheologicalJournal,22:1(1987),42–67

—, Creation,Eschaton,andEthics:TheEthicalSigniﬁcanceoftheCreation-Eschaton RelationintheThoughtofEmilBrunnerandJürgenMoltmann (NewYork:Peter Lang,1991)

EduardSchweizer,‘Sarx’,in TheologicalDictionaryoftheNewTestament:Volume VII,ed.byGerhardKittelandGerhardFriedrich(GrandRapids,MI:Wm.B. EerdmansPublishing,1971),pp.98–151

GaryV.Smith,‘Dream’,in NewInternationalDictionaryofOldTestamentTheology andExegesis:Volume2,ed.byWillemA.VanGemeren(Carlisle:Paternoster Press,1996),pp.153–55

RolandSokolowski,‘ATheologicalResponsetoEcologicalCrisis:Assessingthe EcotheologyofJürgenMoltmann’(unpublishedmaster’sthesis,Spurgeon’s College,2010)

C.S.Song, Third-EyeTheology:TheologyinFormationinAsianSettings (London: LutterworthPress,1980)

ChristopherSouthgate, TheGroaningofCreation:God,Evolution,andtheProblemof Evil (Louisville,KY:WestminsterJohnKnoxPress,2008)

GordonJ.Spykman, ReformationalTheology:ANewParadigmforDoingDogmatics (GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,1992)

RichardSwinburne, TheChristianGod (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1994)

JohnV.Taylor, TheGo-BetweenGod:TheHolySpiritandtheChristianMission (London:SCM,1972)

AnthonyC.Thiselton,‘Flesh’,in TheNewInternationalDictionaryofNewTestamentTheology(revisededn):Volume1:A-F,ed.byColinBrown(Carlisle:The PaternosterPress,1986),pp.671–81

AlanJ.Torrance, PersonsInCommunion:TrinitarianDescriptionandHumanParticipation (Edinburgh:T&TClark,1996)

LinwoodUrban, AShortHistoryofChristianThought:Revised&ExpandedEdition (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1995)

KevinJ.Vanhoozer, FirstTheology:God,Scripture&Hermeneutics (Leicester:Apollos, 2002)

MiroslavVolf, AfterOurLikeness:TheChurchastheImageoftheTrinity (Grand Rapids,MI:Eerdmans,1998)

—,‘BeingasGodIs:TrinityandGenerosity’,in God’sLifeinTrinity,ed.byMiroslav VolfandMichaelWelker(Minneapolis,MN:Fortress,2006),pp.3–12

BrianJ.Walsh,‘TheologyofHopeandtheDoctrineofCreation:AnAppraisalof JürgenMoltmann’, TheEvangelicalQuarterly,59:1(1987),53–76

ThomasG.Weinandy, DoesGodSuffer? (NotreDame,IN:UniversityofNotreDame Press,2000)

RowanWilliams, OnChristianTheology (Oxford:Blackwell,2000)

W.WaiteWillisJr, Theism,AtheismandtheDoctrineoftheTrinity:TheTrinitarian TheologiesofKarlBarthandJürgenMoltmanninResponsetoProtestAtheism (Atlanta,GA:ScholarsPress,1987)

KornelZathureczky, TheMessianicDisruptionofTrinitarianTheology (Lanham,MD: LexingtonBooks,2009)