Kellett Richard~An Assessment of the Ecclesiology of Jürgen Moltmann by The Sheffield Centre

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF JÜRGEN MOLTMANN

by RICHARD KELLETT BSc, BTh, PhD. A dissertation presented in part fulfilment for the degree of Master of Arts in the Theology of Mission and Ministry, validated by the University of Nottingham. St John’s College, Nottingham. Easter 1996 Copyright © 1996 Richard Kellett

Contents INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

CHAPTER I

THE DEVELOPMENT OF MOLTMANN’S ECCLESIOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The beginnings of Moltmann’s ecclesiology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Moltmann’s first trilogy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The trinitarian history of God with the world. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Relationality and openness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 The Lord’s Supper as a sign of the trinitarian history of God with the world. . . 6

CHAPTER II

THEMES IN THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF MOLTMANN . ..................................................... 8

Suffering and joy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 The role of worship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 The mature and responsible congregation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baptismal reform. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The fellowship of friends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The place of the Lord’s supper.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hierarchy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relationality of special commissions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10 11 12 14 15 17

The church for the world. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ubi Christus, ibi ecclesia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The church and Israel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The church and the world religions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The church and the secular processes.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The crisis of modernity.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Economics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Political life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18 18 19 20 21 21 22 22

CHAPTER III

DEVELOPMENTS IN MOLTMANN’S PNEUMATOLOGY AND MODELS OF THE TRINITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Models of the Trinity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The monarchial Trinity.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Historical Trinity.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Eucharistic Trinity.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Trinitarian Doxology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii)

25 26 26 27 28

Critiques of Moltmann’s concepts of Trinity.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Mackey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Bauckham. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

CHAPTER IV

NEW ASPECTS FOR ECCLESIOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

The Fellowship of the Holy Spirit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unitarian concept of fellowship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The trinitarian concept of fellowship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fellowship as process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34 34 35 36

The Church and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Epiclesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The gathering and sending of Christians. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The community of the generations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Action groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Self-help groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The wider church context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38 38 39 40 43 44 45

CHAPTER V

SOME CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS OF MOLTMANN’S ECCLESIOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Further considerations of the ecclesiology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Problem of evil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Holiness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Body of Christ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Use of Natural Theology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The transcendent Spirit.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47 47 48 48 49 49

Concluding thoughts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

REFERENCES.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

(iii)

INTRODUCTION After two thousand years, do we really know what the Church is? We can easily undertake anthropological and historical approaches to give something of an answer, but how far do such approaches help us to answer the question of the being of the Church. Too much seems to depend on choice of metaphor, doctrinal assumptions, or dogmatic constraints. Gunton has recognised that questions over the being of the Church are one of the most neglected topics in theology. Furthermore, those ecclesiologies that have been formulated are often inadequate because they have never been ‘seriously and consistently rooted in a conception of the being of God as triune.’ (1991; p58). Instead, earlier ecclesiologies appear to be founded on monistic or hierarchical concepts of the church whose, ‘ontological basis is to be found in either neoplatonism or some other nonpersonal metaphysic. Where there is no explicitly Christian ontology, an implicit and foreign one will fill and has filled the vacuum.’ (Gunton, 1991; p71). In response to this concern, this study provides an assessment of the ecclesiology of Jürgen Moltmann whose ecclesiology proceeds from his understanding of the triune God. In Chapter I, we will plot the development of his ecclesiology from his earliest theological project and see the importance of his understanding of God as Trinity interacting in the history of this world. From this, we will see the emergence of his key themes of relationality and openness.

In Chapter II, we will explore themes in his resultant ecclesiology; suffering and joy, the mature and responsible congregation and the church for the world, covering his material up to, and including, the publication of The Church in the Power of the Spirit in 1975.

From this point onwards, Moltmann gains new insights into the Trinity which are discussed in Chapter III where we shall also hear the critiques of Mackey and Bauckham on his models of the Trinity. Although he does not rework his ecclesiology in such a comprehensive manner as before, we shall examine the implications of this later understanding of Trinity for his ecclesiology in Chapter IV.

Finally, in Chapter V, we shall take an overview of his ecclesiology and in particular, examine areas that need clarification or expansion before offering some conclusions. 1

Therefore, we hope to gain some understanding from Moltmann, of the being and nature of the church, derived from a trinitarian ontology and get our bearings. In this way, we can put anthropological and historical studies on the nature of the church into perspective and understand more vividly what is the function or mission of the church from our understanding of its being.

It is worth noting that this assessment is more of an overview than a critique and hermeneutically, it is read from an Anglican perspective. Thus we can understand what Moltmann is saying in order to dialogue with him, which is an important process in all theology (Moltmann, 1990; p ix), and continue this dialogue as the contexts of where the Church finds itself change. With this in mind, we now turn to look at the early development of Moltmannâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ecclesiology.

CHAPTER I THE DEVELOPMENT OF MOLTMANN’S ECCLESIOLOGY The beginnings of Moltmann’s ecclesiology Moltmann’s intention in writing his trilogy, Theology of Hope (1965), The Crucified God (1972) and The Church in the Power of the Spirit (1975), was to ‘...interpret the theological traditions in a way that would make theology a driving force for the renewal of the church, for men and women, society and our common life in the world.’ (1993; p xiii). Indeed, he is concerned over ‘the growing gulf between systematic and practical theology’ (cited in: Bauckham, 1987; p114) and writes from within his experiences: firstly, as Pastor in the village of Wasserhorst and secondly, from the charismatic churches in Africa, the persecuted in Latin America and the slum communes in South-East Asia; ‘all these things impressed me more vividly than I probably realised myself’ (Moltmann, 1993 p xix). It is not surprising that there has been less academic attention to his ecclesiology given this gulf1, yet his ecclesiology has not received that wide a response in the ecclesiological dialogues of the ecumenical movement. This, believes Bauckham (1987; p114) is due to Moltmann’s insistence on church reform ‘from below’ that is actual grassroots communities of Christians which are the true subject of ecclesiology.

Moltmann’s first trilogy Moltmann’s trilogy followed themes that he attempted to systematise in later work. The theme of Theology of Hope was based around the promised future centred on the resurrection of the crucified. He concluded the book by considering the theology’s implication for the Church: The eschatological dialectic (future promise against present reality) serves to open the Church to ‘both a dynamic existence in future-orientated mission and a critical openness to the world which is not yet but is to become the kingdom of God.’ (Bauckham, 1987; p115). Thus eschatological hope creates an ‘Exodus Community’ Church striving in its mission of service to the coming kingdom that can be neither apolitical nor fettered by links to the state but needs to be committed to liberation and revolution in society (Moltmann, 1967; p300ff).

It is interesting to note that amidst Gunton’s angst over the lack of a trinitarian ecclesiology we alluded to on page 1, he fails to mention Moltmann’s works in his chapter on ‘The Community. The Trinity and the Being of the Church’ (Gunton, 1991) although he covers similar themes. 3

The theme of The Crucified God was centred around the cross of the risen Jesus: Crux probat omnia! Crux sola nostra theologia! The cross is a symbol that leads out of the church ‘...into the fellowship of the oppressed and the abandoned’ and conversely also calls ‘the oppressed and godless into the church and through the church into the fellowship of the crucified God’ (Moltmann, 1974; p40). Thus the Church’s involvement with the world is motivated by its identification with the crucified Christ who on the cross entered into solidarity with the alienated of this world, the dehumanised and the inhuman. Christian fellowship is no longer constrained by Aristotle’s ‘Like seeks after like’ view of society instead, ‘its power is not friendship, the love for what is similar and beautiful (philia), but creative love for what is different, alien and ugly (agape)’ (1974; p28). The Church cannot become what is different, alien and ugly, nor can it conveniently retreat into its own comfortable social ghetto but show solidarity with such people in practical fellowship. Failure to do this means it is failing to follow the crucified Christ, from whom is derived its identity, and ultimately it fails to be Church.

Moltmann’s final volume in his trilogy was The Church in the Power of the Spirit which examines the Church from an eschatological perspective, as Moltmann describes it in his subtitle, it is a contribution to Messianic Ecclesiology. His starting point therefore is that any doctrine of the Church must be developed from Christology, ‘as its consequence and in correspondence with it’ (1993; p66) thus, ‘Every statement about the church will be a statement about Christ. Every statement about Christ implies a statement about the church; yet the statement about Christ is not exhausted by the statement about the church because it goes further, being directed towards the messianic kingdom which the church serves’ (1993; p6). Although Christology is his starting point, we shall see later on how far from this origin he strays and he may be accused of loosing sight of this from time to time.

The trinitarian history of God with the world Moltmann’s ecclesiology is allowed to proceed further than that in Theology of Hope because he is able to develop a trinitarian history of God with the world. The seeds for this appear to be in his interest in Orthodox theology: there he discovered the stress in Orthodox ecclesiology on the history of the Spirit and his continuity with the church to the present day. ‘The Holy Spirit is the divine subject of the history of Jesus’ (1993; p36), furthermore, the Spirit is working to the eschatological fulfilment of the mission of Christ. 4

So Christology is pneumatological making ecclesiology charismatic. This does not exclude the eschatological perspective that has been discussed above, but complements it making ecclesiology the derivative of Christology, pneumatology and eschatology.

Moltmann’s knowledge of the trinitarian history of God (1993; pp50-65) begins with the raw data of the revelation of the history of Jesus and the experience of the Holy Spirit’s dealings with the Church. From this point he looks both backwards and forwards: backwards to what he calls the ‘Trinity in the origin’ where God sends the Son and the Spirit into the world, and at the same time, forwards to what he calls the ‘Trinity in the glorification’ which is the eschatological goal of the mission of the Son and the Spirit. The result of this extrapolation, as Bauckham (1995; p158) has concisely summarised, is this: “from eternity the Trinity in the origin is open for love for the world and its history. God’s being trinitarian means that he is open in love for the union of creation with himself. In the missions of the Son and the Spirit, God opens himself in seeking love and then in gathering love gathers creation into union with himself. His final unity is then one which includes the whole of his creation in an eschatological, trinitarian ‘panentheism’.” Relationality and openness Moltmann’s ecclesiology is further influenced by two important concepts that arise out of his trinitarian history of God, namely, relationality and openness. Firstly, the Church cannot be defined phenomenologically, ‘The Church cannot understand itself simply from itself alone. It can only truly comprehend its mission and its meaning, its roles and functions in relation to others’ (1993; p19). This relational ecclesiology is unable to give a ready made definition of what Church is, which may seem bizarre for an ecclesiology, but Moltmann is content to let it be so for it allows an understanding of the living nature of the Church to emerge (1993; p20). It is precisely in the midst of God’s dealings with the world in its trinitarian history that, ‘the church finds and discovers itself, in all the relationships which comprehend its life. It finds itself on the path traced by God’s dealings with the world and discovers itself as one element in the movements of the divine sending, gathering and experience.’ (1993; p64). What these relationships consist of in theory and in reality are explored in detail in Chapter II, under the section on the church for the world (page 18, 38ff), and in Chapter IV on the discussion of what constitutes the fellowship of the Holy Spirit (page 18, 38ff).

The second related concept is that of openness. The living Church must be open if it is to relate to the trinitarian history of God’s dealings with the world: ‘...open for God, open for men and open for the future of both God and men. The Church atrophies when it surrenders any one of these opennesses and closes itself up against God, men or the future’ (1993; p2).

The Lord’s Supper as a sign of the trinitarian history of God with the world The idea of the church’s participation in the trinitarian history of God with the world is not an unfamiliar concept: Moltmann sees the Lord’s Supper as being a sign for the concept, for, it ‘joins the past and the future, history and eschatology in a unique way, and becomes the token of liberating grace’ (1993; p256). For in the Lord’s Supper, the church glorifies God for reconciling the world to himself through the death of Christ; the church also acknowledges the presence2 of the risen Christ with them at table; and finally, the church hopes with joy for the coming of his kingdom in glory. Thus, ‘in the eucharist, the congregation thanks the triune God for all his acts of goodness and sets itself in the trinitarian history with the world’ (1993; p256). Moltmann sees the Western church as missing the cosmic dimension of the eucharist and hence its truly trinitarian context. By contrast, the Eastern church in its liturgies has maintained that the world which God reconciles is present at every eucharist, and that the eucharist ‘reveals to the world what it is to be’ (1993; p256).

It is not surprising then that Moltmann considers the epiclesis to be paramount to the eucharist, for the feast is the gift of the Spirit, ‘It is the Spirit who allows Christ to be truly present in the meal and gives us fellowship with him in bread and wine in accordance with the words of institution. It is the Spirit who, as the power of the kingdom, gives a foretaste of the new creation in the feast’ (1993; p257). In the invocation of the Spirit, the fellowship prepares for and awaits the Spirit’s outpouring; it therefore partakes in the ‘movement through which the Spirit descends on all flesh, in order to make it live eternally’. And thus the eucharist is ‘the mark of the history of the Spirit’ (1993; p257) and therefore it is about relationality and openness:

Although Moltmann does not expound what he understands by the presence of Christ at the Eucharist, elsewhere he simply asserts ‘Then the bread and wine signify that which they are according to Christ’s promise - the body and blood of Christ. Christ’s body and blood are present in the bread and wine’ (1993; p252). 6

‘As a feast open to the churches, Christ’s supper demonstrates the community’s catholicity. As a feast open to the world it demonstrates the community’s mission to the world. As a feast open to the future it demonstrates the community’s universal hope’ (1993; p260). In summary, relationship and openness in Moltmann’s ecclesiology derive from, and are intimately related to, his ideas concerning the trinitarian history of God. However, his understanding of the trinitarian history of God does change in his later writings which has implications for his ecclesiology. What follows in the next chapter derives from his earlier understanding as set out in The Church in the Power of the Spirit and is offered more as an overview than a critique.

CHAPTER II THEMES IN THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF MOLTMANN Rather than attempting the Herculean task of condensing the arguments in The Church in the Power of the Spirit, I will use Bauckham’s (1987; pp126-135) three helpful headings to navigate through the various themes in Moltmann’s ecclesiology: ‘Suffering and joy’, ‘The mature and responsible congregation’ and ‘The Church for the world’.

Suffering and joy The dialectic of suffering and joy is found throughout Moltmann’s works: from resurrection joy in Theology of Hope and the suffering of God at Golgotha in The Crucified God. The Church is intimately bound up with this process of suffering and joy in the trinitarian history of God: ‘Love participates in the history of God's suffering. Wherever men take up their cross and in their self-giving are made like the one who was crucified, wherever the sighings of the Spirit are heard in the cry for freedom, there is the church. The true church is ‘the church under the cross’. But in suffering and under the cross the church also participates in the history of the divine joy. It rejoices over every conversion and every liberation, because it is itself the fellowship of the converted and the liberated. Wherever the joy of God can be heard, there is the church. The true church is joy in the Spirit.’ (1993; p65) The Church under the cross is one that should be in fellowship with Christ; experienced in ‘common resistance to idolatry and inhumanity, in common suffering over oppression and persecution’ (1993; p97). Only in the Church’s continued participation in the sufferings of Christ can the new life in Christ become evident in the Church, ‘Christian fellowship proves itself in temptation and resistance’ (1993; p97). But for Moltmann, fellowship with the crucified Jesus means much more for the Church, it involves solidarity with and amongst those who are ‘visibly living in the shadow of the cross: the poor, the handicapped, the people society has rejected, the prisoners and the persecuted.’

The other pole of this dialectic is that the Church is also, at the same time, the fellowship of those whom the crucified One has liberated. Echoing Athanasius’ ‘The risen Christ makes of man’s life a continual festival’, Moltmann argues that joy comes through celebrating the ‘feast of freedom’ the aesthetic part of the resurrection - it is not merely

liberation and a new obedience but a sheer ‘joy in existence’3 (1993; p109). Suffering and joy are like poles of a magnet: without the other they become meaningless and cannot function. Without the exuberance of joy, then our liberation through Christ’s sufferings would only produce a new legalism to bind humanity with. Without suffering, then expressions of joy are sheer escapism. ‘Joy in liberation won through Christ’s sufferings leads into suffering for the liberation of others’ (Bauckham, 1987; p127).

The role of worship Nowhere is this dialectic of suffering and joy worked out better in the life of the Church than in its worship. Worship is a celebration of the feast of freedom, as Hippolytus put it, the risen Christ is the leader of the mystic round-dance. At the feast of freedom, ‘for a particular time, in a particular space, through a particular community, the laws and compulsions of this world become invalid... ...an alternative emerges and is presented in festal terms’ this is not escapism but effects daily life. ‘Then the liberating feast radiates into everyday life a remembrance which cannot be forgotten again in the daily round. It works as an antitype to normal standardized life and lets us seek for possible ways of changing it’ (1993; p111). Christian worship is a Messianic feast. It is located within the trinitarian history of God’s dealings with the world and is able to bring the fellowship’s pains and joys into this historical context. ‘The service of worship reveals the height’s of life, but also the poverty of the depths of our own lives. These dissonances are part of its harmony.’ (Moltmann, 1993; p262). Thus notes Moltmann, the feast is more akin to the Lord’s song in a foreign land (Psalm 137 v4); it is the ‘fragmentatory anticipation of God’s free and festal world’ (1993; p262).

For Christian worship to be truly festal, that is both open for the divine future and open to the world for its pains and joys of life in love, Moltmann, expounds its implications (1993; pp272-275): (i) a service has to be more than divine ritual and should be expanded to include elements of joyous exuberance. (ii) a stress needs to be placed on the service as a feast of Christ’s resurrection - disarming powers and bringing forth hope. This will protect it from being used as a mere safety valve. (iii) the service is about making present the one who was crucified and so as we are aware of the nearness of God, we become aware of the

No doubt related to the ‘Trinity in the glorification’ as Moltmann views the eschatological future of the trinitarian history of God. 9

godlessness of life and God allows us to cry out with our pains and failings. (iv) the feast will make a stand against this world’s oppressors, it will not justify the status quo but will affirm existence. (v) Christian life is not just a changed life but a new quality of life. ‘The rapture of the divine future will first of all be felt and celebrated in festal ecstasy’. (vi) a messianic feast requires a messianic fellowship, a congregation that is built up ‘from below’ responding to the gospel, its promises and challenges.

It is worth noting that his discussion of worship is separate from his discussion on the Lord’s supper. This is not to exclude the role of communion in worship, rather he wishes the Lord’s supper to be made more central to worship services (1993; p259). His discussion of the Lord’s supper does not explicitly involve themes of suffering and joy but there are allusions to such themes when he discusses it as a ‘sign of hope’ and the ‘presence of the crucified one’ (1993; pp242-256). His separate handling of worship and the Lord’s supper probably reflects a church background where communion is seen as an infrequent activity and often appended to other services and liturgies and is therefore not representative of a divergent viewpoint on them both.

The mature and responsible congregation ‘The mature and responsible congregation’ is perhaps Moltmann’s biggest target for reform, since he believes that reform of the Church should come ‘from below’ - from grassroots communities of Christians. The first question he asks is the Church today for or of the people? (1978; p120). Ever since Constantine, the Church’s integration into the state as the religio licita has turned the Christian community into a replica of the state hierarchy (e.g. the separation of the priesthood and laity). Instead of community in the Church, Moltmann notes the onset of varying degrees of community with the Church. The Church became for the people and not of the people and lost its divine mission: ‘Mission was dissolved as the coerced christianization of the oppressed peoples came to the fore’(1978; pp120-122). Christianity ‘surrendered the passion of its messianic hope. Hope was turned into the inner hope of the soul and its fulfilment was postponed into the next world’. (1993; pp318-319). Very little appears to have changed in the established churches of Christian Europe4. From Moltmann’s perspective, these churches are but a clerical

Moltmann feels qualified to comment like this on state religion: he himself is a member of the German Volkskirche where 95% of the population “belong” to the national church but only 1015% actively participate. 10

institution looking after the religious needs of the people entrusted to it without daring to have any critical effect on society. Such churches cannot really be Church by definition: Church is ekklesia ‘the visible coming together of visible people in a special place to do something particular’ and ‘Without the visible procedure of meeting together, there is no church.’ (1993; p334). Lack of cultivated fellowship for Moltmann is the source of the present crisis which established churches are embroiled in. And this is where reform from below must and has already begun. From the base communities of Latin America to the communities, cells and groups of established churches, change is coming from below, encouraging these churches to discover anew the idea of congregation (1978; p117).

Baptismal reform Nowhere is the reform of a church that exists for the people more pressing than its use of baptism. Moltmann sees baptism as the ‘sacrament of initiation and the door of grace’ and ‘a holy rite commanded by Christ and invested with his promise’ (1993; p227). However, he also sees infant baptism as the great foundation stone of national churches that exist for the people. Through it comes the perpetual generation of a “Christian Society” where baptism exists more as a rite of initiation into that society than anything else. The church merely functions in the human lifecycle to socialize and integrate society. The problem Moltmann has with this however, is that with the onset of religious pluralism and diffusion, then the original binding character of baptism is lost. Such societies have already judged themselves: ‘This gives rise to the curious situation that religion is still considered necessary and helpful for children, whereas for adults it is thought of as a “private affair”.’ (1993; p231). For Moltmann, the reform of baptismal policy can only come with reform of the church; ‘Baptism can only be practised in accordance with its proper meaning if the church’s public form and function in society is altered at the same time, and if the church becomes recognizable and active as the messianic fellowship of Christ’ (1993; p232). Basing his arguments on scripture and church tradition, Moltmann argues for baptismal reform along the following lines: the emphasis should move from infant baptism to adult baptism and the necessary freedoms and changes allowed for in church order and government. Baptism needs to be regarded not as a ‘symbol if inner emigration and resignation in the face of the “wicked world”’ but as a call to liberation and commission to service in the world amongst the fellowship of believers.

The fellowship of friends The fellowship of believers in Moltmann’s ‘mature and responsible congregation’ need to cultivate and rediscover fellowship as a priority to overcome its present crisis (diminishing attendance, relevance etc). ‘The church will not overcome its present crisis through reform of the administration of the sacraments, or from the reform of its ministries. It will overcome this crisis through the rebirth of practical fellowship’ (1993; p317). For Moltmann, the key to fellowship amongst the rank and file of the congregation is friendship, without it the church’s sacraments, offices and creeds become petrified into mere formality. And his model for friendship comes not from sociological requisites but from the model of Christ as ‘friend’.

Traditionally, Moltmann asserts, the titles of office given to Christ have been as prophet, priest or king. These Christological titles ascribe something of his uniqueness and divinity as he ‘stands at God’s side and suffers and dies for men at God’s behest’ (1993; p115). But what sort of fellowship can this achieve with humanity, of the divine with the human, of humans together? He suggests that the above titles are one-sided and need supplementing to ‘describe the inner relationship between the divine and the human fellowship: the name of friend’ (1993; p115). Friendship combines affection with respect and loyalty; we help our friends not for reward but because they are friends. ‘We need friends in order to communicate the joy of our own life and in order to enjoy our own happiness. Common joy creates friendship’ (1993; p115). Proof of such friendships come with times of sorrow, for they are permanent and not counterfeit.

Moltmann’s proof texts for this Christological title of ‘friend’ come from Luke 7:34, where Jesus is described as ‘...a glutton, and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ in an attempt to compromise him. Yet Jesus, acting as their friend, offers the unloveable, the outcast and the sinner, the friendship of God. Disclosing true humanity, he liberates them from their unrighteousness and ‘a liberating fellowship with the unrighteous like this always has something compromising about it.’ (1993; p117). The second text comes from John 15:13ff ‘No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you’. Moltmann understands that John is making friendship the motive for Christ’s forthcoming passion. Thus, ‘through the death of their friend, the disciples become his friends forever’ (1993; p117). This friendship 12

emanates from Jesus’ joy (15:11), this divine joy is able to overflow and confer fellowship in a relationship based on mutual friendship. Divine friendship is borne out in prayer, where we talk to God as his friend5: ‘It would be thinking like a servant to assume an obligation for prayer to be heard. It would be thinking like a child if the one who prayed did not respect God’s freedom’ (1993; p119).

The friendship that Jesus brings is different to that which many would describe friendship as: some see it as being exclusive and possible only between equals. The model Jesus gives breaks through the exclusivity to reach out simultaneously to God, the disciples and the marginalised of society. For Moltmann, we cannot live out the friendship of Jesus when we limit friends to those who are like us or exist in our ‘private’ life (1993; p121). The Aristotlean maxim of ‘like cleaves to like’ is anathema when it comes to friendships with others. Our cultural milieu is built on this, where we love those that are like us but are distrustful of those and that which is different. He cites three areas which close off our friendships and ultimately fellowship: racism, sexism and attitudes to the disabled. Racism is not just a group phenomenon based on similarity but is a means ‘of waging psychological war with the purpose of subjecting others’ (1993; p183). Sexism he sees as the drive for ‘masculine supremacy on the basis of imagined privileges and the subordination of woman to man.’ (1993; p184). Society’s attitude to the disabled arise out of a defence mechanism ‘both of psychology and also social psychology... ...making the situation of the handicapped unendurable, and robbing them of their human dignity too’ (1993; p185).

The root of these problems and barriers to friendship arise out of personal identity. The need to assert oneself is done psychologically by the I-identity and the ego-identity. The latter is based on self as object, what I possess, what I have achieved. The former I-identity Moltmann understands is a category of being. The above mentioned problems all arise out of the ego as mechanisms of self justification. But the Christian faith is one of justification, not by our self but by God; being accepted and loved by him. Thus all human life is eternally valued because it is justified by God (1993; p187). Christian faith brings liberation from self-justification: liberation is not merely personal but should also

Talking to God as friend, based on Luke 11:5-11 is a very weak exegesis of the passage. Rather the picture of the friend who Jesus paints is stubborn and lazy: ‘do not bother me; the door has already been locked’. The analogy is based on what God is not like: ‘How much more then will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!’ 13

encompass the social dimension of life. Taking his lead from Gal 3:28ff, Moltmann asserts that not only do we have an equal validity by God’s justification but ‘also equal being in Christ; not only equality in faith before God, but also equality in the fellowship of Christ; not only equal pardon, but equal rights’ (1993; p188).

Christian fellowship therefore stands against the drive for self-justification and clinging to that which is the same. Fellowship becomes friendship when we recognise the other in their otherness and share together our being as equals. ‘That is why the Christian fellowship is a fundamentally open fellowship and not merely a community of fellowbelievers’ (1993; p189).

The place of the Lord’s supper The open fellowship of friends ought to take its bearings from the Lord’s supper. Too often, Moltmann laments, the meaning of the Lord’s supper down the centuries has brought division to the church. Yet he maintains, it is not something that is organised by a church or denomination but is rather an invitation from the Lord himself. ‘Today, everything depends on our grasping the Lord’s supper in its nature as a unifying event, and on our understanding its different perspectives in the light of its common ground, so that it confers fellowship not division’ (1993; p244). Since it is the Lord who issues the invitation, then the church cannot put barriers in the way of people responding. To do so, would reorientate it as the church’s supper and ‘putting its own fellowship at the centre and not fellowship with him’ (1993; p245). Thus any theology of the eucharist must not contain within it any controversy that separates Christians apart, for the Lord’s supper is a sign of fellowship, what is in common and not what divides the Church. Moltmann’s perspective however, ignores the Pauline injunction to ‘examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup’ (I Cor. 11:28) which many churches use as a basis for discipline. Moltmann needs to include this in his argument which could be further augmented, since the text speaks of a personal examination and not a judgement by others.

The required openness and unity drive Moltmann’s practical suggestions for reform of the Lord’s supper: (i) Fellowship around the Lord’s table must be central to the congregation; it must be for all, it must have room for ‘spontaneous fellowship’ to bring the pains and joys of our existence into the centre of the liturgy. (ii) The church cannot limit Christ’s 14

invitation; differences of opinion can only be solved through a common practice ‘because then they have to be solved’. (iii) Because it is Christ’s open invitation to all, can the church impose conditions such as baptism or confirmation? for it is not so much the feast of the righteous and devout but those who are ‘weary and heavy laden, who have heard the call to refreshment’. (iv) If the congregation is truly a messianic fellowship, then is it important who offers the bread and wine using Christ’s words? it cannot really be bound to any particular ministry. (v) Churches need reordering so the leader can stand behind the altar and share with the rest of the congregation; the traditional from of people facing the front needs changing to more of a common room in which the participants can freely communicate with one another. (vi) Finally, Moltmann suggests following the Lord’s supper with a common meal which can lead into the proclamation of the gospel by ‘a common discussion of people’s real needs and the specific tasks of Christian mission’. (1993; pp258-260).

Hierarchy The replication of secular hierarchy within the Church is a further target of reform for Moltmann’s ‘mature and responsible congregation’. Moltmann finds (1993; p295) that Paul never talks about ‘Holy rule’ (hierarchy) in the Christian community but chooses the expression diakoniva. Instead, the monarchial justification for church hierarchy devolved not from scripture, but from Ignatius of Antioch’s ‘One God, One Christ, One Bishop, One Church’6. Thus the bishop represents Christ to His Church as Christ represents God. This monarchial monotheism and correspondent monarchial episcopacy brought unity to the Christian churches ‘at the cost of eliminating the charismatic prophets.’ (Moltmann, 1981; p200). For Moltmann, the Trinity is not a hierarchy but a triunity to which the Church is called to participate in (see Jesus’ prayer for the church John 17:20ff). Thus, The doctrine of the Trinity constitutes the church as “a community free of dominion”. The Trinitarian principle replaces the principle of power by the principle of concord. Authority and obedience are replaced by dialogue, consensus and harmony’ (1981; p202). So, is Moltmann calling for the abolition of leadership in the church? Certainly not, as elsewhere he argues for its reform. By way of preface, he argues that the whole Christian community is called and charged by God. In fellowship with Christ, the Church is ‘a

Moltmann concedes that it may have had good pragmatic reasons at the time for its inception but ‘theologically it was wrong and ecclesiologically it led to a false development’ (1993; p305). 15

chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people’ (1Peter 2:9ff) thus all share in a common commission ‘to declare the wonderful deeds of Him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light’. Instead of the term ‘offices’ Moltmann prefers ‘assignments’ to describe leadership, being a part of the Spirit’s charisms to the Church: ‘The various distinguishable assignments within the community only come into being by virtue of the common commissioning of the community itself. As Christ’s messianic community, it passes on these assignments in Christ’s name’ (1993; p302). He insists on two helpful boundaries to this commissioning. Firstly, they do not arise out of the fellowship but from the corporate conscience that has been liberated by Christ. This ensures that they are not merely representatives of the existing fellowship but are answerable to the Holy Spirit and serve not the interests of the fellowship but the kingdom of God (1993; p302-303) - the church is not a democracy. Secondly, and not surprisingly, the commission does not separate nor set them above the people: to do this either by solemn ordination to a priestly caste or popular adulation is to surrender the ‘sovereign rights of the liberator’ of the Church, that is Christ himself. Thus all offices are ‘functions of the messianic rule of Christ’ (1993; p302-304) - the church is not a hierarchy.

A corollary of this thinking is that such communal assignments are subject to the right of recall by the community7 and to commission someone else. Furthermore, as in the case of Ordination for example, there is freedom by a person to end their particular commission: ‘If I can no longer preach or no longer want to, then I will join the common group again, will be like the rest of you, and will let someone else preach.’ (1993; p308) Moltmann also looks at eligibility for these commissions: in fulfilling its messianic commission, the community needs to be open to the Spirit’s empowering of its members. There are no preferences for the Spirit, the charges can be part or full-time, for men or women, for married or single, for the formally trained or those without formal theological training. Prejudice must not be allowed to quench the Spirit nor hinder charismatic powers from serving the kingdom and he ends with the call: ‘It is high time for churches where there is a traditional monopoly of the ministry to open themselves to the diversity of the different charges. The traditional fear of a chaos of spiritual gifts is, in the face of their present poverty, without foundation.’ (1993; p308). 7

Moltmann puts a caveat to this: the community cannot stop the commissions themselves e.g. preaching the gospel, works of charity, baptising, holding the Lord’s supper etc. because to do this, it would have to abandon its own existence (1993; p304). 16

Relationality of special commissions Moltmann further considers the relationship of those with special commissions to the local and wider Christian communities. Firstly, if the church fellowship is neither a democracy nor hierarchy, then the way in which those holders of special commissions relate to each other is by the formation of a fellowship of service8 collegiate in nature and presided over by one who has the aptitude. This fellowship of service is also required to relate to the rest of the church through public, regular and vigourous meetings with the whole of the fellowship because the difference is ‘one of function, not of rank’ (1993; p309). Secondly, the local congregation is but a small part of the church of Christ and must be in fellowship and concord with the whole church. This can be achieved by one of two possible models: either a ‘representative office of unity’ by which Moltmann would cite the papacy for example, or preferably a concilium, an assembly of the people of God coming together as a result of the jointly heard call of God. These should be ‘universal and ecumenical, in accordance with the mission of Christ and the tendency of the Spirit’s operations’ (1993; p311). Either model though should be judged by what they do for the unity of the Church.

His appreciation of the wider church is not limited temporally, there should also be a unity and fellowship with the church in time - what many describe as apostolic succession. But many people’s view of apostolic succession as legitimation of present dogma and doctrine is too narrow a view for Moltmann. It is not the role of eyewitness that is succeeded by the apostles to us, but their charge to proclaim and minister ‘so that the message remains Christ’s message without falsification, and the ministries are directed toward the kingdom of God, without deviation’ (1993; p312). And a more sensible term he coins to encapsulate this is “apostolic procession” to the end of time. Apostolic succession is also viewed too narrowly because of its close association with one particular office within the church and that by episcopal laying on of hands! Rather we need to recognise the succession of baptism, the celebration of the Lord’s supper and the proclamation of Christ as well. Thus succession is a witness to the faithfulness of God and our faith for ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’. And the Church’s relationship to its ‘fathers and mothers’ should simply be the same as the present relationship between its ‘brothers and sisters’ as they continue together to work for the coming kingdom.

This for Moltmann is what for example in the Church of England, the Parochial Church Council should be. 17

The church for the world We turn now to examine our final theme in Moltmann’s ecclesiology: that of ‘The Church for the world’. The Heidelberg Catechism9 answers questions about the church Christologically, it is Christ who ‘chooses, gathers, protects and upholds’ the church. The language used, claims Moltmann, is as though humanity’s whole existence were to be raw material for the church and not that the church exists for the world (1993; p69). He prefers the latter since the mission of Christ is for the whole of the world, and the church is called to participate in that mission: declaring the gospel of the liberator, ‘to liberate the people for the exodus in the name of the coming kingdom’ (1993; p84). Thus for Moltmann, the church only exists in mission.

We may say that since the liberated join the fellowship of the exodus community (the church), then is Moltmann merely playing with semantics in insisting that the church exists for the world and not vice-versa? The relationship would be reciprocal if it were not for the fact that Moltmann believes that the mission of the Son and the Spirit to the coming kingdom is not exclusive to the church: In the trinitarian history of God’s dealings with the world, ‘...[the church] discovers itself as one element in the movements of the divine sending, gathering together and experience.’ (1993; p64). So what are these other elements?

Ubi Christus, ibi ecclesia Firstly, using the principle of Ignatius, ubi Christus, ibi ecclesia (Smyrn 8.2), Moltmann wants to discover where Christ is present so the church may be true and rightly constituted (1993; p122). He finds that Christ is not only present in the apostolate10 and the parousia, but also ‘in the least of the brethren’ based on his exegesis of Matt 25:31-46. There we find the coming judge already present but hidden in the world amongst the least of the brethren - the hungry and thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick and the prisoner. For Christ

Question 54 asks: ‘What dost thou believe about the holy, catholic, Christian church?’ Answer: ‘That out of the whole human race the Son of God gathers, protects and upholds a community of the elect destined for eternal life, through His Spirit and Word, in the unity of faith, from the beginning of the world unto its end; and that I am a living member of the same and will eternally remain so’. cited in Moltmann (1993; p68). 10

Moltmann uses the word apostolate to ‘sum up the medium of the proclamation through word and sacrament, as well as the persons and community of the proclaimers’ (1993; p123). 18

identifies himself with them ‘Truly I tell you just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’ So Moltmann asks where is the true church? is it amongst the fellowship ‘manifest in word and sacrament’ or in ‘the latent brotherhood of the judge hidden in the poor?’ (1993; p128). He would like to think that the true church can encompass both of these options: ‘Then the church with its mission would be present where Christ awaits it, amid the downtrodden, the sick and the captives. The apostolate says what the church is. The least of Christ’s brethren say where the church belongs.’ (1993; p129). This ecclesiological reading of Matt 25, giving a whole new identity to the church, has attracted criticism of the validity of his exegesis. Tripole (1981), by asking such questions as ‘who exactly are “the least brethren”? are the “least brethren” the poor? whom is Jesus addressing? and how else does Matthew use the term “the least brethren”?’ finds Moltmann’s exegesis improbable. Rather he suggests that Jesus is using the term to ‘refer to his own disciples, probably in mission activity’: this exegesis is corroborated by the majority of current Matthean commentators. Moltmann has not answered this criticism but continues to use this weak argument in a section in the Spirit of Life (1992; p245).

Other elements Moltmann would include are definitely outside the church and we see his principle of relationality at work: ‘Christian eschatology is not merely eschatology for Christians; if it is to be the eschatology of the all embracing kingdom, it must be unfolded as the eschatology of Israel, of the religions, of human social systems and of nature’ (1993; p135). The church and Israel He sees the church’s treatment of Israel down the centuries as an abomination, causing its paganization and corruption because it has neglected its origins. However, the promises of God to Israel have not been made obsolete and the church needs to understand that Israel has a call to salvation which is independent of the church (1993; p138). Recent Reformed and Roman Catholic declarations11 have begun to understand this, recognising that Israel has a vocation ‘to be a light to lighten the gentiles’ and the church needs to work alongside this in partnership for the coming kingdom.

Article 17 of the Fundamenten en Perspektieven van Belijden of the Dutch Reformed Church Order of 1949 and the Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions from Vatican II both deal with the question of Israel and the relevant parts are cited and analysed by Moltmann (1993; pp144-149). 19

The church and the world religions Moving further afield, Moltmann considers the relationship between Christianity and the world religions. With the coming together of nations (and with that their religions) into a ‘single, common world’, nations will either ‘run aground on their divisions or they will survive in a new community’ (1993; p151). This new future that is coming into being is one that must be common and the world religions, Christianity included, can only survive by being a part of the common whole, the common future. How can this come about for Christians? He sees two aspects of mission to the world: a quantitative and a qualitative aspect.

The quantitative is to do with church growth; ‘to awaken faith, to baptize, to found churches and to form new life under the lordship of Christ’ (1993; p152). The qualitative aspect is where mission results in a qualitative difference to life’s atmosphere; in the areas of trust, feeling, thinking and acting. Moltmann sees the goal of this aspect to ‘infect people, whatever their religion, with the spirit of hope, love and responsibility for the world’ (1993; p152). So far, qualitative mission has only come in the wake of quantitative mission and Moltmann calls for qualitative mission to be ‘pursued consciously and responsibly’ (1993; p152). Changing life’s atmosphere comes about through dialogue and that is only possible if ‘we make ourselves vulnerable in openness, and if we come away from the dialogue changed’ (1993; p 152).

To facilitate this, Moltmann calls for an end to absolutism within the church, to open up the frontiers in the church and make them permeable. The church should no longer be defined by membership or baptism, but by its ministry of reconciliation in the world and thereby representing the reconciled ‘...of whatever religion’ (1993; p153-4). The church can, by renouncing its exclusive claims in relation to other religions, become a catalyst for dialogue and change. For example, in the world of Islam there is a high degree of fatalism. Moltmann thinks that an encounter with Christianity ‘brings about the discovery that the world can be changed and that people have a responsibility for changing it’ (1993; p158). On the reverse side of this, Christianity has to get away from its Western mindset and ‘enquire into Hindu, Buddhist and Islamic reasons for faith in Jesus.’ This, he claims, is not to manufacture a religious mixture but for a higher reason: ‘What is at issue is the charismatic quickening of different religious gifts, powers and potentialities for the 20

kingdom of God and the liberation of men.’ (1993; p163). Dialogue must not be limited to the world’s religions, it must also include dialogue with this world’s secular processes which likewise, can neither be ecclesiasticized nor Christianized.

The church and the secular processes In talking about relationships between the church and the secular orders of this world, Moltmann abandons talk of ‘church’ (e.g. official church or regular organization) and prefers to talk of Christianity. The reason for this, he claims, is that the responsibility for dialogue and relationship lies with ‘responsible Christians in their secular professions.’ (1993; p164). Furthermore, he also abandons talk of a secular ‘order’ (family, state, culture) because modernity has dispensed with such categorization and a far better way is to talk of ‘processes’. Thus Christians are involved with the world’s processes as they look forward to a coming kingdom, the future of the whole of creation and can only prepare for it by relating and being involved with other people: ‘For Christianity’s hope is not directed towards “another” world, but towards the world as it is changed in the kingdom of God.’ (1993; p164).

The crisis of modernity Moltmann sees that modernity has brought the world into a global crisis; ‘mankind is driving itself and the natural basis of its life towards destruction. Progress is beginning to devour itself’ (1993; p165). In the middle of this crisis, Christianity is not merely a system of ethics and morality designed to liberate people from destructive tendencies but of equal importance, claims Moltmann, is the presence of faith. Faith is required to help people regain their will to live, Christianity must demonstrate incarnation, seen in the passion for life and human existence, ‘so that the feeble “enjoyment” of life acquires the power to resist death, catastrophe and all the people who pursue them’ (1993; p166).

Faith is also required to demonstrate the power of hope. Past hope invested in the progress of humanity has returned only ‘fatalism, suicidal despair and nostalgia’ (1993; p166). Hope is required to overcome the destructive tendencies of this world in order to bring life back to it. Finally, a co-requisite of a renewed will to live and a power to hope is a rediscovery of the capacity for suffering. Moltmann accuses the West of trying to conquer suffering at the expense of increasing the suffering for other people: ‘The ideal of a life without suffering makes one group of people apathetic and brutal towards other groups, which are 21

supposed to pay the price.’ (1993; p167). Since there can only be a common future for humanity, the West needs to rediscover suffering because ‘it is only the dignity of solidarity in suffering which makes people capable of fellowship’ (1993; p167).

Economics The process of economics is a global shaper; world markets are no longer under the control of governments and inter-government institutions, money is the only ‘universal’ in contemporary society. Economics has redefined humanity as consisting of ‘labour and purchaser’ there are no other categories such as love, dignity, relationships because they are not quantifiable by money. So how can Christianity relate and dialogue with the economic processes of life? Moltmann sees a possible course: Firstly, by recognising there is no such entity as pure economics for, ‘Human needs, claims and values always run ahead of the economy; they are incorporated in its systems and bound up with its progress. The economy belongs within the context of a social ethic, and lives from it’ (1993; p170). Secondly, the values which have driven much of present-day economics are to do with market demand, but this demand has led to conflicts and catastrophes on a global scale and cannot be sustained: ‘The essential point is to end the race between demand and satisfaction (a race which cannot be won in any case), through a revaluation of values, so that we may seek for other satisfactions with changed desires’ (1993; p173). The way forward for this revaluation of values is the pursuit of social justice. Christianity should call for the readjustment of development from the rich industrialised nations in favour of the poorer ones. But what could motivate and drive such change? Moltmann sees that Christians should light the path to new values which replace the old ones: these are to be discovered in the global community and in the ‘symbiosis of people with people, nation with nation, and culture with culture’ where ideas of privilege are discarded (1993; p175). This equal participation and equal distribution of goods gives everyone a chance of survival. Such symbioses Moltmann claims, ‘are to be seen as corresponding to and anticipating the kingdom of God in history’ (1993; p176).

Political life The next process Moltmann considers Christianity’s relationship to is that of political life. A person relates to their community’s order through politics: ‘His participation in the 22

public processes of decision, which affect the whole community, are an indispensable part of his life and the dignity of his person’ (1993; p176). Thus the process of politics is a subject for human rights; political rule must be for and of the people, based on popular sovereignty and democracy. Against the background of changing political situations, Christianity has had difficulty setting and following its own social agenda, this has been particularly true when it has tried to be both independent yet participatory in political decisions. But Moltmann contends that the changing political process is not a reason for not engaging with it: ‘The political task of Christianity is not merely to live in an already existing political order, but actually to take part in forming it’ (1993; p178).

The plumbline for Christianity’s political task is to be the basic concept of Human Rights, founded on the principle that God has a right of liberating grace to each person. This right cannot be dominated or blocked by a fellow human being for that would result in a blockage of the Creator’s grace and purpose: ‘God’s image on earth is not a king. It is man as such’ (1993; p179).

Although much has been written about what constitutes human rights12 Moltmann highlights seven facets for consideration and political action (1993; pp179-181). (i) The Creator’s intent was that ‘man is not made for the state but the state for man’. (ii) Ruler and ruled must be identified together. (iii) People must be allowed to claim their human rights by first having economic rights to life, work and social security; the bible proclaims liberation from inequality of class and caste and looks to the concept of a single humanity (e.g. Isa. 40:5). (iv) The Christian tradition of hope in the Son of Man demands that human rights are established first and foremost amongst those who are the hungry and oppressed and deprived of these rights. (v) If human rights are substantiated through the justification of humanity by God, then it is not sufficient to stop there: ‘human duties must be formulated as well as human rights’. Included in this should be the ‘right and duty to resist illegitimate and illegal rule’ where necessary. (vi) Often human rights are seen as an individual’s rights together with the protective aspect of the state. These need to be expanded to fix the rights of the state (and with that the people it represents) in the context of the whole of humanity. ‘Solidarity in overcoming common economic and military crises

Moltmann (1993; p179) emphasises that these are not merely the derivative of English, American and French constitutional history but go back further to, amongst others, include: Mediterranean civilizations and biblical ideals e.g. the Garden of Eden. 23

must take priority over one’s own people, one’s own class or race or nation’. (vii) Finally, human rights are in process; they are neither a possession nor an ideal but are aids to true humanity and its unification in the common future.

Thus the ‘church for the world’ is not isolated but exists in relationship to Israel, the world religions and the processes that make up our modern world to service and direct it to the coming kingdom of God.

CHAPTER III

DEVELOPMENTS IN MOLTMANN’S PNEUMATOLOGY AND MODELS OF THE TRINITY

As we have already noted in Chapter I, Moltmann’s ecclesiology in the Church in the Power of the Spirit was developed from his ideas on God as Trinity breaking into history as firstly seeking love then as gathering love. Since the book’s publication in 1975, Moltmann’s understanding of the Trinity and particularly the person of the Holy Spirit has evolved through his subsequent writings13. His latest version is found in The Spirit of Life (1992) which is explored below before its implications for his ecclesiology are discussed in the next chapter.

Models of the Trinity Moltmann wishes to investigate models of the Trinity because he wants to work out a pneumatology that is derived not from human experience of the Spirit, but from his essential nature. Only the energies of the Spirit can be discerned from the actions of the Spirit; the Being or nature of the Spirit can only be perceived from his relationships to the other persons of the Trinity: ‘His trinitarian inter-subjectivity illuminates his subjectivity, because his subjectivity is constituted by his inter-subjectivity. In his trinitarian interpersonhood he is person, in that as person he stands over against the other persons, and as a person acts on them.’ (1992; pp289-90). The methodology he uses to investigate the Trinity draws on previous doctrines and ideas from both the Eastern and Western churches (1992; p290). He uses them as flexible frameworks and relates them to various movements in the trinitarian history of God, which allows him to break loose from dogmatic constraints that often accompany such doctrines. Moltmann also abandons previously unhelpful dualities e.g. patterns of essence revelation; being - act; immanent - economic, which can constrain thinking on the Trinity. Instead, he opts for a complementarity of ideas to surmount possible inadequacies (1992; p290), centred around the following concepts: the monarchial Trinity, the historical Trinity, the eucharistic Trinity and the social Trinity, which is exposed by the trinitarian doxology.

See, for example, the intermediary version in The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, pages 94-5 (Moltmann, 1981). 25

The monarchial Trinity Moltmann sees the development of the monarchial Trinity14 as a Western church concept to describe the economy of salvation rather than an attempt to describe trinitarian relationships. It starts from the self revelation of God and describes the movement from the Father through the Son and spreading out by the Spirit: ‘All activity proceeds from the Father, the Son is always its mediator and the Holy Spirit the mediation’ (1992; p291). This concept is also described as the ‘economic Trinity’ by other writers and for Moltmann, it must also be identical with the idea of the ‘immanent Trinity’ for, ‘if God is truth, then God corresponds to himself in revelation, thereby making his revelation dependable’ (1992; p291). The monarchial concept of Trinity, Father+Son+Spirit, limits our knowledge of God to his deeds, his self-revelation; we cannot use it to discern God’s very nature.

But the order Father+Son+Spirit, is by no means exclusive, Moltmann notes that we also encounter another order in our experience (1992; p293): God+Spirit+Word, for example, the healing and life-giving Spirit comes upon Christ at his baptism15. This variation allows us to indicate something about the relationships of the divine person: for Moltmann, the Father becomes the eternal origin of the sending of both the Spirit and the Son thus, ‘the economic Trinity always reveals merely an eternal Trinity which is already turned in commitment towards the world’ (1992; p294). This is an open Trinity, it is more than revelation, ‘He does not merely act on the world. He invites created being to act on him as well, and in this way he “experiences” his creation’ (1992; p295). It is at this point that the model begins to disintegrate for Moltmann, because it is uni-directional and cannot have creation influencing the Father against the flow of Father+Son+Spirit.

The Historical Trinity The historical concept of Trinity transposes the monarchial, vertical order into a horizontal temporal order of salvation history: the Father creates, the Son redeems and the Spirit

Moltmann’s use of the term ‘monarchial’ is confusing since it is normally associated with Arianism or Sabellianism. These Moltmann sees as monarchial monotheism and monarchial Trinity is a different, if not totally unrelated concept. 15

This anomaly is one of the reasons why Moltmann wants to reject the filioque addition to the Nicene creed (1992; pp290-294 & pp306-8) and thereby start to heal the rift between the Eastern and Western churches. 26

sanctifies. The whole movement is to the eschatological goal of the new creation in the new kingdom. This historical interpretation of the Trinity has its roots in Joachim of Fiore: of the age and order of the Father, giving way to the age and order of the Son, giving way to the age and order of the Spirit and thereby the fulfilment of salvation history (1992; p297). Critics of Joachim suggest he dissects the Trinity with his successive ages of Father, Son and Spirit. Moltmann argues that this is not the case in Joachim’s thinking; for example in the age of the Spirit, it is the Spirit who ‘illumines the world through the Son in the Father’ (1992; p297). Thus changes in the sequences of salvation history do not equate with the dissolution of the Trinity but rather, ‘the change of determining subjects in the sequence of works in the economy of salvation is a change within the Trinity’ (1992; p297). The change within the Trinity he sees as a successive assumption of the leadership as they work to the consummation of salvation history. These two concepts of Trinity mesh together for Moltmann by providing two dimensions: the monarchial Trinity describes what is happening synchronically i.e. at any particular instant in time, and the historical Trinity describes what is happening diachronically, i.e. through the whole of the time continuum.

The Eucharistic Trinity Moltmann sees the eucharistic concept of Trinity as the logical corollary of the monarchial model against which we shall often contrast it to gain a clearer understanding; it is about ‘grace arousing gratitude’ (1992; p298). The Trinity operates in the reverse of the monarchial form, and the movement becomes Spirit+Son+Father: Thanksgiving, praise and wonder arise out of and ‘proceed from the indwelling Spirit, all mediation takes place through the Son, and the Father is purely the recipient of the thanksgiving and songs of praise of his creatures’ (1992; p298). God’s being is therefore associated not with his works as such, but his receptivity of us. Whereas the monarchial Trinity’s Sitz im Leben is in the sending, this model of Trinity is found in the celebration of the eucharist, particularly that concept of eucharist developed by the Orthodox churches: ‘whose centre is the celebration of the eucharist, and whose desire is to present themselves with the liturgy as the true public adoration of God’ (1992; p298). The eucharistic concept must follow the monarchial concept: ‘without charis there is no eucharistia’ (1992; p298) and Moltmann sees it as the monarchial form arriving at its goal, its sabbath rest, when salvation history arrives at the eternal sabbath in the kingdom of glory (1992; p299).

Thus if the monarchial form is about the Trinity in the sending, open and vulnerable, then the eucharistic form, for Moltmann, is about the joy of God in the homecoming of those who are his, as Athanasius said on the incarnation, ‘God became human so that human beings should become deified’. These movements of the Trinity are seen in the divine katabasis and the human anabasis. This description is obviously the development of Moltmann’s trinitarian history of God which we have already examined in Chapter I, the monarchial Trinity is equivalent to the Trinity in the origin and the eucharistic Trinity is the Trinity in the glorification, the two sides of salvation history ‘which comes “from God” and leads “to God”.’ (1992; p300).

A further point needs to be raised about what we can know about God and the eucharistic concept. If the monarchial concept of Trinity can tell us something about God’s identity from revelation, then the eucharistic concept says something about the transcendent nature of God. Our attempts of praise and thanksgiving are impaired argues Moltmann, they are more akin to Psalm 137’s ‘song in a foreign land’ (1992; p300). When the Trinity arrives at the glorification then, ‘the immediate sensory nearness of God will make superfluous all the images, symbols and parables which we construct for ourselves in the foreign land, in order to bridge the distance.’ (1992; p301) The Trinitarian Doxology The concept of Trinity arising from the trinitarian doxology is Moltmann’s key discovery and focus for his later work. As he was able to use the ‘trinitarian history of God’s dealings with the world’ as a foundation for his earlier ecclesiology, so his trinitarian doxology opens new avenues for thought for it leads the trinitarian analysis on, from the above three concepts, into another dimension. Its origins claims Moltmann (1992; p301) are in the Nicene Creed where the Spirit is spoken of as ‘who with the Father and Son together is worshipped and glorified’ with the consequence that, ‘Anyone who is glorified “together with” others cannot be subordinated to these others. He is their equal. “Worship and glorification” go beyond the salvation that has been experienced and the thanksgiving that has been expressed. The triune God is worshipped and glorified for his own sake’. (1992; p301). The doxology is a movement into another dimension because it goes beyond the normal salvation-history, or economic, axis to what Moltmann describes as the ‘eternal essence

of God himself’ (1992; p302) thus it is the Sitz im Leben for the concept of immanent Trinity.

We can arrive at this trinitarian doxology quite simply, argues Moltmann on a ‘ladder of love’ (1992; p302): In human terms, it is akin to a lover giving the beloved gifts. The beloved in turn is thankful for the gifts but more than that, is thankful for the hand that gave them. It does not stop there, the beloved moves on to consider the loving face, and the heart that beats for him. ‘But then the beloved forgets everything he has received, and everything that is related to himself, and marvels over his counterpart for her own sake’. Thus love is no longer about eros or objects or gifts but is drawn deeper into the pure source of that love such that the peripherals begin to vanish. When this happens in our wonder and adoration of God, then the eucharistic Trinity changes into the trinitarian doxology: the worshipper marvels over the origin, self love ceases and, ‘He sees God as he really is, and no longer merely as he is for him, the created and beloved human being... ...thanksgiving is transformed into prayer, faith into sight and self-concern is lost in selfless astonishment’ (1992; p302). At this point, Moltmann concludes (1992; p302) that ‘God is wholly present, and present as himself’: God is immanent. But this seeing of God’s glory as we have argued above is the goal of salvation history, the goal of the eucharistic Trinity, which emphasises the transcendent nature of God. Since we are in the midst of salvation history, how can we start to talk of reaching its goal and this doxology when it is not yet at the end?

The answer to this, claims Moltmann, is that the trinitarian doxology interrupts our liturgy in which we remember the past and await the future consummation by directing our senses to the eternal present: ‘The doxology brings unutterable points of rest into the liturgical drama. Before the God who is “for ever and ever”, the things which concern us become petty. Even God’s own works and God’s salvation history recede behind God’s eternal being’ (1992; p303). At the trinitarian doxology, the movement of God is no longer linear i.e. sending or gathering as in the monarchial and eucharistic concepts but circular. As the Spirit is worshipped and glorified together with the Father and the Son, it occurs simultaneously16,

Moltmann translates the relevant part of the Nicene Creed as: ‘..the Holy Spirit together with the Father and Son is at the same time (simul) worshipped and glorified’ (1992; p304). 29

and he can no longer be merely the third person in the Trinity but rather the Trinity now exists in circumincessant fellowship; ‘this is now the self-circling and self-reposing movement of perichoresis’ (1992; p304). In human doxology, the Trinity is an unfathomable mystery, ‘an inexhaustible source of always wider and deeper wonderment’ (1992; p304). We cannot dissect this wonderment into God’s accessible energies and his inaccessible essence - to do this for Moltmann, is to fall into the trap of Western Christianity since Augustine of wanting to always distinguish between act and person. Instead he wishes to describe it as seeing God face to face: ‘Here we would interpret it by saying that God’s countenance emerges from its hiddenness and begins to “shine”, as the Aaronic benediction says.’ (1992; p304). The emergence of God’s countenance in this way allows people to become ‘clear and comprehensible to themselves and to each other’ (1992; p305). This is important because in the doxology as God is worshipped for his own sake, and humanity begins to see God face to face, then Moltmann sees the Trinity coming to rest in the eternal glory, where it reposes itself, ‘so that it is perceived by human beings in its eternal presence as eternal counterpart’ (1992; p305). Thus the doxology allows a person in their self-forgetfulness to become a part of the worshipped and adored counterpart and enter into God; ‘Adoration and worship are the ways in which created beings participate in the eternal life and eternal joy of God, and are drawn into the circular movements of the divine relationships.’ (1992; p305). The perichoretic unity and fellowship of the Trinity, which is exposed by the trinitarian doxology, show the divine Persons “ek-sisting” with one another, for one another and in one another. This essential nature of God as community is what true human community should be characterised by and provides the direction for Moltmann’s practical outworking of this concept which is explored in the following chapter. But first, having described Moltmann’s pneumatology and models for the Trinity, we must consider their validity and others’ response to his thinking.

Critiques of Moltmann’s concepts of Trinity Mackey Mackey, considers that the development of the classical doctrines of the Trinity based on self-differentiation and metaphors from Scripture have led to the suspicion that we have no real Trinity at all;

‘It has disappeared in one direction into the ineffable mystery of the divine being and, in the other direction, into the insubstantial realm of authorized linguistic formulae.’(1983; p202). The development17 of the social Trinity concept allows us to escape from the consequences of Trinities based around Supreme Substance or Absolute Essence, both of which have their logical conclusions in an abstract monotheism or a modalistic monotheism respectively (Mackey, 1983; p203). Rather, Moltmann’s social Trinity, exemplified in the trinitarian doxology, arises from two strands: firstly from his ideas of the suffering God where God’s passionate involvement with the world implies a self-differentiation in God himself; and secondly from a variety of assumptions and implications. It is this second strand which Mackey has most problems with.

Firstly, Moltmann is criticised for the assumption that Christian theology must have a Trinity and he treats it as an established case. There is an important difference between the two, claims Mackey, which is illustrated by his example; ‘one may begin to mistake human academic creations for divine revelation itself, or at least for such necessary and essential expressions of that revelation that the distinction between them and revelation must be difficult to perceive and maintain.’ (1983; p205). Moltmann’s second assumption is that the social nature of the Trinity is found in Scripture. But Mackey has difficulty with Moltmann’s ‘hasty exegesis’ of texts concerning Son and Spirit and furthermore, why should the Trinity exist as a social grouping of three individuals in an analogous way to human social groupings? Mackey’s final critique of Moltmann is that he goes in search of a social Trinity because of his interest in practical preaching and behaviour towards the oppressed of the world. Could this quest still be maintained on other theological grounds? (1983; p206).

Once these assumptions are granted, then Mackey sees his trinitarian theology as being valid, indeed, it possesses a number of advantages. It offers solutions to familiar problems, in particular it gives a flexibility to dealing with the Scriptures on Father, Son and Spirit when we consider them as subjects-in-relation. The idea of the divine unity-in-trinity is a constructive way of avoiding the self-differentiation of the persons in the Trinity which so many models have fallen prone to. Thus ‘in an analogous manner, the Three are a society 17

Mackey sees Moltmann as an exemplar not originator of this model of Trinity: others have written in this vein before him and it also appears to be the ‘full and real truth towards which trinitarian theology has always been striving’ (1983; p203). 31

(one) and they are yet (distinct) persons by one and the same process’ (Mackey, 1983; p207) as we ourselves experience both ‘being-in-society’ and ‘being a person’. What impresses Mackey is that this is no new innovation per se, but is rooted in the tradition of perichoresis, the mutual indwelling and involvement in and with each other.

Bauckham By contrast to Mackey’s enthusiasm for Moltmann’s social Trinity, Bauckham is concerned over what this model implies for our understanding of the Spirit’s role (1995; p162). For Moltmann, the unity of God is described in terms of perichoresis, which is open for the inclusion of creation and uniting of all things in God, ‘God will be all in all’ (1 Cor. 15:24). Yet this reunification is viewed by Moltmann as a special role of the Spirit, so how can the perichoretic view of Trinity relate to this?

If we are to reflect the divine community in their perichoretic relationships, we can easily comprehend a relationship between Father and Son but what are we to make of the relationship between the Father or Son and the Spirit? Bauckham exposes the problem, ‘it is difficult to give any content whatever to the distinctiveness of the Spirit in relation to the other two, since all the biblical and traditional language about the Spirit characterize him impersonally: as power, water, breath, fire, and so on.’ (1995; p163). As we have already noticed above, Moltmann’s answer to this is that we can experience the Spirit’s specific personhood as ‘presence and counterpart’ (1992; p285ff). This is not enough for Bauckham who wonders that if ‘presence and counterpart’ arises from the experience of love between persons, how can this distinguish the Spirit from the Son and the Father? We cannot therefore use this idea of trinitarian fellowship as our model, viewing it from the outside. Instead we must enter into this fellowship where we can then experience the Spirit’s relationship to the Father and to the Son, ‘as our own relationship to the Father and the Son’ (Bauckham, 1995; p163).

The mistake Moltmann has made in this later understanding of Trinity, believes Bauckham, has been to separate the Trinity as it is in itself from the trinitarian history of God with the world which was the plumbline for his earlier thinking. He has arrived at this cul-de-sac by his wish to make the Trinity a model for human life, and not paying adequate attention to the tradition’s concept of the trinitarian image of God in humanity (Bauckham,

1995; p164). This dichotomy can be resolved elsewhere in Moltmann’s own work; for, ‘In the Spirit God dwells in man himself’ (1981; p104). Thus there lies the corrective thrust such that, ‘the human fellowship which the Spirit, through his indwelling, creates cannot be an image of the Trinity as it is in itself apart from us, but it is a participation in the Trinity’s history with us.’ (Bauckham, 1995; p164). This critique of Bauckham’s is most valuable, for although Moltmann does not set out to supersede the monarchial and eucharistic concepts of Trinity, but wishes to gather a ‘complementarity of ideas’ (1992; p290) he nonetheless fails to demonstrate the complementarity of the models. If anything, he shows in the trinitarian doxology that our relationship to the Trinity is totally different from that constituted by salvation-history. It appears that ‘from the act of glorifying the Spirit together with the Father and the Son can be deduced a different and superior relationship to the Trinity from that in which we stand when, in the Spirit, we glorify the Father through the Son’ (Bauckham, 1995; p164). Furthermore, the whole basis on which Moltmann has built, the trinitarian doxology, is questionable for Bauckham: since it is not scriptural, but used by the Cappadocians to recognise the coequal deity of the three Persons, a doctrine they thought implicit in scripture, not to establish a doctrine without scriptural support (1995; p165).

In response to Bauckham’s concern over the being of the social Trinity separated from the salvation-history continuum, I would want to ask why should this be a problem? in trying to keep the Trinity to salvation-history, are we not also missing out on the wider picture of the Trinity for the sake of keeping the picture simple? A further concern of Bauckham’s is one I must concur with: he notes a tendency in this later work of Moltmann’s towards ‘undisciplined speculation... ...closely linked to a degree of hermeneutical responsibility’ (1995; p167). With these potential problems in mind, we will now proceed with examining in the next chapter what implications the social trinity, derived from the trinitarian doxology has for ecclesiology.

CHAPTER IV

NEW ASPECTS FOR ECCLESIOLOGY

In The Church in the Power of the Spirit, Moltmann’s keywords, derived from God’s trinitarian history with the world, in working out his ecclesiology, were relationality and openness. Although he has not since produced another full treatise on ecclesiology, there are exhortations and implications for ecclesiology in the third part of The Spirit of Life. In this work, we have already seen changes in his ideas on Trinity above, and Moltmann uses other keywords for his discussion; ‘the fellowship of the Holy Spirit’.

The Fellowship of the Holy Spirit Moltmann sees fellowship as a special gift of the Spirit, grace is ascribed to Christ and love to the Father, but fellowship is what the Spirit imparts (II Cor. 13:13). ‘In his “fellowship” the Spirit evidently gives himself. He himself enters into the fellowship with believers and draws them into his fellowship.’ (1992; p217). Fellowship, Moltmann asserts, has to do with freedom, choice and relationships; it is about reciprocal participation and mutual recognition. It can exist between those who are similar and also between those who are dissimilar (1992; p217-218). But what about fellowship with God, can the same still apply? It all seems to depend on your view of Spirit and Trinity.

Unitarian concept of fellowship German theological tradition, as represented by Schleiermacher, talked about the Spirit as the ‘common spirit’ by which he meant ‘exactly what we mean in any earthly system of government, namely the common bent found in all who constitute together a moral personality to seek the advancement of this whole’ (Schleiermacher cited in Moltmann, 1992; p222). Thus for those who are in Christ, the Spirit is the inner impulse to cooperation and thereby fellowship between all humanity. But Moltmann notes three errors with this schema:

Firstly, Schleiermacher thinks of the Spirit as merely the union of the divine essence with human nature, and fails to appreciate him as one Person in the divine essence. Secondly, he too narrowly associates the Spirit as the Spirit of Christ and does not distinguish between the Spirit of the Father or of the Son. In this way, fellowship would only seem possible with the redeemer and not the whole of creation with its Creator. Finally, he is 34

forced into devising a two natures doctrine of the Spirit; ‘the divine essence in the union as that which is permanent, and the human nature as that which is mutable’ Thus the Spirit is derived from the one ‘undifferentiated divine essence’ and ‘union’ must be thought of in simplistic terms with the result of a unitarian concept of community (Moltmann, 1992; p223) where there is a ‘one-sided stress on the love that binds, over against the freedom that differentiates (1992; p224). In human terms therefore, the ‘common spirit’ makes humans into mere constituents of ‘fellowship’, thereby depriving individuals of their personhood. What is required is an understanding of the Spirit that allows fellowship to contain both socialization and personalization. Without this, is it possible for true fellowship to exist?

The trinitarian concept of fellowship It is against Schleiermacher’s unitarian concept of fellowship that Moltmann’s trinitarian concept of fellowship stands out in sharp relief: Its origins are in the social Trinity exposed by the trinitarian doxology, in the perichoretic unity of Father, Son and Spirit. The fellowship of the Holy Spirit then suggests that, ‘God the Spirit evidently enters into a relationship of reciprocity and mutuality with the people concerned and - in line with this - allows these people to exert an influence on him, just as he exerts an influence on them’ (Moltmann, 1992; p218). This concept, then, of fellowship has the advantage over Schleiermacher’s in that it allows those who enter into the fellowship to be recognizable as individuals within; it is a community of persons rather than the unitarian community of essence. Secondly this type of reciprocal fellowship also allows the Spirit into the communities throughout creation. This is important for Moltmann because, ‘The experience of sociality is the experience of life, for all life consists of the reciprocal exchange of foodstuffs and energy, and in mutual participation. There is no life without its specific social relationships. Isolated life without relation...is a contradiction in itself. It is incapable of living and dies...’ (1992; p219). Thus the fellowship of the Holy Spirit is seen as life-giving because he gives life by bringing into existence communities. Communities of life can therefore be in community with God’s life-giving Spirit. It appears to be a creation ordinance where all beings exist not for themselves but are alive for one another ‘life is always symbiosis’. Furthermore, the ‘richer and more complex the communicative relationships between human beings and living things become, the more vitally and abundant life unfolds’ (1992; p219). I would 35

wish to sound a note of caution to this: not all communities are symbiotic. For instance the community of life gathered around an African lake is better described as predator and prey than any symbiotic relationship! Perhaps I have misunderstood the term ‘community’ in all of this, but it seems a starting premise was that fellowship does not have to be of that which is similar (1992; p218).

The trinitarian concept of fellowship actually envisages diversity in unity: creating community means not only uniting what is different but also differentiating the whole. Standardization reduces communities to the lowest common denominator, ‘True community is different. It opens up individual potentialities in the greatest given diversity’ (Moltmann, 1992; p220). The fellowship of the Holy Spirit is about love and freedom:‘Love confers that which is held in common, freedom opens up the scope of what is individual and singular’ both aspects are required for, ‘Without freedom, love crushes the diversity of what is individual; without love, freedom destroys what is shared and binds us together’ (1992; p220). Experience of God from the fellowship of the Holy Spirit must go beyond the Augustinian trait of ‘The person who knows God knows himself’; knowing our neighbour, claims Moltmann, and experiencing their affection, we experience God. ‘From one another, with one another, and in one another human beings discover that mirror of the Godhead which is called imago Dei, and which is in actual truth imago Trinitatis.’ (1992; p221). This experience of God has a further dimension for Moltmann. Not only does our experience of God reach beyond ourselves to experience of sociality but beyond that to experience of nature. Because the ‘Spirit is Creator and New Creator of all things’ (1992; p221). In this way, experience of nature is a constitutive part of all our experience, of self, others and the Godhead.

Fellowship as process Moltmann takes this last point and wants to include in our discussions the communities found in nature for in doing so, we can begin to get a full understanding of the fellowship of the Spirit, ‘for all human communities are embedded in the ecosystems of natural communities’ (1992; p225). He goes on to assert that, ‘to form community is the life principle of created beings’ thus we need to talk of the ‘community of creation’. Indeed the goal of evolution is community when we consider the following parts coming together to produce something new: elementary particles û atoms û molecule û macro-molecular 36

cell û multicellular organism û living organism û organism populations û living thing ûanimal û transitional field from animal to human being û human beings û human populations û community of humanity û... In this way, the whole is always more than the sum of the parts which have come together to form it (1992; p226). I am a little cautious of this approach to find the ‘community of creation’ since Moltmann appears to be somewhat anthropomorphic in his dealings with nature in this way. For example, how can we truly have a ‘community’ of atoms in molecular structures when the structure has been catalytically induced or, even worse, is the byproduct of some other reaction or process? The argument holds true if we start from humanity and work in a reductionist manner towards elementary particles, but is not always valid when done in the above opposite direction.

Again the principle that you do not require uniformity to create community applies, because this evolutionary schema shows that community creates a richer variety of examples and species and for ‘every new reality the scope of what is possible increases’ (1992; p226). More important than this biodiversity for Moltmann, is the actual dynamic of the life process: which is the creative Spirit of the Godhead who ‘transcends all the beings it creates, and even its own created energies’ (1992; p227). Thus the Spirit is both transcendent and immanent and Moltmann sees the temporal rhythms of life vibrating between the two (1992; p227). Rhythms are the pulse of living creatures, of whole ecosystems and not just individuals; rhythm ‘creates those accords and harmonies between the living things and their world which are necessary if they are to live’ (1992; p228).

The Spirit is therefore able to link human individual consciousness with all these arenas of fellowship such that it becomes possible to expand ‘individual consciousness into social consciousness, human consciousness into ecological consciousness and earthly consciousness into cosmic consciousness’ (1992; p229) thereby leading the world into new and richer forms of community.

This expansion of the fellowship of the Spirit into the realm of nature is an important message for churches today. The Church has often aligned itself with the oppressed and Moltmann here demonstrates why the Church’s horizon needs expanding to include ecological concerns, ‘There are trends and laws in the major project “modern society” which are going to end in ecological death for humanity and most other living things, through a 37

progressive destruction of the environment, both the atmosphere and the earth. The facts are plain: the deserts are spreading, the forests are shrinking, the greenhouse effect is on the increase, the ozone hole is getting bigger and bigger.’ (1992; p139). Churches need awakening to this ecological dimension and start driving ecological debates instead of trying to formulate responses to New Age creation spiritualities. Failing to do so is sheer escapism, claims Moltmann: ‘Faced with “the end of nature”, the churches will either discover the cosmic significance of Christ and the Spirit, or they will share the guilt for the annihilation of God’s earthly creation.’ (1992; p10).

The Church and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit The Church is important for the fellowship of the Holy Spirit because in its community with Christ, it becomes the place for the coming of the Spirit. There, he not only fills the Church but ‘takes us beyond its frontiers’ as the messianic hope goes, ‘the Holy Spirit is to be “poured out on all flesh”.’ (Moltmann, 1992; p230). However, the church has no monopoly on the Holy Spirit, neither is he tethered to the church: ‘The Spirit is not concerned about the church as such. He is concerned with the church as he is with Israel, for the sake of the kingdom of God, the rebirth of life and the new creation of all things’ (1992; p230). The church therefore relates to the Spirit through epiclesis, the invocation of the Spirit and the ‘unconditional opening for the experiences of the Spirit who confers fellowship and makes life truly living’ (1992; p230).

Epiclesis A consequence of epiclesis for the church is that it should also be invigorated by the Spirit’s work in the world outside the church amongst other life-furthering communities. The church therefore exists in a symbiotic relationship with such natural and voluntary communities. The church is able to get new ideas from outside, for example ecological pressure groups have made the church develop its ‘green theology’, and the people outside the church can gain impulses from the life of the church, for example, we might sight the role of testimony in self help groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous. The church must therefore shy away from thinking of itself as ‘prototype and example’ (Moltmann, 1992; p231) as it seeks to explore this wider fellowship of the Spirit.

There is a concern which arises over Moltmann’s ideas of church, partly relating to what he has said previously where the church is but an element in the trinitarian history of God with the world18, and also relating to what constitutes the fellowship of the Holy Spirit above. Does Moltmann need a church in his ecclesiology, or are its boundaries so diffuse that there are none? Related to this concern and the relationship of the church to the Spirit through the epiclesis, is one from Stibbe (1994); ‘If the Spirit of God is active in creation, is he already present, or only when people invoke his presence?’ If, as so often Moltmann says, the Spirit is present within creation as its life force, then is the epiclesis superfluous and thus the church redundant?

By way of reply to some of this, Moltmann does require the Church: ‘There is certainly a line drawn between Christians and non-Christians through baptism and membership of the church’ (1992; p231). Furthermore the church is required to be in this ‘complex web of life’s relationships’ not so much an example but rather to share the redeeming experiences of the fellowship of Christ and the liberating experiences of the Holy Spirit, that is to say, the ‘assurance of the fellowship of God (sacramentum)’ with humanity (1992; p231). In response to the question of epiclesis, Moltmann would probably wish to ask whose benefit is the epiclesis for? the church or the Spirit himself? This problem only arises because of the distortion put on the church; whereby the Orthodox idea of church as epiclesis is not balanced by the Protestant emphasis of the church as being rooted in the Word. These two aspects are required to complement one another, as Irenaeus put it, Word and Spirit are the two hands of the Father (Moltmann, 1992; p233).

The gathering and sending of Christians For those who find themselves in the presence of the Spirit, Moltmann finds that there are two movements which follow (1992; p234): (i) The gathering of Christians in the church, and (ii) The sending out of the Church of Christians into the world. The first movement, that of the gathered congregation has been dealt with extensively in Chapter II (see page 10) where we noted themes such as leadership, worship and friendship of the ‘mature and responsible congregation’. The second movement, that of moving out of the church in mission, Moltmann expands: ‘The meaning and scope of the church is not exhausted when people become “churchgoers”. Nor does it exist merely in worship on Sunday mornings. It is

See the above section on ‘The Church for the World’ on page 18 39

present among Christians in their worldly contexts - in families, socially and politically.’ (1992; p234). ‘The Laity’ are actually the experts, those who are commissioned and authorized in the processes of the world. The pursuit of such vocations in society is just as important as the gathering of the congregation on Sundays. The present-day church, attempting reform ‘from below’ perhaps needs to hear this more than ever, as models of every-member ministry and the priesthood of all believers focus too much attention to the time of gathering on Sundays without due attention to the rest of the congregations life. ‘People would be forgetting their individual and special callings and endowments if they were to identify their Christian existence with their membership of the church.’ (Moltmann, 1992; p235). Rather, the gathering serves the sending, and the sending leads into the full fellowship of the Holy Spirit, for in the sending, issues of injustice, violence, nuclear and ecological disaster are very near at hand.

With this emphasis on gathering and sending, Moltmann revisits models of church and calls for us to give up the pastoral church, which aims to take care of people, and ‘call to life a Christian “Community Church”.’(1992; p235). Churches are beginning to see this shift occur from non-voluntary membership (e.g. that associated with national, established churches) to personal and voluntary commitment. The corollary of this shift is that personal relationships and natural communities will become more important, for example we tend to know our work colleagues at the factory we commute to more than our neighbours who live just next door. The future community of the church will also need to be related to these other communities; the old parish church with its parish boundaries suddenly looks an embarrassing relic. We turn now to look at what these para-church communities might be composed of.

The community of the generations Moltmann notes that modern ecclesiologies see church as consisting of a collection of single individuals whereas in reality, it is made up of grandparents, parents, children and sisters and brothers: ‘the Church is made up of bodily people’(1992; p236). This rather poor individualistic perspective has arisen out of modern industrial society, with the disintegration of the extended family for the sake of mobility. the church has played a part in dividing the generations by turning the parent - child relationship into one of brother sister. The result of this he claims, is more pastoral problems; ‘many personal and marital 40

problems go back to generation conflicts which have been suppressed — father - son complexes, for example and unresolved mother - fixations’ (1992; p237).

Imbalances can occur within Christian congregations where the accepted life-style is that of the older generation which remains closed to the life-style of younger people. So Christian sociality needs to work at the sociality between the generations: ‘it requires one generation to withdraw, in order to give scope to the coming generations’ (1992; p237). Communities across the generations can only truly be built up by the different generations going hand and hand in trust. This community in time is for mutual understanding and help, ‘they can come to understand from the others who they themselves were, and who they are going to be, and so that they can see the possibilities they lived with, and the possibilities that are going to offer themselves in the future.’ (1992; p237). As far as Moltmann is concerned, the ‘homogenous unit principle’ of church growth theory19 does not generate Christian community: that can only start when those who are different come together and participate in each other’s life.

Community between women and men In the Preface to the 1993 edition of the Church in the Power of the Spirit, Moltmann recognised that in the book, he had failed to discuss the new community of women and men in the community of Christ (1993; p xv). In The Spirit of Life, this community is of great importance for those in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. It is important not so much as a question of church politics or ethics, but as a question of faith; ‘about the experience of the Spirit in the community of Christ’ (1992; p239). Taking his bearings from Joel 2:2830, Moltmann sees that the promise of the Spirit is ‘for all flesh’ and ‘your sons and daughters will prophesy’. Thus in the ‘kingdom of the Spirit, everyone will experience his or her own endowment and all will experience the new fellowship together’ (1992; p239).

The church down the ages has, however, suppressed the generation of this new community, and as a consequence of this, the Spirit’s outpouring. Firstly, notes Moltmann, there have been some theologians who have transferred the model of a hierarchically structured church firstly to marriage, then to the position of women in general. It derives from monarchial monotheism; ‘one God - one Christ - one pope - one bishop - one Church’. The

See the valuable introduction and discussion of this topic in Wagner, (1981) and his chapter entitled ‘The Homogeneous Unit Principle as an Ethical Issue’ p166 ff. 41

man becomes the monarch in marriage and assumes a God-given leadership with the woman subordinate and subservient to him. This thinking is Roman (post-Constantine) and certainly not Christian, leading to the anomaly that, ‘women have been excluded from the priestly ministry, although baptism has made them just as much bearers of the Spirit as baptized men.’ (1992; p240).

The second form of suppression arose out the Christocentric ecclesiologies of Protestant theology: Using I Cor 11, the following is arrived at; God is ‘the head’ of Christ, Christ is ‘the head’ of the Church, in the same way, man is ‘the head’ of woman. Thus the relationship between Christ and the Church is transposed to men and women. As above, this model logically leads to the exclusion of women from ‘spiritual office’ with the same anomaly that they are still seen as spiritual through baptism and have received the Spirit as much as men. (1992; p240).

The problem with these ecclesiologies for Moltmann, is that they suppress any further outpouring and experience of the Spirit and repress the event of Pentecost. These notions fail because they are clerical and, ‘because they transfer conditions in the church to family and social relationships between men and women in secular society, and are ready to make the “antiChristian spirit of the age” responsible for the protests which consequently arise.’ (1992; p240). To rectify this, Moltmann proposes an alternative method, which has the benefit of not being tied to socio-political ideologies as in the above examples. Thus it avoids any accusation that Moltmann is pandering to the spirit of the age and constructing a feminist ecclesiology. He wants to start from the Christian experience of Pentecost which leads to a pneumatological concept of church. There is one Spirit and many gifts; ‘Everyone concerned, whether man or woman, is endowed and committed through his or her calling, wherever he or she is, and whatever he or she is.’ (1992; p240). But it does not stop here for Moltmann, since the Spirit is poured out ‘on all flesh’, the outpouring must therefore go beyond ‘ecclesiastical flesh’ into ‘cultural experiences and movements’ to ‘Whatever accords with the fulfilment of the Joel promise in church and culture is the operation of the Spirit.’ (1992; p241). Thus the feminist movement is included with Christianity in the eschatological experience of the Spirit to bring them into a ‘mutually fruitful relationship’. Christianity can learn from feminism that its patriarchy and suppression of women’s gifts are sins against the Holy Spirit, and feminism can learn from Christianity that it is not 42

merely a question of women’s rights, but a matter of the ‘rebirth of all the living.’ (1992; p241). The resultant liberation is also for men: ‘men will be liberated from the dominating role which isolates them from life and alienates them from themselves, freed for their true humanity, their own charismata, and for a community with women on all levels in society and the church, a community which will further life.’ (1992; p241). Action groups In his earlier ecclesiology, Moltmann saw the church as one element in the trinitarian history of God with the world, as everything moved to the eschaton (see the section on The Church for the World above on page 18). The question arises with the development of his concept of the social Trinity, how does this affect the relation of the church to these ‘other elements’? The answer would appear to be very little, if anything; Moltmann’s discussion brings these elements closer together as they all are operating within the horizon of the kingdom of God, the previous talk of ‘processes’ gives way to talk of community: ‘There are apparently two ways of access to the community of Christ. On the one hand through faith in Christ mediated through Word, sacrament and fellowship; on the other hand through shared work for the kingdom of God, for the sake of which the church of Christ is there S work in groups for political action and social self help, and in diaconal, or charitable, concerns.’ (1992; p242). Action groups arise from the response of people to pressure from external needs and concerns such as the environment, and issues of peace, justice and global equality. Moltmann notes that such groups are ‘seldom identical with traditional circles in the Christian congregations.’ (1992’ p241), but may well include Christians as well as nonChristians amongst their ranks. Such groups are cemented together by their common concern and their common action. They are brought near to congregations through their respect for Christian values for example, ‘the closeness...between the Sermon on the Mount and peace politics, between reverence for life and the integrity of nature, between justice and politics affecting the third world.’ (Moltmann, 1992; p242). However, they do not want to be evangelised and brought into the fullness of the Christian faith. This can create tensions where congregations see their faith becoming politicized and aligned with groups whose values they do not necessarily share totally. This is evident today in the gay rights groups; many in the church would wish to see the rights of these people protected but perhaps would not wish to endorse the associated sexual behaviour.

The churches and action groups can reasonably come together in community as found in the fellowship of the life-creating Spirit which ‘descends on all flesh and brings all those who love life into conflict with the destructive forces of death.’ (1992; p242). In this new community, each can again learn from the other: Christians are reminded not to be complacent and groups can have their concerns broadened so they do not become introspectively impotent.

Self-help groups Self-help groups, in contrast to action groups come together because of some personally suffered distress, such as HIV infection, alcoholism, bereavement, surviving sexual abuse etc. A common feature of many such groups is that its members are considered outside the social norm; they are often the subject of intense social prejudice and are treated as social lepers (Moltmann, 1992; p243). The church has often failed such groups in the past by encouraging groups to meet without a concomitant urge to get the ‘other party’ together for their own help. For example, it is not only the HIV infected who need a group, but those who, through fear of infection, wish to ‘drive the infected into “social death”.’ (1992; p244).

The churches need to recognise the important place of the self-help groups where there can be ‘mutual consolation of the brethren’; in these groups, people can be themselves and talk frankly about what they are experiencing and feel because the others in the group are going through exactly the same process. For Moltmann, the church has a central role; ‘The Christian church is Christian when it creates free spaces for the self-help groups on both sides, and when it brings the two together for discussion, so that people learn to live together with “the others”.’ (1992; p245). The church’s model for this is Christ and the ‘way he encountered the “lepers”, in the trust with which the humiliated and insulted approached him, and in the healings which came about in his vicinity.’ (Moltmann, 1992; p245). The gospels show a Christ who reached out beyond the circle of disciples to the poor, rejected and despised, that was where the Spirit of life was at work. So he concludes, ‘That is why the fellowship of the Spirit must be sought at the place where distressed people seek and experience the nearness of Jesus.’ (1992; p245).

The formation of community of the congregation with action groups and self-help groups is important for the mission of the church. As we have noted, such groups above are selfselected groups of like individuals, whereas the local congregation, gathering together primarily for worship ‘think differently about justice, peace and the integrity of creation S or who do not think about them at all.’(Moltmann, 1992; p246). Moltmann suggests that in the process of forming this new community, the congregation will cease to merely be a fellowship for worship but become a fellowship for shared life; ‘for then the various members of the congregation will see their social, economic and political conflicts in their local context and will talk about them, so that they can help one another and find joint answers.’ (1992; p246).

This suggestion is more important than the space Moltmann gives to it because he actually begins to spell out his strategy for the mission of the church. Elsewhere he talks of church only existing in mission (1993; p84), and the job of the laity is to engage with the processes of the world (1992; p235) but he never elaborates on how this might be achieved. Here, we can see the stepping stone from the local congregation to the process of mission to the world: that of the role of external groups. Practically speaking for example, one can see the benefits of getting a group in to talk and run a course about racism awareness rather than preaching yet another sermon on ‘loving one’s neighbour’. Such awareness can then help Christians to take their biblical background into the racist conflicts they come into conflict with in their neighbourhoods or places of work.

The wider church context Communities are not necessarily always local and neither is the church claims Moltmann, ‘It is important for Christianity not to stick fast in narrow local contexts, and for it to be present in the contemporary processes which are moving towards community in Europe, America, Asia and Africa.’ (1992; p247). This presence can only occur where the church has strong ecumenical contacts or are part of supra-national ecumenical communities. This is particularly important when we consider the political processes in the third world, where often, the wider church is present as a ‘non-governmental organisation’.

Nations coming together to form communities must do so on a federalist basis claims Moltmann (1992; p247) for, ‘the centralist state no longer functions, because it suppresses individual initiative and paralyses liberty’. Hierarchical concepts of church therefore would 45

seem anachronistic in these new communities and the church ought to distance itself from its traditional ‘feudalist’ forms and embrace ecclesiological structures based on community. In the age of the ‘global village’, Moltmann encourages churches to enter into their ‘ecumenical age’ leaving their denominational conflicts behind because only a common mind and purpose meet the impending global crises. The way to do this is by actively participating in the fellowship of the Spirit by re-orientating to the horizon of the kingdom of God: ‘Only then can the churches take the step which today is the most important step of all: to see themselves not merely as a church of human beings but as a church of the cosmos, and to perceive that the social and ecological crises in the world are crises in their own life too.’ (Moltmann, 1992; p248).

CHAPTER V SOME CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS OF MOLTMANN’S ECCLESIOLOGY Further considerations of the ecclesiology Before offering any concluding assessment of Moltmann’s ecclesiology, it is important to examine some of the omissions in his otherwise comprehensive treatise. In response to similar critiques of his work in the Spirit of Life, Moltmann (1994) has said that what is not there can readily be found in The Church in the Power of the Spirit. The following topics were not that obvious or only barely dealt with in either account of his ecclesiology and may perhaps form the starting point for numerous chapters in any future rendition of his ecclesiology!

Problem of evil Perhaps the biggest omission which needed some reflection on, or positioning in the overall ecclesiological scheme, is the problem of evil. Moltmann is content to talk of processes working together in the trinitarian history of God for the coming eschaton and also in the later formulation of human participation in the social Trinity. But where are those anti-processes we are all too aware of in everyday life? How can he account for the ultimate breakdown of community in Rwanda, or those forces of repression and bondage at large in the world? what role are other religions playing when they actively persecute Christians? Furthermore, Chan (1994) has questioned the ambiguity Moltmann uses in his talk of the Holy Spirit and his fellowship with the world. What, in his Far Eastern context is the animist to make of all this?

There is a further consequence of Moltmann’s lack of discussion on evil and death and that is, if we do not define what we mean by these terms, then how can we possibly talk of salvation? Moltmann does talk of evil as a cause of some types of suffering, ‘there is an evil which human beings have to attribute to themselves. Doing evil carries its own punishment within itself in the form of evil consequences’ (1991; p27). But as this demonstrates, he needs to clarify and define what exactly is evil.

Moltmann (1994) is not afraid to admit that ‘evil spirits, demons and anti-godly powers do exist in personal, social and political life’. But much more could be made elsewhere in his 47

discussions. This has led him into naïvety in places. For example, his insistence on federalism as the way forward for the creation of communities because the centralist state, ‘suppresses individual initiative and paralyses liberty’ (1992; p247). Lapoorta (1994) rejects this notion as naïve because writing from the context of the new South Africa, federalism ‘is supported in particular by those who believe that their humanity is protected through racial segregation based on ethnicity.’ Thus the evil of Apartheid requires a centralised state to ensure the new country is non-racial, non-sexist and democratic.

Perhaps the best suggestion for an exploration of the place of evil in his ecclesiology, is to start with the notion of the social Trinity from the trinitarian doxology where, ‘God is wholly present, and present as himself’ (1992; p302). If God is wholly present, then there can be no evil. But the moment of ‘eternal present’ is not eternal, for it interrupts the liturgy. Therefore, is this where evil is allowed influence in God’s transcendence?

Holiness Moltmann’s emphasis on the church as one element in the history of God’s dealings with the world is to be welcomed as a corrective to much introspection on behalf of the church, particularly as he encourages the formation of communities with action groups etc. However, there is a tension which needs examining between this involvement and holiness, the church being ‘set apart’ (c.f. I Peter 2:9). For example, when does our support for the liberating activity of a particular group turn to condemnation for their violent methods they use in liberation? or can we support gay rights groups without at the same time condoning homosexual practices? Whilst elsewhere, his ecclesiology speaks of catholicity and apostolicity, there is little about the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

The Body of Christ In some ways, it is surprising that Moltmann has not made more of Paul’s descriptor of the church as the body of Christ, after all, the image is there at every eucharist, as is proclaimed, ‘we are the body of Christ...’ It is often the starting point for many popular ecclesiologies20. This is all the more surprising since his wanted to found his ecclesiology on Christology, ‘as its consequence and in correspondence with it’ (1993; p66). Perhaps the reason for this is Moltmann’s insistence on relationality and community as key

See for example, I believe in the Church by David Watson (1989; p96ff) who builds on the Pauline metaphor to look at charismatic gifts, the meaning of fellowship and growth and unity. 48

concepts for the church, to talk of a body may detract from the force of this. Nevertheless, given his interest in ecology, I am surprised he has not developed an ecology of the church, viewing the body as a living mechanism and exploring this a bit more. Certainly his enthusiasm for the rhythms of life in nature could be explored in this vein. For example, what do nature’s rhythms have to say to our liturgical year? how can the church’s worship be developed along these lines?

Use of Natural Theology Moltmann quite rightly uses natural theology and applies process thought to it, to end up with the assertion that ‘to form community is the life principle of created beings’ (1992; p225): understanding this, we can appreciate more fully the fellowship of the Spirit. (This can obviously provide excellent inroads into inter-faith dialogue.) However, the process is hindered by Moltmann staying with a rationalist approach to nature. He fails to leave open the possibilities of the process. Instead, ‘this is an incomplete cosmos still coming into being. Evolution is a creative process whose outcome is not predictable. reality is multi-levelled, with more complex levels built on simpler ones’ (Barbour, 1990; p262). Can we still talk of the goal of community in creation or is Moltmann bound up by neoThomist though of Divine Causality?

The transcendent Spirit This later ecclesiology gives emphasis to the Spirit as immanent in all of life, bringing forth fellowship and community. However, he fails to mention the important eschatological and transcendent work of the Spirit in our experience. Pentecostal ecclesiology sees the emphasis on the Spirit as fellowship leading to the institutionalisation of the church. Furthermore notes Macchia (1994), ‘even mutual fellowship can become lifeless or misdirected if not adequately called into question by the Spirit in transcendent and eschatological otherness.’ Moltmann’s Pauline view of the Spirit as a service provider for the church needs balancing with the Lucan view of the ‘transcendent and free Spirit that moves in and through the church with unexpected and novel signs and wonders’ (Macchia, 1994).

Concluding thoughts In conclusion, this assessment of the ecclesiology of Jürgen Moltmann has focused on his understanding of the being of the Church. As he himself has remarked, the Church is very much a ‘living being’ and is hard therefore to define (1993; p20). What Moltmann has succeeded in presenting is an ecclesiology that bears this in mind and puts it in the context of the trinitarian God. In so doing, he has avoided many of the pitfalls of ecclesiologies that start from historical or anthropological viewpoints, and are perhaps constrained by dogma and tradition. His method is ecumenical, drawing from across the Christian traditions and although it is often in dialogue with his own context, namely the Protestant Reformed tradition, there is an openness for other traditions, both Eastern and Western, to dialogue with it.

Overall, Moltmann has used a balance of Christological and pneumatological determinants for his ecclesiology. Other ecclesiologies have tended to emphasise the Christological over the pneumatological; with the dominical authority passing on into history as clericalism, and hierarchical authority as we have already mentioned. This problem is compounded by an overemphasis on the divine over against the human Christ, leading to docetic ecclesiologies (Gunton, 1991; p71). Moltmann’s pneumatology has addressed such imbalances and led the Church out of itself into the world and, with his emphasis on creation, into the cosmos. This balance is held in tension by his overriding wish to relate the being of the Church to the trinitarian God who exists in perichoretic unity and fellowship.

Moltmann’s greatest strength is perhaps his ability to take his concept of the Church, derived ‘from above’, and apply it for the reform of the Church ‘from below’. To illustrate this we may briefly consider two issues affecting the Church of England today, namely its establishment and use of liturgy where Moltmann has, I suggest, an important contribution to make to the debate. Establishment is more to do with the replication of a state hierarchy as a model for church, with the resultant loss of its divine mission, rather than a model based on the triune God S its derivation is instead from a monarchial monotheism.21 A similar point can be made about the liturgy, much of Cranmer’s language in the Book of Common Prayer has the dogma of the divine right of kings as its background. Furthermore

See the discussion of the mature and responsible congregation on page 10 and that on hierarchy on page 15. 50

in the more modern liturgies, where is the space for the Trinity to interrupt the liturgy when ‘God is wholly present, and present as himself’ (Moltmann, 1992; p302).

In summary, how are we to assess Moltmann’s ecclesiology? Someone, recently hearing his ideas in the Church in the Power of the Spirit said there was not much substance to them, they are common enough and politically correct. That may be so today, but considering they were written in 1975, they now sound almost prophetic. Moltmann would probably shy away from this and explain he was only reporting his experiences in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit across the world. In this case, he is an insightful commentator on what the Spirit is doing. His insights and the strengths of his ecclesiology stem from a lucid understanding of God the Holy Trinity acting throughout the cosmos to bring it back into union with himself and that is where the Church is to be found.

REFERENCES BARBOUR, I.G. (1990) Religion in an Age of Science: The Gifford Lectures 1989-1991 Volume I. SCM Press Ltd: London BAUCKHAM, R.J. (1987) Moltmann: Messianic Theology in the Making. Marshall Morgan and Scott Publications Ltd: Basingstoke, Hants. BAUCKHAM, R.J. (1995) The Theology of Jurgen Moltmann. T&T Clark: Edinburgh CHAN, S.K.H. (1994) ‘An Asian Review’ [of The Spirit of Life] Journal of Pentecostal Theology, 4, 35-40. GUNTON, C.E. (1991) The Promise of Trinitarian Theology T&T Clark: Edinburgh. LAPOORTA, J.J. (1994) ‘An African Response’ [to The Spirit of Life] Journal of Pentecostal Theology, 4, 5-16. MACCHIA, F.D. (1994) ‘A North American Response’ [to The Spirit of Life] Journal of Pentecostal Theology, 4, 25-33. MACKEY, J.P. (1983) The Christian Experience of God as Trinity. SCM Press Ltd: London. MOLTMANN, J. (1967) Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology. SCM Press Ltd: London MOLTMANN, J. (1974) The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology. SCM Press Ltd: London MOLTMANN, J. (1978) The Passion for Life: a Messianic lifestyle Fortress Press: Philadelphia. [Later published under the title of ‘The Open Church’] MOLTMANN, J. (1981) The Trinity and the Kingdom of God: The Doctrine of God. SCM Press Ltd: London. MOLTMANN, J. (1991) History and the Triune God: Contributions to Trinitarian Theology. SCM Press Ltd: London MOLTMANN, J. (1992) The Spirit of Life: a Universal Affirmation. SCM Press Ltd: London. MOLTMANN, J. (1993) The Church in the Power of the Spirit: a contribution to Messianic Ecclesiology. Fortress Press: Minneapolis [First published 1975] MOLTMANN, J. (1994) ‘A Response to my Pentecostal Dialogue Partners’ Journal of Pentecostal Theology, 4, 59-70. STIBBE, M.W.G. (1994) ‘A British Appraisal’ [of The Spirit of Life] Journal of Pentecostal Theology, 4, 5-16.

TRIPOLE, M.R. (1981) ‘A Church for the Poor and the World: At Issue with Moltmann’s Ecclesiology’ Theological Studies 42, 645-659. WAGNER, C.P. (1981) Church Growth and the Whole Gospel: a biblical mandate. MARC Europe, British Church Growth Association: London. WATSON, D. (1989) I Believe in the Church: with Study Guide. Hodder and Stoughton: London: Sydney: Auckland.