No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Critique of Jürgen Moltmann's Green Theology.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2024
Extract
Jiirgen Moltmann became famous for his brilliantly perceptive studies on the tasks of theology, first: to answer a despairing world with a Theology of Hope, and second: to answer a world which could no longer believe in God’s existence in the midst of evil with The Crucified God.’ While the first book stressed the resurrection of the crucified one as the basis for our hope, the second stressed the reality of Christ’s death in concrete solidarity with our suffering.
As we might expect, the dominant question of theology then was in relation to the future of humanity, and the fashion in German theological discussions was a focus on history, rather than a concern with creation as such. However, even at this stage, Moltmann’s vision showed tendencies to look beyond that of a narrow understanding of our humanity, so that he aimed to include creation as a whole within the orbit of both the suffering and future hope in Christ. His novelty at this stage was to reject all ideas of a search for a return to an ideal paradisical state, the so-called ‘myth of eternal return’. Such views had become part of the traditional cosmological interpretation of our world which had been challenged by post-enlightenment science. Once humankind perceived its relationship with the world as one of mastery over nature, the ‘cosmological’ proof of God from creation was no longer convincing. Moltmann does not want us to regain our sense of security by returning to a facile cosmology, but insists that we put our hope in the God of the Future, who promises a new creation as witnessed by the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
- Type
- Original Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1992 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers
References
1 Theology of Hope; translated by J.W. Leitch, London, SCM, 1967; hereafter referred to as TH; God in Creation; translated by M. Kohl, London, SCM, 1985, hereafter referred to as GC.
2 Reventlow, H.C., Problems of Old Testament Theology in the Twentieth Century, translated by Bowden, J., London, SCM, 1985, pp. 140–145Google Scholar.
3 See, for example TH, pp. 136ff. and The Future of Creation; translated by M. Kohl, London, SCM, 1979, pp. 128–132; hereafter referred to as FC.
4 The Experiment Hope; translated by Meeks, M.D., ed., London, SCM, 1975, pp. 17–18Google Scholar.
5 Hope and Planning; translated by Clarkson, M., New York, Harper and Row, 1971, pp. 5–6Google Scholar; hereafter referred to as HP.
6 Bloch, E., The Principle of Hope; translated by Plaice, N., Plaice, S. and Knight, P., Oxford, Blackwell, 1986;Google Scholar for a discussion of adventus and futurum see FC, pp. 29–31.
7 Experiences of God; translated by Kohl, M., London, SCM, 1980, p. 20Google Scholar.
8 Man; translated by Sturdy, J., Philadelphia, Fortress, 1974, p. 35Google Scholar.
9 FC, pp. 98–124.
10 The Trinity and the Kingdom of God; translated by Kohl, M., London, SCM, 1980, pp 139–144Google Scholar; hereafter referred to as TKG. For a severe critique of Moltmann's understanding of the Trinity see, for example, Molnar, P., “The Function of the Trinity in Moltmann's Ecological Doctrine of Creation', Theological Studies, 51 (4), 1990, 673–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 TKG, p. 149.
12 GC, pp. 86–93; Scholem, G., Kabbalah, The New York Times Book Co, Quadrangle, 1974, pp. 128–144Google Scholar.
13 GC, p. 88.
14 GC, p. 212.
15 For Moltmann's understanding of die changing subjectivity among the persons of the Trinity see TKG, pp. 70–94; 124–128.
16 GC, p. 69–71.
17 Jantsch, E, The Self‐Organising Universe, New York, Pergamon Press, 1980Google Scholar; GC, p. 17.
18 GC, p. 18.; Sagan, D. and Margulis, L., ‘Gaia and Philosophy’, in Rouner, L.S., ed. On Nature, Indiana, University of Notre Dame Press, 1984, pp. 60–75Google Scholar. They define Gaia in the following way: '“Gaia” is a theory of the atmosphere and surface sediments of the planet earth taken as a whole. The Gaia hypothesis in its most general form states that the temperature and composition of the Earth's atmosphere are actively regulated by the sum of life on the planet—the biota. The regulation of the Earth's surface by the biota and for the biota has been in continuous existence since the earliest appearance of widespread life', p.60.; see also Lovelock, J.E., Gaia, Oxford, 1979Google Scholar. For a detailed critique of the Gaia hypothesis see, C. Deane‐Drummond, ‘God and Gaia: Myth or Reality’, Theology, July/Aug, 1992, 277–285.
19 I am well aware of ambiguity in using terms such as ‘nature’; for a discussion, and useful definition of nature understood as both the totality of processes and the context within which human activity takes place, see Kaufman, G.D., The Theological Imagination, Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1981, p. 213Google Scholar.
20 The Way of Jesus Christ, translated by Kohl, M., London, SCM, 1990, p. 194Google Scholar; hereafter referred to as WJC.
21 A good example of Moltmann's earlier anthropology is ‘Man and the Son of Man’, in Essays on the Unity of Mankind, Nelson, J.R., ed., Leiden, Brill, 1971, pp. 203–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar. His prime concern here was to outline our significance as human beings, and ‘He stands in solidarity with creation, yet is set over it through his relationship as God's counterpart. Man is thus placed in an eccentric position … As God's image he is the “crown of creation” when he is really “man”’, p. 212.I take issue with W.C. French who suggests that Moltmann's God in Creation is a ‘grand reversal of theological direction and sensibility, a seismic shift from a focus on history, eschatology and “openness to the future”, to one on nature, creation and respect for “dwelling” within the present’, p. 79 French, W.C., ‘Returning to Creation; Moltmann's Eschatology Naturalized’, Journal of Religion, 68, 1988, 78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 GC, p. 46; see also Creating a Just Future; translated by Bowden, J., London, SCM, 1989, pp. 66–71Google Scholar, 87–101.
23 GC, pp. 258–259.
24 Ibid., pp. 186ff; 216ff.
25 FC, p. 110.
26 The Church in the Power of the Spirit; translated by Kohl, M., London, SCM, 1977, pp. 295–296Google Scholar; hereafter referred to as CPS.
27 Religion, Revolution and the Future; translated by Meeks, M.D, New YorkGoogle Scholar, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969, pp. 23–24.
28 GC, pp. 281–283.
29 Ibid., pp 276–280; see also CPS, p. 60: “he does not desire to be glorified without his liberated creation”.
30 WJC, pp. 195–196.
31 ‘Human Rights, the Rights of Humanity and Rights of Nature’; translated by M. Kohl in Concilium, 2, 1990, The Ethics of World Religions and Human Rights; Küng, H. and Moltmann, J., eds., London, Concilium, 1990, pp. 132–133Google Scholar.
32 WJC, p. 179.
33 Ibid., p. 153.
34 I am not going to digress into justifying the basic task of theology in engagement with contemporary culture. A useful summary of Moltmann's position is ‘The Challenge of Religion in the ’80's', in Theologians in Transition, Wall, J.M., ed., New York, Crossroad, 1981, pp. 107–112Google Scholar.
35 Moltmann's apparently limited engagement with scientific ideas partly explains J. Polkinghome's review of God in Creation entitled ‘Creation Without the Scientists’; Expository Times, 97 (9), 1986, 285CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
36 Molnar, P., “The Function of the Trinity in Mollmann's Ecological Doctrine of Creation”, Theological Studies, 51(4), 1990, p. 686Google Scholar.
37 McDade, J., ‘Creation and Salvation: Green Faith and Christian Themes’, The Month, Nov. 1990, 433–431Google Scholar.