The Western church was plunged into serious crisis by the events of World War II. So much suffering had occurred that many began loosing faith in a God that had traditionally been characterised as unable to feel pain or to be affected by humanity in any way, a God utterly separated from them in their suffering. This God had let them down in the concentration camps of Auschwitz and Bergen Belsen, as they watched family, friends and countrymen suffer and die cruelly at the hands of the fascist Nazi regime. It was during the war that, ironically, the young Jurgen Moltmann (born April 8, 1926) found a personal faith in Jesus Christ.
Whilst serving in the German Army he was taken prisoner by British forces and spent the ensuing years in P.O.W. camps where his conversion to Christianity and subsequent interest in theology first began to take hold. Speaking of his time at theological seminary following the war, he says, 'A theology which did not speak of God in the sight of the one who was abandoned and crucified would have had nothing to say to us then.' (1974: 1) The church was in crisis; what was centrally at stake was the salvific power of the cross of Christ, what was missing was an adequate theodicy.How could one really believe that an omnipotent and benevolent God really existed in the light of such suffering? Moltmann had complete sympathy for those who chose atheism as the only moral position (Bauckham, 1987: 76) - how could one not protest against such a dubious concept of God? And even if such a God existed, many felt it morally compromising to believe in him/her.
The historic doctrines of the immutability and impassibility of God are among the main theological reasons for the idea of God as distant and detached from the pain of human existence. Immutability refers to the inability of God to change, and impassibility to his freedom from human and consuming passions - his inability to feel. In The Crucified God, Moltmann elucidates this further, with damning and powerful language, echoing the cries of protest from the death camps of Nazi Germany: '… a God who cannot suffer is poorer than any man. For a God who is incapable of suffering is a being who cannot be involved. Suffering and injustice do not affect him. And because he is so completely insensitive, he cannot be affected or shaken by anything. He cannot weep, for he has no tears. But the one who cannot suffer cannot love either. So he is also a loveless being.' (Moltmann, 1974: 222)
It is chiefly through the concept of solidarity that Moltmann understands salvation taking place. Jesus' cry of dereliction from the cross was the ultimate form of identification God could make with man. Moltmann postulates that, to the early Church Fathers, the issue of the abandonment of Christ by God the Father on the cross of Calvary, was the central theological nettle which they had difficulty grasping, and as has been made clear this is chiefly due to their concept of God which was more influenced by Greek philosophy than by the biblical revelation. (1972: 31)
In grasping this nettle, Moltmann characterises the cry of Christ, not as a cry of despair, but of protest; a cry to God whom Jesus called Father, to step in and halt the injustice he, as an innocent, was suffering. (1972: 29) This is important because he is very careful never to justify human suffering for the 'greater good', or for 'God's plan'. God enters into a dialectical contradiction with himself in order to identify with humanity and protest with them against injustice - injustice he promises, through the resurrection, to set right. Subsumed within the dialectic of the cross and resurrection mentioned earlier, is the dialectic of judgement and salvation, whereby God in Jesus becomes judged, by way of bringing salvation. Judgement is synonymous in Moltmann with godlessness (1974: 242). So God becomes godless, the righteous one becomes sin, and the judge becomes judged. Here we can see the principle of the dialectical understanding of knowledge coming into play, where God loves that which contradicts him/herself - God loves the godless. As Bauckham says, 'In self-emptying love the Son of God abandoned his divine identity and entered the situation of godless men, adopting both the weight of their godforsakenness and the cry of the godforsaken to God. He did this for the sake of the godless, out of the creative love which makes righteous the unrighteous, and brings new life to the dying and liberation to the oppressed.' (1977: 307) So we see that salvation occurs when people are brought into relationship with God through his/her 'self-emptying' love and solidarity, evidenced through the chosen suffering of both Father and Son at the cross.
All this compares very starkly against the background of the history of the different theories of atonement. For example, the Ransom theory held that God 'paid off' Satan (who since the Fall had obtained authority over people), or bribed him, with the death of Jesus. Satisfaction theory held that Jesus, by his death on the cross, paid the price for the sin of humanity, and restored to God the honour due to him, which had been tainted by the sin of humanity.
Penal Substitution theory, still widely accepted today, holds that the sin of humanity incurred a debt, and that punishment by death was deserved in recompense; so great was the dishonour caused to God, that only the death of a sinless being would suffice. In conclusion then, we have seen that the core of Moltmann's soteriology is still the cross of Christ, but emanating from this, vitally, are the joint themes of the suffering of God in his Trinitarian nature, and the eschatological hope offered by the cross when understood dialectically with the resurrection. We have seen how he develops a fresh concept of God, guided in part by the dialectical understanding of knowledge, which involves dispensing with some key long-held traditional ideas about God, including the doctrines of immutability, impassibility, omnipotence, and by necessity, the dual nature of Christ.
7 comments:
I'm reminded of Philippians 2:1-11 (I think) when reading this article. God becoming man, giving up everything. It might not be a direct analogy, but there are similarities.
What I like about this is the fact it's another aspect of a myriad which, from my viewpoint, don't necessarily contradict each other, but produce something akin to music. I was reading a passage from Mere Christianity, by CS Lewis, the other day, where he wrote about life being like music. He delves into the depths of "right and wrong", and moves beyond basic actions into a contextual, relativistic, yet moral playground, where each action or deed or thought is like a musical note, which is expressed in relation to the other notes around it. In this sense, a symphony can be formed out of these actions and has a personality which is related to where and when and how the notes are played. Could these different viewpoints and theories of why Jesus died and the nature of salvation be a similar form of art?
Similarly, I was talking with a few friends the other day about experiences of God. This may relate to the article you wrote on Actor Network Theory. But assume that we all see light in different shades of colour. The question was asked, "is the red that I see the same as the red you see?" I then asked if it mattered as long as we knew we saw the colour red. Now, this may go off on a complete tangent, but we all have different experiences of God. Even those who maintain their God is the same being, cannot deny that they are different people, who see things differently, and thus experience God differently. So, in this way, are our different experiences of God something akin to a musical symphony or a film, or a musical?
(Damn it, i cant find my bible to read that pasage! ...i'm sure it hasn't been that long since i read it!)
ok, nice point steve. i still think you might be glossing over the significance of moltmann's work for our post WWII context. remember the recent debacle about what steve chalke wrote in his book 'the lost message of jesus' - he said, and i think rightly so, that the 'woman/man in the street' looks at the penal substitution theory of atonement as 'cosmic child abuse'. it just doesn't ring true with many of the more thinking members of our society. just think, the idea that god is angry with us (in order to appease that anger he had jesus killed) is just one theory, one part of church tradition. there are others too. the fact is, theories, not being facts, can be adjusted. and i think, personally, that theology is, like all 'truth' or knowledge, contextually specific. theology isn't a thing as such set in place, eternal; its more of a verb, a doing thing, a process - suited to the time in which it is located. penal substitution, popularised (initially, then later by luther, calvin etc) was specific to its context --
"The Penal Theory is a modification of Anselm's Satisfaction Theory. He had based the latter from the feudal culture in which he lived. In his era, human sin was seen as an insult to God's honor that he cannot simply overlook. Just as an insult by a serf against the honor of his lord demanded satisfaction, God also required compensation for the dishonor created by human sin."
... we dont live in a fuedal society.
my point - we live (as in you and i - the western world - altho perhaps thats even too much of a generalisation) in a capitalist, democratic, post WWII, post 9/11 society. its hard to say to that a good god would justify 9/11 for the greater good. not many buy it today. probably not most christians either. you'll probably find a lot claiming some kind of protest theology. ironically enoug, because penal substitution is still generally holding sway in the western christian church.
rant over...
Aaron - tip for when you can't find your Bible - http://bible.oremus.org/ - magic!
you've inspired me to read the moltmann book i borrowed ages ago.
i've only come across the penal substitution theory you describe in evangelical churches - not elsewhere - it is indeed rant-worthy but there are plenty of people who find it as you say contextually unworkable and are seeking different ways of understanding it...
i suppose you and I come from quite different church backgrounds Kat. That idea is the main idea held in any church I ever spent any time in. However, it was always (in practice) shored up with different ideas to compliment it. I grew up in a presbyterian church, and at the age of 18, moved to a Vineyard church. I am not sure what the official Vineyard position is, but penal sub. theory was how people understood it, as far as i can see.
i always found it confusing for my relationship with the different members of the trinity. Jesus was obviously my buddy, the father however was scary, distant, and generally cross with me. Funny. Thanks for posting Kat and Steve.
Hi Aaron!
How's the month of May going? I hope springtime in London is a time of brightness and rejuvenation.
This is a fascinating discussion, and I need to properly plunge into its questions.
It’s interesting how the discussion about penal substitution has taken on a cultural significance quite separate from the theological debate. Just as churches in Ulster in the 80s was divided into those that had guitars and those which had no time for rainbow-coloured straps, adherence to penal substitution seems to identify you as belonging to a specific camp.
The camp is not primarily theological but has everything to do with aesthetics and inclinations.
Personally, my love of the book of Hebrews pushes me towards a substitutionary theology, but my instincts for Chestertonian ecumenism attracts me to the emergent subculture. Ah, maybe NT Wright can square the circle for me?
Anyhow, hope all is wonderful at Moot!
By the way, am I right in thinking Moot was once Epicentre, and it had a Reel Films venture. If so, I may have made some incredibly tolerant soles sit through a surrealist exercise in silent cinema set in 19th century Ireland involving an exiled clocksmith.
Excellent summary Aaron...I wish it weren't 1:30am while at work, or I'd write more...just saying hi as well.
-Leif
thanks for commenting Lief, and thanks for your kind words.
david - i will check out those details for you. i can confirm that some moot members used to be in epicentre, but i wouldn't say they are one and the same thing - the same group but with a name change. sounds like you're onto something there tho - i'm intrigued! best.
Post a Comment