Review of J ƒ ¼rgen Moltmann,

The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology

Thomas O. Scarborough

Moltmann J 1996. The coming of God: Christian eschatology.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

1. Introduction

In spite of having met J ƒ ¼rgen Moltmann, and frequently having encountered discussions of his works, I had never read one of his books.   I decided therefore that his (until now) last major book, The Coming of God, would provide me with a good opportunity to engage with his theology ¢â‚¬”not least the eschatology which lies at its heart.

In this review, I briefly summarise the content and the intellectual context of Moltmann’s The Coming of God.   I then engage critically with two major aspects of Moltmann’s thought ¢â‚¬”both of which have to do with questions of  ¢â‚¬Å“divine action ¢â‚¬ .

2. Content

The core conceptual basis of The Coming of God is not new.   Insofar as Moltmann’s theology envisages an incomplete creation which is advancing towards its final goal, this is presaged by the writings of many well known philosophers and theologians.   Moltmann himself lists many “without [whom] eschatology today is virtually unthinkable” (Moltmann 1996:30).

Moltmann’s basic concepts are simple: “God desires [that] the whole creation will be new…” Further, not only does God desire this, but the “Creator and Redeemer will arrive at his goal” (Moltmann 1996:xiii).   It is important to note, however, that this is the Creator’s goal, and may thus not be usurped by His creatures (Moltmann 2002:21).   Moltmann expert Veli-Matti K ƒ ¤rkk ƒ ¤inen summarises it thus: “God provides the fulfilment” (K ƒ ¤rkk ƒ ¤inen 2011).

Moltmann, however, may be said to stand out from earlier thinkers, who anticipated his theology, for several reasons: he has sought to systematize an eschatology of hope (Schwarz 2000:119), he has pursued a broad integration of earlier ideas (Moltmann 1996:xiv), and he has sought to make his eschatology relevant to present social and ecological needs (Schwarz 2000:148).

3. Critique

K ƒ ¤rkk ƒ ¤inen ably summarizes several approaches to the critique of Moltmann, most importantly his selective use of tradition, his tendency towards tritheism, and his failure to clarify theological concepts (K ƒ ¤rkk ƒ ¤inen 2011).   I myself have here selected two issues which I consider may break fresh ground:

3.1. Divine Action

One of the greatest problems of theology is that of divine action ¢â‚¬”that is, the way in which God acts in the world.   Nancey Murphy notes that  ¢â‚¬Å“there may be no other single factor that has such thoroughgoing consequences for theology ¢â‚¬  (Murphy 1996:63).   However, while Moltmann acknowledges the debate (Moltmann 1996:330), he would seem to reveal an ambiguous approach.

Moltmann describes “the indwellings of God” both in his people (Moltmann 1996:xii) and in his creation (Moltmann 1996:xiii), and with this in mind, “the goal of God’s eschatological Shekinah” (Moltmann 1996:xiii).   His preferred term with regard to divine action is “mutual perichoresis”, which may be described as a  ¢â‚¬Å“unified interpenetration of life ¢â‚¬  between God and the world (Moltmann 1996:278).   Thus far, this would accord with a so-called “immanentist approach” to divine action, which emphasises God’s action through natural processes (Murphy 1996:63).

With this in mind, Moltmann notes the apparent plausibility of apocalyptic scenarios today.   Humanity is situated in the  ¢â‚¬Å“barbaric end-times of modern civilisation ¢â‚¬  (Moltmann 1996:216), and faces “final, irrevocable and unrepeatable” dangers which might preclude a new world (Moltmann 1996:208).   This includes “ecological catastrophes” and “dangerous technology” (Moltmann 1996:207).   He notes:  ¢â‚¬Å“This is the point of no return ¢â‚¬  (Moltmann 1996:208).   Even so, God’s purpose is “the birth of a new world” (Moltmann 1996:226), and  ¢â‚¬Å“Christian eschatology has nothing to do with apocalyptic ‘final solutions’… ¢â‚¬  (Moltmann 1996:xi).

This raises the question as to how Moltmann should find a sure hope, as he does, that an apocalypse will not unfold (Moltmann 1996:xi).   As an example, he alludes to a vast array of active nuclear warheads (Moltmann 1996:204) which lie in the hands of “fallible and corruptible human beings” (Moltmann 1996:207) ¢â‚¬”however, he considers that their catastrophic use is proscribed by God.

This would seem to bring him close to an “interventionist approach” to divine action, which considers that God overrules the laws of nature through special divine acts (Murphy 1996:63) ¢â‚¬”a view which would seem to invoke the God whose hand  ¢â‚¬Å“none can stay ¢â‚¬  (Dan 4:35 KJV).

3.2. Human Suffering

With the above in mind, I turn my attention to Moltmann’s core interest in the “inward and outward liberation of men and women” (Moltmann 1996:324), and with this, his concern for the suffering of humanity.

Here, apparently, Moltmann does not consider an interventionist approach to divine action.   As an example, his general theological programme gives consideration to “the indwellings of God in his people, in his Christ, and in our hearts…” (Moltmann 1996:xii), yet appears to provide no possibility for the interventions of God in history.   Moltmann favours Kant’s view, that the coming of the kingdom will  ¢â‚¬Å“take place exclusively in the life of the human being (Moltmann 1996:189).   This has a number of important consequences.

The first is that Moltmann’s theology  ¢â‚¬Å“starts from the concept of the future ¢â‚¬  (Moltmann 1996:22).   That is, hope must derive its source from the future, which is  ¢â‚¬Å“God’s ultimate goal for creation” (Grenz 2000:80).   As a result, any sense of completion in a human life, not least justice, tends to lie in the future ¢â‚¬”in fact may not be available to the present.   Thus Moltmann speaks of “all the things in history that are unfinished and provisional” (Moltmann 1996:xi), and wrestles with life’s  ¢â‚¬Å“harsh caesuras [interruptions] ¢â‚¬  and  ¢â‚¬Å“unfinished beginnings ¢â‚¬  (Moltmann 1996:117).

This being true, it would seem that life-impairing suffering must in many cases be an unfortunate necessity.   God Himself merely “understands” our suffering (Moltmann 1996:73) ¢â‚¬”or to use Letty Russell’s preferred term, He is merely “present” in our suffering (Russell 2003:251).   In view of Moltmann’s interest in inward and outward liberation, such a view would seem, paradoxically, to tend towards fatalism, rather than portraying a God who is  ¢â‚¬Å“a very present help in trouble ¢â‚¬  (Psa 46:1).

Thus Moltmann records largely without comment that this world  ¢â‚¬Å“is going to claim more and more victims ¢â‚¬  (Moltmann 1996:95), and that human beings are  ¢â‚¬Å“dominated and powerless ¢â‚¬  (Moltmann 1996:135).   In this, he would seem to echo Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s dictum: “Necessarium est ut scandala eveniant” (De Chardin 1959:340).   In short, scandal is necessary.

4. Implications

In summary, Moltmann envisages an incomplete creation which is advancing towards its final goal ¢â‚¬”yet in this he would seem to have an ambiguous approach to divine action, and a resigned view on human suffering.

I had the sense that Moltmann was carrying over into his theology interventionist presuppositions of divine action which either did not sit well with his corpus, or should consciously be incorporated into it.   If consciously incorporated into it, this would expand his thinking to include a more traditional doctrine of providence, which has been described as “the ground of practical hope and comfort” (De S. Cameron 1988:542).

5. Bibliography

De S Cameron NM 1988. Providence. In SB Ferguson and DF Wright (eds.), New dictionary of theology.   Leicester: InterVarsity Press.

Grenz SJ 2000. Theology for the Community of God. Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

K ƒ ¤rkk ƒ ¤inen V-M 2011. ST503: systematic theology 3: ecclesiology and eschatology, Lecture 8C. Pasadena: Fuller Theological Seminary.

Moltmann J 1996. The coming of God: Christian eschatology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Moltmann J 2002. Theology of hope. Norwich: SCM Classics.

Murphy N 1996. Beyond liberalism and fundamentalism: how modern and postmodern philosophy set the theological agenda. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International.

Russell LM 2003. Why bother with church? In WC Placher (ed.), Essentials of Christian theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

Teilhard de Chardin P 1959. The phenomenon of man. Glasgow: William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd.

Schwarz H 2000. Eschatology. Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.