Moltmann Reflections 1
Over the next few days, I’ll be blogging my thoughts about the Moltmann conversation. I’m not a theologian, and I’ve read very little of Jurgen Moltmann (although now I want to read a lot more), so I will just be reflecting on what I heard at the Emergent Theological Conversation.
At one point Moltmann, spoke about the two crosses of Christianity – the real cross at Golgotha and Constantine’s dream cross (a discussion I assume he develops further in his book, The Crucified God). The cross that appeared to Constantine in his vision was the cross of empire and violence. It was used to conquer, oppress, and destroy opposition. His cross is one of power and domination, not of response and reconciliation. But it is Constantine’s cross, and not the cross of Golgotha, that the church has most readily accepted through the ages. Moltmann mentioned that it was the precursor of the Iron Cross and Victoria’s Cross – crosses that spoke not of the sacrifice of Jesus, but of empire and political maneuvering. We place that cross on flags to demonstrate the forced acceptance of a political interpretation of Christ. Accepting Christ and his cross has become about accepting the empire’s official version thereof.
Moltmann suggested instead that we need to go back to the origins of our faith to find a new future for Christianity in the world outside of imperialism. We have so confused the cross of Constantine with the real cross of Christ that we fail to understand and honor what the cross truly means. We honor our idea of a powerful, vindictive cross instead of a suffering cross. Unless we break from this idolatry, the probleofm the Church causing pain in this world will continue.
I found the image fascinating. When the cross becomes our shield and sword instead of a symbol of hope, our faith becomes about struggle with the Other instead of love of the Other. Instead of acknowledging that through Christ’s suffering, all can be reconciled, we desire to forcibly make others think as we do. But conversion through coercion is not a reflection of hope and love, but of fear. If we cannot let the other be who they are and encounter the cross on their own terms, then we have forsaken the cross in favor of empire (be that a political or ideological empire). I fully agree that we need to return to the real cross, but I also do wonder what the future would look like apart from this need to use the cross to justify our disrespectful and inhumane treatment of others. A cross that embraced the suffering of others and helped them develop hope from that suffering instead of causing that very suffering is a vastly different sort of cross; and a church that shunned the cross of empire in favor of Jesus himself would be a very different church.
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
Good stuff, Julie–I especially like the stuff about fear, which I’m thinking about a lot now, and Moltmann is so good on it. Thanks so much for sharing this–and what’s to come.
Great reflections, I look forward to the rest! I’ll hopefully be getting to the reflection of it soon on my blog, but live blogging it was a monster.
Really glad we got to meet, will hopefully see you at Matter or around in ATX!
I pastor in Southwest Mississippi. The theology of Imperialism is so ingrained in how people understand the world. It flavors and colors all of their religious and political thinking. Most are not willing to do the theological work to move from a theological understanding based on Imperialism to one based on the cross and hope. I work away at trying to get people to explore and examine, but change comes slowly and is often resisted. Great stuff from Moltmann. Thanks for sharing with us.
Right on. This was one of the highlights for me. The problem of the “two crosses” underscores for me the imperative call to embrace a narrative theology. When our theology is the theology of Jesus’ death and resurrection, when these form our hermeneutics for life and for scripture, we are doing truly Christian readings of the world and our communities and our Bibles.
It always frightens me that there nothing in the Creeds to call Constantine (or Schleiermacher or Hitler) to account. But there is something in the narrative of the crucified Christ: kingdom mission as the way of self-giving love so that others might live.
“It always frightens me that there nothing in the Creeds to call Constantine (or Schleiermacher or Hitler) to account.”
The PC(USA) has adopted the Barmen Confession, which rather directly addresses Hitler. It’s not an “ecumenical” creed, but at worst it only serves to note that some of these issues only began to be addressed more recently than the time of those ancient creeds.
Minor nit-pick against myself. It’s the Barmen Declaration (not “Confession”).
Christianity should be about “hope, our faith becomes about struggle with the Other instead of love of the Other. Instead of acknowledging that through Christ’s suffering, all can be reconciled, we desire to forcibly make others think as we do. But conversion through coercion is not a reflection of hope and love, but of fear. If we cannot let the other be who they are and encounter the cross on their own terms, then we have forsaken the cross in favor of empire (be that a political or ideological empire)” that’s right but for hundreds of years Americans have used religion to dominate and justify the killing Of Native Americans, Slavery, stealing Native American land….Now using Christianity to bring down Pres. Obama. Now some Christians may not see it this way….and that’s okay I guess.But in the long run By not standing up to those that use fear(like hate radio Glen beck,rush,oriely….) Christian will suffer
Thanks for the comments. I’ve also had almost no contact with Moltmann’s thought, but this all sounds good. I especially like this sentence: “But conversion through coercion is not a reflection of hope and love, but of fear.” That’s become a powerful guide to me over the last few years – simply monitoring myself by asking “am I acting from faith or from fear?” (For example, when I desire to confront someone, is it because I in faith believe a better understanding and even reconciliation is possible, or because their perspective so infuriates/frightens me that I want to beat them up/run away from them.)
julie, i’m a personal friend of jurgen’s and paralyzed;so ican only clap with one hand(the right. i can’t type but i can speak. this is a lecture on the space for creative art in moltmann’s theology. thank you, barry ballard
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=HINCABA8
julie this a beautiful article , from a very compassionate perspective. thank you
hey julie will you link my moltmann blog? i cross-linked your’s on mine
thank you, barry
lecturesonjurgenmoltmann.blogspot.com
thanks again…………… jurgen is pretty important to get out there