Moltmann Reflections 2
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.
One of the things I appreciated most in the conversations with Moltmann, was his insistence on returning to the simplicity of the gospel. Often he was asked a question on some controversial issue in the American church, and he simply scoffed at how we make such a big deal over it. His thought is that God is God and the gospel is the gospel – how we keep trying to manipulate and add things to it seemed preposterous or even heretical. Take for example his response to two such hot topic issues much discussed lately in America – gender language for God and homosexuality.
Moltmann was asked about the difficulty in “coming up with pronouns that are appropriately intimate and personal for God and yet don’t anthropomorphize God with a gender.” His response was that God is neither he nor she nor it – God is God. We should not use God’s divinity to justify the domination of men over women. The image we have of the trinity is not one of hierarchy or domination, but of unity. This unity can be reflected in our church communities – being in community the image of the communal identity of love. I found his view of allowing God to be God to be refreshing. Too often God is used for that very purpose of domination that subverts and destroys community. Sometime we get so wrapped up in the complexities of our own opinions that we paint elaborate portraits of God in our own personal images. Moltmann proposes instead a simplicity that doesn’t fall into idolatry by reducing God to gender, and yet remains intimately connected to God through the use of multi-gendered pronouns for God.
Same thing with homosexuality. When the schismatic nature of sexuality in the American church was brought up, Moltmann replied that the whole discussion isn’t a problem in Germany. He said they have never had a struggle about this in the churches and in between the churches, because the church is about the gospel and not about sex. Christians believe in the justification of human beings by faith alone, not by faith and homosexuality. That, according to Moltmann, is adding heresy. I find this tendency, especially in the American church, to add things to the gospel to be disturbing. I’ve recently been told that I obviously am not a true Christian if I, say, read gender neutral Bible translations, do yoga, refuse to spank my kids, or become a vegetarian. As farcical as it sounds to turn the gospel into “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and continue to eat meat and you will be saved,” it is unfortunately representative of a growing trend in the church these days. When prominent church leaders regularly question the salvation of those who don’t follow the teachings of Calvin, the warped idolatry in the church is apparent.
So, I loved that Moltmann simply scoffed at America’s adolescent stupidity and encouraged us to get back to the gospel. Let God be God. Let the gospel be the gospel. Of course, opinions and theologies will always affect our faith, but sometimes we just need a good reminder to get over ourselves and stop manipulating God for our own ends.
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
I find this idea to be a challenging one for me, personally, as a person who leans perhaps a bit left of center (although generally to the right of the "leftist" bloggers I read the most, depending on the issue being discussed).
On the one hand, I agree that we American Christians make too much of minor issues. On the other hand, I can apply this reality just as much to myself.
But even there, I am hard-pressed to say that I'm wrong to, for example complain that the TNIV is being discontinued for reasons that appear to have more to do with politics than with seeking a solid translation (the protests of the people behind that translation notwithstanding). And if we don't advocate for the right of women to ministerial office, even for the sake of not overstating an issue that may not be "essential" to the gospel, aren't we just perpetuating injustice in the name of peacemaking?
But (coming full circle), if I do highlight such issues, I take sides, and it is the very act of "taking sides" that has created these deep divisions, isn't it?
I think this is less about having opinions and working for change, but about destroying the ecumenical church in the process. I may not agree with those who silence women and will fight to see that changed – but I can't say that they are not Christians. Making my pet issues core to the gospel is heresy – although a the same time it might be sinful to not take a stand for the oppressed. It is a both/and – being prophetic and choosing accept others the same way Christ accepted them.
I'm with you, Julie, on not making the gospel encompass every jot and tittle of every pet issue.
On the other hand, I found his dismissal of the homosexuality issue to be deeply inconsistent with his theology. Without prejudging which side one must land on, Moltmann's creation-affirming theology (that scoffs at Augustine's gnostic rejection of marriage, for example) should draw forth the affirmation that sexuality is tremendously important to God.
That he went on to affirm that issues of war and peace are important undermined for me his contention that "justification by faith" is the litmus test for what the church should care about. That claim about sexuality was not consistent with the gospel as Moltmann articulated it throughout the conference–either that justification is the gospel (which it's not!) or that such a minimalist articulation of the gospel is the church's only concern.
I agree with your point here–too much crap gets foisted onto the category of "gospel" that does not belong there–including sexuality. But I wasn't happy with how he used that fact to take a pass on having to wrestle with what the more narrowly defined "gospel" might imply for human sexuality.
Granted, these weren't issues that he spoke on in depth – it was more the general ethos that intrigued me. But, I took him more to be addressing the ecumenical church in these instances. Not that sexuality and an embodied theology aren't important, but that they shouldn't what keeps us from breaking bread with other Christians. At the same time, there were a few times during the conference where I wondered how what he was saying wouldn't just lead to the same sort of practical gnosticism that he desired to overcome…
Thanks for sharing more of Moltmann with us. I lived in France in the 90's. They often would laugh at how we Americans get so lost in the details and worked up about certain issues. Gender and homosexuality are not probably as intense issues for Europeans as for us. They have more of a live and let live attitude. We have more of a puritan strain in us.
I'm with you, Julie. Sorry, this is what happens since I killed my own blog: I give my rants in the comments of others'!
all good, that's what makes blogging fun
My guess is one will never see a perspective from someone like John Stott, another European, on a blog like this. That's because there has been a paradigm shift in recent years to acomodate different "perspectives." Let me put it bluntly: sexuality is NOT the same as race/culture. And I know many African-Americans and other minorities agree.
This'll be probably be the last time I blog here. I get tired of the same old political-correctness. I wonder what InterVarsity would say, since they've been victims of this whole mentality on certain campuses…too bad
D – sorry to hear that. On one hand both Stott and Moltmann are each different perspectives. And for some of us this isn't "political-correctness" its about being faithful and loving our neighbor, silencing our perspective with such a dismissal isn't helpful or respectful to the dialogue.
That strikes me as a cheap and easy side-step by Moltmann. There's a big difference between saying one's salvation depends upon having a certain view on an issue such as homosexuality as if it's part of the gospel, vs. having to decide whether the church should change its historic position on homosexual practice – or any other issue. Huge difference. Not even in the same ballpark. He sets up a straw man that represents the vocal fringe without ever really engaging the heart of the issue – an issue that is largely even an issue because of people who are pushing for a change in the church's historic position.
To quote David Mills, who is speaking here in the Episcopal/Anglican context:
"To forestall the usual criticism that we are "obsessed" with sex, I should note that if orthodox Anglicans seem to talk too much about sex, it's not our fault. Of course some "traditionalists" are homophobic, and some organizations do raise money by trumpeting the horrors of homosexuality in a way that approaches gay bashing . . . [y]et I and my colleagues think far less about sex than the Bishop of Newark, Integrity, and the faculty of the Episcopal Divinity School . . . But if we tend to talk a lot about sex, we do so only because it is the aspect of biblical teaching most obviously challenged by our culture and powerful and vocal movements in the Episcopal Church. The use of sex is the question of the hour. To accuse orthodox Anglicans of being obsessed with sex is somewhat like accusing firemen in a city victimized by arsonists of being obsessed with fires."
I should add to my post above though, that context may matter.
The necessity and manner of addressing a particular non-gospel issue like, for example, what the church should teach about homosexual practice and whether the church should sanction/bless homosexual unions, might be different in a church body or denomination where people are actively trying to change what the church historically teaches on the subject, than it is in a different church body or denomination, where there is little if any disagreement on the issue and the subject is just used to make everyone feel better about themselves and how "right" they are compared to others. In the latter context, I could see more where Moltmann's comments and approach might apply.
Karl – you are right that it does depend on context. But I wonder if there are more options there between "change" and "the smug." Could it truly not be possible for a church to respect and love people enough that they've decided to make this a non-issue? It's not about feeling right or pushing change, but it getting beyond words and being with people. Moltmann talked about this in relation to the eucharist – if we start with arguing what it means we will never reach the point where we break bread together, but if we start at the table and share with each other and then talk we are at an entirely different place. Interestingly enough, Moltmann said he doesn't believe same-sex marriage is on the same level as heterosexual marriage, but he sees no reason for that to stand in the way of blessing the union.
Julie, I agree that what you articulate (coexist in love and respect despite disagreements) is something we should strive to do a lot more often than we usually do in the church, but no I don't think it's always possible. There are times when you have to make a decision for your particular body, and it's not tenable or fair to either side in the disagreement to try to just live and let live without addressing the situation with a decision. I'm not talking about kicking out individuals who privately disagree on the issue. And I'm not talking about failing to embrace and welcome gay people (since that's the issue we're talking about) into a church just like we would embrace and welcome a heterosexual into the church who has things in his/her life that we don't think are reflective of the Kingdom. But in terms of deciding for example, who is eligible for leadership, or what is biblically normative, to be strived for, held up by the church as the standard even if we fall short of it. You have to make a choice in those areas eventually.
Especially when those arguing for a change in the church's historic teaching claim that this is a justice issue analogous to segregation, that it is a matter of justice that a married (or unionized, or whatever) gay person should be allowed to be a priest/pastor of our church, or in our denomination, and that the church should pronounce God's blessing on same-sex unions. OK – we now aren't just coexisting, we have to make a decision and one side or the other is gravely in the wrong. It makes me tremble as one who takes the traditional view, to acknowledge that for all my certainty, I may be the moral equivalent of an oppressive racist segregationist on this issue. I hope that helps me walk humbly and speak as charitably as I can. I hope it keeps me from being smug. But I'm still convinced in the end that the case hasn't been made for changing the church's teaching on the issue. And it should make those on the progressive/revisionist side tremble too, to acknowledge that just maybe the church's millennia old teaching may be correct. And then even after acknowledging all of that, we still have to decide – we can't just continue in limbo going along and getting along, not on this particular issue (and others).
For me, this is coming out of the Episcopalian context in which those battles were very real, and the battle was being initiated, advanced and waged by the progressives/revisionists as a justice issue. Change was the goal, not just live and let live and maintain the status quo. It was very different from the evangelical context I grew up in and am now more or less back in. In the evangelical context, discussion of this issue tended to be more exclusionary and self-righteous and consist of preaching to the choir about how bad everyone else was when in reality our evangelical body was in no danger of changing its traditional stance and really needed lessons on how to welcome and love gay people, even if we weren't going to change our stance on sexual morality.
i agree, that's why moltmann's work always transcends all liberation movements, which try to manipulate god.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=O7HXWT3J
hi, i'm a student at truett seminary and i'm writing a paper about the christian response to homosexuality. the internet is abuzz with this lecture and moltmann's response, but there is not actual quote or link to a transcript that i can find. i even found two podcasts thru emergent village but neither includes this discussion, from what i heard. is there any place you could direct me to that would have the exact quotes of moltmann, where i could use it in my paper? thanks so much, brent
Hey Julie, love your thoughts and agree with you that God is God and the gospel is the gospel. Thanks for sharing the informative concept.