Moltmann Reflections 3
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.
I think one of the poignant soundbites from the Moltmann conversation came during the rapid fire round. Tony Jones would throw out a name and Moltmann would give a one sentence response. While this of course brought out some moments of praise (“Pope John Paul II – “He was a good pope” and Miroslav Volf – “dear friend, gifted theologian'), it also brought a few criticisms (Augustine – “ask his wife” and Pelagius – “he is the saint of American Christians”). I found his reply to what he thought about Hauerwas to be significant – “The New Testament speaks not about a peaceable kingdom, but a peace-making kingdom.”
Moltmann is very insistent on the need to have an active faith. Apathy is the enemy of faith, and can lead one to passivity. But if we are serving Christ and truly looking towards the hope of the Kingdom, we will be actively engaged in the faith. A peaceable kingdom is not one of action, there must be deliberate attempts made to established the hope-filled world that Jesus calls us to.
In a later session, Moltmann then expanded on what he meant by that idea of a peace-making kingdom. He likes the future idea of a peaceable kingdom where swords will instead be plowshares, but he also reminds that peace-making is what does the actual work of transformation. He said, – we need communities that anticipate this peaceable kingdom, and communities that work for peacemaking in this world. A double strategy so that peacemakers do not become too violent themselves without this ideal vision or people end up not preventing any war by living in their own peace. He captures the dangers of both the peaceable and the peace-makers, the former can be so afraid of conflict that they are frozen in inaction and the latter so committed to a goal that they adopt the tactics of the violent to achieve their ends.
I’ve seen the dangers of those that think the best route to peace is to do nothing, who believe that even words create too much conflict. And I’ve also seen the beautiful examples of peace-makers actively taking a stand for what is good and right without fear of their own safety or intention to harm oppressors. The women of the Niger River Delta who stood up to Chevron to protest the destruction of their homes, or the women of Liberia who peacefully ended a bloody civil war (as depicted in Pray the Devil Back to Hell) demonstrated this active peacemaking. And Moltman himself felt the tension as well, after he was released from the WW2 POW camp he vowed to never again take up arms in a military, but he also vowed that if given the chance to kill an evil dictator like Hitler he would take it. It’s complicated, but it’s also a good reminder that peace has little to do with passive pacifism, and everything to do with actively seeking justice and peace.
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
Nice post Julie…although I think Hauerwas would probaby agree with Moltmann saying (as he does), "Any peace that is not conflictual is not true peace."
Thanks for the Moltmann post. You've picked up on a helpful distinction. Some are so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good, to use an old preacher bromide. I have read some of Hauerwas but not a lot. I'm not sure, but I don't think Hauerwas would say the peaceful kingdom is passive. As Andrew pointed out, I have a hunch hauerwas would agree with moltmann. Keep posting the fruits of your experience at the conversation.
My issue with Hauerwas is his assertion that some sorts of action are not appropriate for Christians – like getting involved in any way in politics. I'm of the mind that if much of the world's injustices were caused by governments, then in many of those cases government action is needed to clean up the messes. And we are the ones that influence the government on what to do.
Peace-making is, I agree, an active pursuit, but this isn't limited to activism. Being a peace-maker, as I understand it in Moltmann's works, is about living as a person of peace, as an example and presence of peace within a chaotic world.
This is an important distinction for me because while I totally agree that political action is part of participating, so many people I know speak words of peace, but have fractious, combative, even angry/hateful, responses to issues.
They want a peace, but don't bring peace. They want a peace in a foreign land, but don't embrace a peace in themselves. Peace is not passivity. It's a way of being that is in contrast to those who do not participate with the Spirit of Christ. The derisive attacks against Clinton were not of Christ, neither were the derisive attacks against Bush (even by those who spoke for global peace), neither are the derisive attacks against Obama, or Palin, or whoever might be pushing for a certain approach.
We have to be peace-filled, I think, to be peace-makers. An angry, conflict-sated, pacifism might echo the apparent call of Christ, but it poorly mimics the Kingdom rather than shares it.
We are the ones who influence the government, not only in our policies but in how we respond–not least of all how we respond to our "enemies".
Patrick – you are right, peacemaking isn't just activism, but imho it also can't exclude activism. And, yes, hate-filled derisive attacks do not work towards peace either. There is too much of that out there and it just destroys any hope of a good outcome. But at the same time, standing up to injustice can often be seen by some as derisive simply because one is proposing something different. There has to be room to speak truth to power in the pursuit of peace – granted that might lead one to be called names like hate-monger, and unpatriotic, but it is necessary for anything to ever actually happen.
I know you didn't start the pile-on-Hauerwas party, but I do think that Moltmann's (one-sentence, I know) evaluation sets up a strawman, to be as charitable as I can be.
I think Hauerwas insists more readily than a good number of theologians that Christians are by definition involved in politics; he just calls (in good Anabaptist fashion) for a politics in which the polis is Church rather than nation-state or Democratic National Committee or United Nations. That's not apolitical; that's just a kind of politics that the folks with tank divisions can't see as politics.
Julie, you are so right. It's a narrow road.
There has to be activism. That's a big thing with Moltmann, to be sure. The hope people feel causes them to chaff against the chains, to fight against them. The hope helps us to see something more, to fight for something more.
It's active, not passive. It's the good fight–to bring freedom, and hope, and real good news.
Doing that without the chaos or the hate or whatever… that's a work of the Spirit that brings hope to so many more.
Putting up with derision is often part of it, and that's probably why Jesus made so many points about how to respond to such people.
Sorry if I sounded like I was dismissing activism. We need more of it, not less of it, and activism with Christ, not just for Christ.
Thanks also for your great voice in pushing for such activism.