Public Theology Archives

Is God’s Charity Broad Enough for Bears? Technology and Ecojustice

Last week, I had the privilege to see one of my favorite theologians speak in person at Emory University. I was introduced to her in one of my first classes in seminary through her book “She Who is”. In it, Johnson sheds light in the many astonishing yet often neglected feminine aspects of the Triune God. Being a feminist Catholic nun and a theologian (yep, that is quite a unique mixture!), her theology comes through as both pointed and generous. That is, as a feminist theologian she is unafraid to tip some sacred cows. Yet, her commitment to the Catholic church and to a life of sacrifice, adorns these pointed critiques with generous orthodoxy. She lives in the tension between protesting for change and faithfulness to tradition and does it gracefully.

God’s Love For Bears

Dr Johnson’s lecture used John Muir’s writing to challenge us to re-think our relationship with nature. After encountering a bear corpse in one of his hikes, Muir asks: “Is God charity broad enough for bears?” The context of his remarks was a critique to religious people he knew that held nature in total disregard. To them, nature was only an accessory to God’s crowning creation: humans. She then turned to Laudato Si, Pope Francis’ recent encyclical that addresses ecojustice issues as a source to answer Muir’s timely question.

Before proceeding, a bit of historical context is warranted. In 1967, Lynn White published an article that traced the root of our ecological crisis to Genesis 1:26-30, where God commands humanity to subdue the earth:

Christianity] not only established a dualism of man and nature but also insisted that it is God’s will that man exploit nature for his proper ends… Man’s effective monopoly…was confirmed and the old inhibitions to the exploitation of nature crumbled… Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects.
Lynn White Jr., ‘The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis’, Science 155 (1967) 1203-207 (p. 1205)

White’s critique initiated serious soul-searching in theological scholarship to re-evaluate Christian’s theology role in defining our relationship to nature. I see Dr. Johnson’s perspective here as a mature fruit from this conversation. She not only re-defines the Christian view of our relationship with nature but also turns it into a moral and theological imperative for action.

A Conversion To Earth and Ecojustice

Echoing Pope Francis’s call in Laudato Si, Dr Johnson exhorted us to a conversion TO earth. In her view, our detached ways to nature made us so prone to destruction and neglect that we now need a wholesale conversion, a radical turning and change of heart, in order to address the ecological crisis we are in. Only when we realize God’s love for creation and endeavor to love creation with such love will we be able to avert disaster. Thus, the incarnation is at the heart of ecojustice.

While such conversion entails many implications, one of the primary results is a revision in liturgy. As a small example, Dr. Johnson suggested we started reading “us” in Psalms not only as people but as all of creation. This simple expansion of meaning yields tremendous change. What if God’s liberation was not just about saving humans but saving all of creation? This would also amplify Romans 8:19-20 where creation itself is groaning for liberation from decay and destruction.

Selah (pause and think about these things)

When It came time for questions, I raised my hand. I asked her what was, if any, the role of technology in this conversion back to earth. By her pause and initial comments, I could tell this was not a question she gets asked often. I could also detect some puzzling looks from the audience who were wondering why this question was even relevant. Questions preceding mine revolved around liturgy, politics and art. As technology is most often regarded as the culprit of ecological destruction, does it even belong in the conversation around ecojustice?

Dr. Johnson answered by making a few points. She first highlighted issues of production and disposal of gadgets. Understanding how we extract materials all the way to how we dispose them involves issues of ethics in treatment of laborers and pollution. Beyond that, she recognized the complexity of the issue, which therefore does not lend itself to simple answers. She also acknowledged the inevitability of technology growing role in our lives. It has the potential for a lot of good and a lot evil, hence, calling for more robust ethical consideration.

From Incarnation to Resurrection

I want to pick up on Dr. Johnson’ answer as a way to expand on some of the ideas of her lecture. Her call to a return to nature is a fitting admonition in a time of climate change. Highlighting God’s connection with creation through the incarnation also addresses Lynn White’s critique that a misinterpretation of Gen 1:27-30 has led Western civilization towards ecological destruction. This happened primarily because at that point in history, humanity was interpreting the Bible from a position detached from nature. Emphasizing incarnation, help us re-build that connection back with nature leading to new ways of looking at the Bible.

Yet, incarnation is not enough. The trajectory of the Christian Bible implies not only incarnation but renewal and transformation. Connecting with nature and turning from destruction is only the first step. If Christians are to be people of the resurrection, we must complement this turning with a call to the renewal of nature. That is, to actively work for the flourishing of all life. In this view, the role of technology changes from one of ecological destruction to rebuilding, repairing and replenishing. Bending the trajectory of technological advancement towards flourishing becomes a central task in pursuing ecojustice.

Much more could be said on this, but the first step is clear. As we turn back to nature, we start with the incarnation and look forward to resurrection. We start with Advent then move on to Lent, start with Christmas but look forward to Easter.

Reframing: Moving Technology from Oppression to Liberation

In my last blog, I explored Philip Hefner’s theory of “Created Co-Creators” to set a foundation for a theology of technological hope. In this blog, I want to flesh out more what it means to shape and re-direct the ethos of technology using Moltman’s cycle of oppression and liberation. This framework provides a critical lens through which we can evaluate the aims, impact and implications of technology while also setting a blueprint for an alternative. If technology is to be the means of liberation then it must aspire for more than the endless accumulation of gadgets.

A Theology of Liberations

In Moltmann’s seminal work, The Crucified God, the theologian works out the political implications of a theology of the cross. In short, he concludes that the event of the Christ crucifixion challenges the very structure of political power. If Christ was killed as a condemned political prisoner, this reality in turn challenges the legitimacy of all political power henceforth. What that means, in practice, is that the Christian community should never align itself with those in power but instead with the oppressed, persecuted and marginalized.

The kingdom of God proclaims a re-doing of human society, challenging existing structures of political oppression and pointing humanity to new ways of living together. In essence, the message of the gospel is one where humans choose life over death, supporting new ways that breed flourishing over and against existing systems that perpetuate death.

Concretely, Moltmann talks about 5 cycles of oppression* that perpetuate themselves in societies:

Poverty and destitution through economic deprivation
Political oppression where one group subjugates another
Cultural and racial alienation where minority groups identity is undermined by ruling cultures
Ecological destruction where economic development happens at the expense of natural ecosystems.
Nihilism where people no longer find meaning in their lives.

To counteract these cycles, Moltmann speaks of 5 cycles of liberation that the Christian community should engage in. I took some liberty here to update and revise some of these concepts to a 21st century reality:

Fostering economic justice that creates (what capitalism does best) and distributes (what socialism does best) wealth so ALL have the basics for living (health, food, clothing and shelter).
Distributing political power and responsibility through all sectors of society. This is not just about voting rights but a situation where government listens to the populace and people take responsibility for their communities.
Integrating society with diversity where unity happens in the recognition and celebration of difference.
Cultivating peace with nature through sustainability, where human creation respects, preserves and perpetuates God’s creation.
Cultivating meaningful living through communities that enrich, nourish and develop the individual.

Moltmann’s categories presented here offer a helpful structure to start speaking of liberation in concrete terms. He touches on a wide variety of issues such as economics, politics, culture and identity. In doing so, he expands our understanding of liberation opening way for creative thinking in pursuing wholeness in all these areas.

What is missing from these categories, however, is a deeper understanding of how technology can affect, reinforce or reshape these issues which is what I turn to now.

Liberation and Technology

First, it is worth noting that technology already plays prominent role in all 5 areas described above. Technological breakthroughs have created wealth (not always distribute it) and alleviated poverty all over the world. As medicine, goods and services become more available because of technology, economic scarcity gives away to abundance. Wishful thinking? Just consider how technologies like indoor plumbing, heating and cooling, computation, manufacturing have changed the earth in the last century. Life expectancy and quality improved through these gifts of ingenuity. It is true that since these good have been delivered through unequal systems they also have not benefited all equally. However, the overall results is undeniable: people live longer today than they did fifty or even twenty years ago.

In the area of political freedom and integration with diversity the impact of technology is mixed. Social media platforms were critical in the mobilization of mass protests in Arab spring. It is likely they would have not happen without it. Yet, the improvement of biometric technology also empowers authoritarian governments to tighten their control on their people. Mobile payments have empowered the poor in remote villages of Africa all the while the bot-aided proliferation of fake news threatens the integrity of democracies all over the world. The rise in connectivity have emboldened previous marginalized groups to find community while also empowering the fringe hate groups that seek to eliminate them.

Technology has also been pivotal in the area of sustainability while also a key culprit in in environmental destruction. The advance of clean energy technologies shows how we can both meet energy needs while also preserving earth’s resources for future generations. Even so, the legacy of dirty technologies from the 20th century continue to pollute our air and water. The choice is not between whether to use technology or not but how to harness it in ways that cultivate renewal. This path is most often more complex and costly in the short run which often gives way to the temptation of cheaper but more destructive methods.

The hardest one to evaluate is how technology has impacted the cultivation of a meaningful life. This probably where it is most lacking. For all the wealth and convenience it has brought humanity, many wonder whether we are qualitatively better off. Through technology, humanity has conquered its fear of nature yet done little to solve the struggles of our soul. If technology is to play a role in this dimension, then it must be radically re-configured. Such predicament calls for the wisdom to realize the limits of technological advance and where it cannot benefit humanity. This is by far, our most daunting task.

Refle(A)ction

Technology is not just the stuff we make but a reflection of the systems that produce it. Whether technology can empower liberation or reinforce oppression depends not only in its uses but it starts by recognizing its role and ethos. As long as we bracket technology out of the discussion we will never truly experience its power to liberate. Thus, the first step to move technology towards liberation is awareness and reflection. Hence, what I propose is that we stop this bracketing and start looking at technology within the context of political, social, economic and ethical dimensions.

We can start this journey through questions like what is the driving force of technological advancement in our time? Where has it been effective in addressing true human need and where has it not? How can we harness, re-direct and re-purpose it towards life flourishing aims? Where do we need less and where do need more? How can we ensure that its benefits are spread out more equitably over all humanity?

Yet, this first move will not be complete if such reflection stays at the evaluation stage. Instead, it must also foster a new way of doing and using technology. Where is that already happening and how can we replicate these examples? This is the topic of my next blog.

*For more detail consult pages 480-490.

A Theology of Technological Hope: Created to Create

The previous three blogs were setting the stage for what I want to discuss here. I traced the beginnings of Moltmann’s theology of hope, discussed the development of liberation theology and then made the case for why technology is the main driving force of change of our time. In this part, I want to build on this point to show the contours of a theology of technological hope. That is, what does it mean to imagine liberation through technology? In order to get there, we must first re-formulate the relationship between God, humans and creation.

Created to Create

In the previous blog, I mentioned that technology is a lot more than gadgets but any material extension of ourselves into objects to fulfill a task. Observing this undeniable feature of humanity leads us to conclude that to be human is to be creative. While creativity is often associated with art, in technology, creativity is about solving problems or overcoming limitations. There is an innate drive, whether facilitated or not through our circumstances, to build our way out of challenging environments.

Philipe Hefner’s theory of “created co-creators” is illuminating in this discussion.* It is impossible to do justice to this topic in a short blog, but I will attempt to highlight the main points of the theory as a foundation for a theology of technological hope.

If you are scanning through this, I recommend you slowdown. Even a short version of the theory will only make sense as a unit which requires careful attention.

Let me try to put forth an abbreviated bullet point version of the theory

Humans are created, that is placed in an ecosystem with a genetic makeup.
Within these conditions, Humans are free. This is not a guarantee but a choice. I God who truly loves freedom would not only create free humans but also create humans who want to be free.
In a Technological Civilization as we live today, this freedom has become all the more important as it allows humans to truly influence the destiny of the planet.
Humanity’s purpose is to use technology to work with God in the continual work of creation for the preservation and flourishing of life in the biosphere.
This requires a re-thinking of God’s purpose and our future. Instead of envisioning a super-natural divine compensation, we must believe that because God not just created but continues to create on earth, God has a vested interest in the flourishing of the planet.

From Coping to Thriving

For the purpose of this blog, I want to highlight his theory’s most astounding implication to Christian mission. That is:

The work of God’s people on earth is not about helping people cope with suffering by giving them a promise of a future divine justice in a different realm. The work of God’s people on earth is about embodying wholeness/holiness HERE and NOW, believing that God IS currently working (creating) to make the earth WHOLE.

This is what is truly revolutionary and presents the foundation for a theology of technological hope. In a technological society, Christians should take their technological and scientific work, not as secondary to ministry but as the very place where we co-create with the creator. God continues to work on the Earth and we join God’s work by co-creating. As we co-create we fulfill our purpose as free humans who seek to advance the biosphere to a sustainable future. We are called to thrive along with creation rather than coping with its fallen state.

By this I don’t mean that only technologists or scientists are doing God’s work. Certainly, co-creating with God is not limited to bytes and test tubes. Yet, framing this type of work this way gives it a whole new meaning. It also forces us to re-think how technology is done. What is the purpose of doing technology? How does it impact our biosphere? How can it be re-directed towards human flourishing?

As we start asking these questions, the first step is to observe and analyze closely how technology is done today, especially in the form of technocapitalism. What is its philosophy and aims? How is it impacting our biosphere? This is the topic of my next blog.

*For those interested in digging deeper into his work, I recommend “The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture and Religion.” Pgs 264-265 provide a complete summary for the theory.

Theology of Hope Re-Imagined – From Politics to Technology

In part 1, I introduced Moltmann’s theology of hope and its origins. In part 2, I explored one of its main offshoots, theology of liberation. There, I also posed the question whether the avenue for liberation may be shifting from politics to technology. In this blog, I will probe this question further by showing the growing global impact of technocapitalism in our time.

What is Technology?

Ever since the first human chiseled a rock to make a tool, we have been in the business of developing and using technology. Recently, technology has come to mean digital gadgets. Yet in a broader sense, technology is much more than that. Every time we extend ourselves into nature’s resources to accomplish a task, we are using technology. Therefore, it is an inescapable part of our reality as human beings. It is also what separates us from other species.

Technology is not only an integral part of the human experience, but is also infused with purpose and ideology. They possess a telos, an ideal that is shaping us into. Unfortunately, we tend to treat technology as neutral means to an end. This thinking supports an illusion that we can use technology without being transformed by it. As technologies cross into the human body, the boundaries between “natural” and “artificial” become blurry. The extension of ourselves becomes part of ourselves.

Furthermore, technology is also an expression of ourselves. They express social and cultural ideals while also perpetuating beliefs. As technologies advance into every aspect of our lives, we start seeing it as the solution to all of our problems. They are no longer tools for accomplishing tasks but are becoming full-blown solutions to existential questions. You add capitalism to that and now every problem becomes a market for a new gadget or app.

The Rise of Techno-Capitalism

The growing influence of technology companies in the last decade is undeniable. Just think of how many smart phones are sold every day in the world. Yet, the extent and speed of this rise is rarely understood. The animation below illustrates this trajectory by showing how the top ranked global brands have changed in this decade. The fact that only one tech company was in the top 5 in 2010 while now they occupy all five spots is mind boggling.

Late 2010 was when I got my first iPhone. Now, that iPhone 4 is what my kids use for playing music so they can sleep. Yet, the proliferation of smart phones and tablets in this decade is only one piece of the puzzle. Less apparent is how the digital economy has disrupted so many industries such as retail, financial services and automobiles. The impact is so pervasive that in 2017, Forbes declared that all companies are now technology companies. That means, businesses will live and die based on their ability to successfully incorporate emerging technologies into their operations. Data is the new oil and code its most effective drilling technique.

The business avatars are betting that technology will take them to a profitable future. It remains to be seen whether consumers will prove their bets right. Even so, what we are undergoing right now is nothing short of a revolution. One that will likely re-organize how we work, live and play. This becomes even more prescient when one considers the potential that AI (Artificial Intelligence), VR/AR (Virtual/Augmented Reality) and IOT (Internet of Things) bring to the table. This is not just the end of a business cycle but the beginning of a whole new era.

Technology and Politics

With that said, the future promised by Silicon Valley may never materialize. The currents of technological optimism have met a wave of nationalism in politics. While not diametrically opposed, these trends tend to go in opposite directions. The rise of protectionism in trade, restrictive immigration policies and increased geopolitical tensions all threaten the advance of technology which depends on a global ecosystem of collaboration and knowledge sharing.

That’s why, when I say that the avenue of liberation is moving from politics to technology, that does not imply that politics will be inconsequential. It just means that working for change may be less about changing policy and more about creating social technologies of liberation. This work will be political in that it will challenge power structures but they may not flow through the halls of government as they did in the last century.

Furthermore, it means that any vision of liberation that does not take into account the impact of technology is simply inadequate to address our current historical moment. This is where current political movements of the left and the right (in the United States) miss the point. The first remains focused on identity politics while the latter insists on perpetuating an outdated vision of 20th century capitalism. Both fail to address the disruptive yet transformative power of technology.

Hence, a new theological vision of liberation must take an alternative path. It must speak through the left and right political dichotomy while also critically confronting the vision of a technocapitalistic future. This is what I want to address in the next blog.

Theology of Hope Moves South – Latin American Liberation

Moltmann’s theology of hope inspired theologians and clergy globally. In this blog, I explore the emergence of liberation theology.

In this process, the Crucified God became a bridge that revealed a new face of the cross. Jesus was killed as a political prisoner, challenging the political forces of the day, denouncing injustice and standing with the marginalized. Influenced by a Marxist view of history, these priests found in the cross an archetype for working for social justice. The gospel incarnated into the Latin American context as a message of liberation from inequality and racism.

In a previous blog, I introduced Moltmann’s theology of hope and its historical context. In this blog, I will discuss one of its most well-known offshoots, namely, liberation theology. While liberation theology had other influences and has recently expanded into a wide array of theologies, Moltmann’s influence was crucial in its beginning. Here is how the two are inter-connected.

The picture above encapsulates both what liberation theology is and its connection with Moltmann’s theology of hope. On November 16, 1989, Juan Ramon Moreno, Spanish-Salvadoran priest and Jesuit was murdered by Salvadoran government forces for denouncing human right violations in the country. While the soldiers carried his corpse to a room, his body hit a book in a shelf throwing it to the ground, staining it with his blood. This was Father Moreno’s last prophetic act. The book (pictured above) was a Spanish translation of Moltmann’s work “The Crucified God”, part of Moreno’s library and most certainly an important influence in his thought and work as an activist Jesuit priest.

Solidarity with the Poor

One of the key ideas of “the Crucified God” is that God suffered with Christ on the cross. This idea was controversial because it contradicted the understanding of God’s impassibility. In classical theism, God could not suffer because that would suggest vulnerability from an all-powerful being. Yet, even more scandalous was the implication of this idea. Moltmann’s cruciform theology was calling the church to retreat from identifying with the political power of Western culture and instead, align itself with the oppressed. The argument goes as follows: because Jesus identified with the oppressed in the cross and God suffered with him, Christians are called to identify and suffer with those in the margins.

Moltmann’s theological seed of the Crucified God would blossom into a full-blown theology of solidarity with the poor in Latin American soil. It emerged as Latin American Catholic priests reflected on the plight of the poor they were serving in the late 60’s. As they worked to alleviate poverty, they started looking for the roots that created and sustained structural misery for most in the continent. How could they work not only to feed the poor but also to empower them to feed themselves?

Liberation theologians would take the Crucified God a step further. Their innovation was, following the political tenor of Jesus original historical context, to conclude that God had a preference for the poor. This controversial conclusion would both align liberation practitioners with revolutionary movements and be at odds with right-wing military dictatorships and, at times, the Vatican itself. In short, it became a potent political theology speaking truth to power but also legitimizing violent guerilla movements and oppressive leftist regimes.

Liberation Theology’s Impact

Over fifty years after its initial formulation, liberation theology’s (LT) legacy is mixed. On the positive side, LT became a vital theological dialogue partner that no modern theologian could ignore. While many, both in the Protestant and Catholic side, would reject its main claims, they always felt obliged to respond to its challenge. In seminaries all over the world, the writings of Gutierrez, Sobrino and Boff continue to inspire and spark debate. Their influence has become even more prominent with the installation of an Argentine Pope. Francis, while not a liberation theologian per se, certainly has moved concern with the poor to the center of the church’s attention.

Yet, this wide-spread influence does not compare with the witness of its martyrs. The life and story of Archbishop Oscar Romero in Guatemala, Sister Dorothy Stang in Brazil and Juan Ramon Moreno in El Salvador are holy examples of those who took up the cause of the oppressed with their blood. Their example, faith and resolve shall never be forgotten. They belong to the company of the saints of the church that came before them.

Beyond that, LT never took hold in the overall church practice in Latin America. Apart from the still existing base communities, the theology did not make its way into Catholic masses. Furthermore, it did not cross into the Latin American Protestantism, the fastest-growing Christian movement of the last century. In the Latin American church a saying goes that “Liberation theology opted for the poor but the poor opted for Pentecostalism.”

In many aspects, Pentecostalism is the anti-thesis of LT. It seeks instead to align itself with the rich and focus on heavenly matters as opposed to political change. If anything, Pentecostal Christians have often politically aligned with the reactive political forces, the very ones LT sought to overturn. Ironically, the Christian movement has been split into both defending and criticizing Capitalism in the region. This is an unfortunate development as both LT and Pentecostalism have much to learn from each other.

Reformulating Hope and Liberation

In spite of producing admirable martyrs, the power and promise of liberation theology has not materialized in its native land. Yet, its promise as a hope theology, grounded in solidarity with the poor rings even more relevant now than it did in the last century.

The revolutionary spirit of the 60’s relied on the assumption that the most effective way to change society was through political means. As a result, democracies have sprung up all over the world and freedom has increased. Yet, most of these projects are showing signs of decay as the popular vote starts turning them back to authoritarianism. As democracies fail to solve persistent social-economic problems, people start looking for leaders who promise simple solutions to complex problems. Without diminishing the importance of these social movements, maybe the problem was in its initial assumption. Yet, if politics is not the way, what is it then?

As my previous blog title suggests, what if the time has come to re-formulate a theology of hope within a technological context? What if the promise of eschatological hope will not materialize through political action but technological creativity? What if the most consequential force for liberating the oppressed is not policy but social technologies? This is what I want to explore in the next part.

A Theology of Hope in a Technological Age – Introduction

This blogs starts a series on re-visiting a theology of hope in a technological age. For full transparency, I write this as my reflection on the topic progresses. I do this on purpose, in the hope that this reflection is not limited to an isolated individual’s musings but instead can open the way for a dialogue with others. Theology is done best when done in community. In an age of instant global communication, the possibilities for dialogue widen and allow for an in-time collaboration that was simply not possible before. Hence, I invite the reader to enter this not as a passive receiver of information but instead an active participant in this conversation. Feel free to post comments or email me directly through the contact form in the site.

In this first blog, I want to discuss the emergence of a theology of hope in the middle of the last century looking at its most prominent proponent -German theologian Jurgen Moltmann. His seminal work Theologie der Hoffnung [Theology of Hope] in the mid 1960’s would initiate a revolution in academic theology that reverberated through decades to come. Here is how it started.

The Emergence of a Theology of Hope

Each theology engages a particular set of questions which are considered to be crucial to the context of the theologian. To do theology is precisely that: to observe the world and listen to its most perennial questions. Then, in prayerful mediation, under the guidance of the Spirit and in dialogue with their community, to seek out answers emerging from the Christian tradition and practices.

Jurgen Moltmann’s theology emerges from the Post-war experience as the world was taking stock of the horrific atrocities executed by the European powers. One of the questions his world was asking was how could there be a good God in a world where Auchwitz happens? Even seventy years later, this question rings in Western ears challenging the European Christendom projects of the previous centuries. If Christian societies were capable of such cruelty and destruction, what is even the point of upholding the Christian religion as the foundation of our political structures? Furthermore, is Christianity even relevant for individuals in a post-war age or does it belong to the history books? The crisis cast both existential (personal) as corporate (political) doubts on an European Christian identity.

A Passionate/Suffering God

A temptation, then and now, is to relegate religious expression to a privatized individualistic piety. That is, all that matters is me, Jesus and my salvation. As long as my passport to heaven is stamped, I don’t need to engage with worldly affairs. The world is confusing enough and meaningless, let me endure its reality in the weeks and escape to heavenly dreams on the weekend.

Moltmann resists this temptation by taking seriously the suffering in the world. If Christianity is to have a voice in the public square (and in our lives), it must actively engage with the questions people and societies are asking. If our faith inadequately addresses the crisis of our time, then it is no longer useful or pertinent to our time.

He starts by reframing the problem. In one of his shortest books, Open Church, Moltmann sees apathy as the biggest curse of our age:

[Our] one-sided orientation towards accomplishment and success make us melancholic and insensitive. We become incapable of love and incapable of sorrow. We no longer have tears, and we smile only because we are supposed to keep on smiling…We become apathetic, still alive but surely and slowly dying inwardly. (pg 23)

Theology of hope starts and ends with a passionate God. It is important here to recover the original meaning of the word passion. It is not just about energy and zeal but also about suffering. The best example is the Passion of Christ, where we see both an unyielding zeal as well as the resulting suffering Christ goes through. A passionate God means one that is moved by the world suffering, cries with them but also moves to action to answer the cries of humanity.

The End is the Beginning

If every theology has a starting point, theology of hope begins with the end. This is what theologians call an eschatological approach. Eschatology is the study of the last things which has come to mean many different things. Recently, because of evangelical pop culture, eschatology has sadly become synonymous with exhaustive speculation about the end of the world. That is not what Moltmann means by it.

Instead, he is following New Testament scholarship in recovering the centrality of the eschatological hope in the Early church. That is, the fact that the apostles and early Christians believed in an actual installation of God’s kingdom on earth. They believed it to be an imminent event. The point of it was not the destruction of the world but the future vindication of God’s people in view of their present political oppression. Hence, the gospel message, in the First and still in the Twenty-First century, has political implications.

By doing so, Moltmann is joining a chorus of theologians, scholars and some clergy in bringing eschatology from the supernatural realm to the natural world. With time and heavy influence from Greek philosophy, eschatology became focused on the after-life. Instead, they want to correct this notion so that Christians can focus more on the here and now.

Hence, this recovery the eschatological character of early Christianity should translate into present action. While grounded in God’s action, it raises the question of how to live today in a way the reflects that future reality. In short, how do we bring the future liberation of God’s people into the present?

Inspired on Moltmann’s writing, the early 70’s would see the emergence of a Latin American, Catholic version later known as liberation theology. If eschatology is about a political reality, then what would that look like in the context of Latin American poor? This is the topic of part 2.

Waiting for the Great Homecoming

Lectionary Reflections for Dec 11, 2016

Vision of a homecoming and vindication for the people of God. Jesus inaugurates this homecoming by fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecies. James calls us to be patient as our redemption is not coming. The homecoming have started yet it is not complete.

This week we witness injustice and tragedy. Corrupt politicians in Brazil trying to change the laws to protect their skins. Young lives wasted in a fire in Oakland. We mourn for lives cut short hoping for the day where death will be no more. We protest for justice, waiting for the time when the powerful will be brought low. We speak up and pray, for the wretched of the earth learn that God is on their side. Yet, we wait patiently as James admonishes us. We strengthen our knees and arms for our salvation at hand inspired by Isaiah. We oscillate between the cry of “how long?” and “not for long.” We wait for the vindication of God’s people.

In the meantime, we invite. People from every nation, ethnicity, race, age – come be part of the people of God. This world is unjust but Salvation is coming. We embody this salvation just like veterans kneeling before native American chiefs to demonstrate in Standing Rock that Jesus came to reconcile us to each other. He calls us to redress past wrongs and build a new future.

Justice, repentance, the kingdom of God is near. In this season of Advent, we wait.

Are we listening?

Category: Public Theology